Re: [geo] Re: Lithium-CO2 tech and CO2 extraction

[Rau, Greg]

OK, if metal global abundance is the issue how about Fe-CO2 fuel cells?: 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890403003078
Competition for other Fe uses probably make this mute plus such fuel cells have 
not been demonstrated.  Or if you have some spare, non-fossil electricity 
laying around you can always make lots of environmentally-beneficial metal (Mg 
or Ca) (bi)carbonates from globally abundant base minerals and air CO2, while 
generating C-negative H2: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.abstract   
OK, I’m not making elemental C or conc CO2, but I don’t think we need to.
Greg

From: geoengineering 
> on 
behalf of Russell Seitz / Bright Water 
>
Reply-To: "russellse...@gmail.com" 
>
Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:38 AM
To: geoengineering 
>
Subject: [geo] Re: Lithium-CO2 tech and CO2 extraction

I'm puzzled that this should be produced without  dimensional analysis :

Globlal annual  CO2 production from fossil fuel exceeeds  20 kilomoles per 
capita.
Global lithium production last year  amounted to less than 1 mole per capita

Global  lithium reserves are on the order  of  1 kilomole per capita.


The question will remain  theoretical until a  lithium produced from sea water 
hits the market at close to currrent prices,

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 5:57:38 PM UTC-4, E Durbrow wrote:


If I understand this correctly, researchers have developed a way to take a 
stream of pure CO2 and extract oxygen and carbon at very high efficiency. At 
least according to the summary, ambient stream may be possible and efficient.

summary: 
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-battery-inspired-strategy-carbon-fixation.html

P.S. I tried to find the abstract but could not get to it. Perhaps not out yet.



--
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.

-- 
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] Paris Climate Agreement: Shaky Technological Foundations

[Rau, Greg]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544551/paris-climate-agreement-rests-on-shaky-technological-foundations/?utm_campaign=newsletters_source=newsletter-weekly-energy_medium=email_content=20151221

"Simply put, the technology for separating carbon dioxide from power-plant 
emissions—not to mention the infrastructure to transport it and store it 
underground—is too expensive and too cumbersome for commercial deployment. 
While there is intriguing research going on, there is no prospect on the 
immediate horizon for making it economical.

Equally fanciful are visions of 
“afforestation”—planting
 large forests to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The Australian 
climate scientist and author Tim Flannery has estimated that it would take a 
forest four times the size of the Australian 
continent
 to make even a small dent in atmospheric carbon. In its 2014 Emissions Gap 
Report,
 the U.N.’s Environmental Panel came to a similar conclusion: “Theoretically, 
carbon uptake or net negative emissions could be achieved by extensive 
reforestation and forest growth, or by schemes that combine bioenergy use with 
carbon capture and storage. But the feasibility of such large-scale schemes is 
still uncertain.” That means any international climate scheme founded on these 
technologies is uncertain at best. It’s entirely reasonable to hope for rapid 
advances in energy storage and nuclear power over the next couple of decades. 
But if we rely on capturing carbon from power plants and removing it from the 
atmosphere to accomplish our climate goals, those hopes are likely to be 
dashed."

True, the technologies required to stay below 2 deg C are currently uncertain, 
the most egregious of these being CCS.  So isn't this a clarion call for a much 
broader solicitation and testing of additional carbon management ideas? At the 
end of the day there may be no cost-effective, safe and quickly deployable 
technological solutions, but this outcome will be guaranteed as long as CCS, 
afforestation and BECCS continue to be peddled as the only "winning" approaches 
worth pursuing.

Greg

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

[geo] Runaway CDR?

[Rau, Greg]

GR – Not sure I believe this. The Trichos will be limited by available P and Fe 
 (very low in the open ocean). So sure, elevated CDR for a while and then back 
to BAU(?) What did Trichos do say 100m years ago when pCO2 and acidity was at 
BAU year 2100 levels?  Or are Trichos the reason the pCO2 of the past 100m 
years has been the lowest  in Earth history?  Biology trumps geochemistry – I 
don't think so, but prove me wrong.
http://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=22425
Climate Change Could Cause Ocean Bacteria Trichodesmium Into Overdrive 
Resulting in Irreversible Damage
Published on September 2, 2015 at 5:35 AM
Imagine being in a car with the gas pedal stuck to the floor, heading toward a 
cliff's edge. Metaphorically speaking, that's what climate change will do to 
the key group of ocean bacteria known as Trichodesmium, scientists have 
discovered.

Trichodesmium (called "Tricho" for short by researchers) is one of the few 
organisms in the ocean that can "fix" atmospheric nitrogen gas, making it 
available to other organisms. It is crucial because all life -- from algae to 
whales -- needs nitrogen to grow.

A new study from USC and the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole Oceanographic 
Institution (WHOI) shows that changing conditions due to climate change could 
send Tricho into overdrive with no way to stop -- reproducing faster and 
generating lots more nitrogen. Without the ability to slow down, however, 
Tricho has the potential to gobble up all its available resources, which could 
trigger die-offs of the microorganism and the higher organisms that depend on 
it.

By breeding hundreds of generations of the bacteria over the course of nearly 
five years in high-carbon dioxide ocean conditions predicted for the year 2100, 
researchers found that increased ocean acidification evolved Tricho to work 
harder, producing 50 percent more nitrogen, and grow faster.

The problem is that these amped-up bacteria can't turn it off even when they 
are placed in conditions with less carbon dioxide. Further, the adaptation 
can't be reversed over time -- something not seen before by evolutionary 
biologists, and worrisome to marine biologists, according to David Hutchins, 
lead author of the study.

"Losing the ability to regulate your growth rate is not a healthy thing," said 
Hutchins, professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. 
"The last thing you want is to be stuck with these high growth rates when there 
aren't enough nutrients to go around. It's a losing strategy in the struggle to 
survive."

Tricho needs phosphorous and iron, which also exist in the ocean in limited 
supply. With no way to regulate its growth, the turbo-boosted Tricho could burn 
through all of its available nutrients too quickly and abruptly die off, which 
would be catastrophic for all other life forms in the ocean that need the 
nitrogen it would have produced to survive.

Some models predict that increasing ocean acidification will exacerbate the 
problem of nutrient scarcity by increasing stratification of the ocean -- 
locking key nutrients away from the organisms that need them to survive.

Hutchins is collaborating with Eric Webb of USC Dornsife and Mak Saito of WHOI 
to gain a better understanding of what the future ocean will look like, as it 
continues to be shaped by climate change. They were shocked by the discovery of 
an evolutionary change that appears to be permanent -- something Hutchins 
described as "unprecedented."

"Tricho has been studied for ages. Nobody expected that it could do something 
so bizarre," he said. "The evolutionary biologists are interested in it just to 
study this as a basic evolutionary principle."

The team is now studying the DNA of Tricho to try to find out how and why the 
irreversible evolution occurs. Earlier this year, research led by Webb found 
that Tricho's DNA inexplicably contains elements that are usually only seen in 
higher life forms.

"Our results in this and the aforementioned study are truly surprising. 
Furthermore, they are giving us an improved, view of how global climate change 
will impact Trichodesmium and the vital supplies of new nitrogen it provides to 
the rest of the marine food web in the future." Webb said.

Source: http://www.usc.edu/

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News

[Rau, Greg]

Relatedly:
http://www.eenews.net/tv/2015/02/10

Greg

From: NORTHCOTT Michael m.northc...@ed.ac.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk
Reply-To: m.northc...@ed.ac.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk 
m.northc...@ed.ac.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:01 AM
To: greg RAU gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to 
promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News

The EU Biofuels directive pushed up the world price of biodiesel. This in turn 
pushed up the value of Palm oil. Hence the directive underwrites ongoing 
tropical forest clearance and replacement with oil palm plantations in Sumatra, 
Kalimantan, Central Africa. Biofuels produced on such land have a carbon 
footprint greater than shale oil or gasified coal since the subsoil emits 
significant quantities of stored carbon after forest clearance. These areas are 
also prone to subterranean peat fires which can burn for years putting 
significant black soot into the atmosphere which is implicated in increased ice 
melt in Himalayas, Arctic. Soya from the Amazon also displaces tropical forest 
and even on cleared land if soya is not replanted secondary forest naturally 
returns which sequesters far more carbon (as new growth absorbs more) while 
also helping to sequester water in the soil and subsoil with benefits to 
biodiversity and humans. I am not a scientist but citations can be found for 
all the above claims. Unfortunately EU bureaucrats, and the USDA bureaucrats 
who came up with the crazy ethanol from corn policy in the US, don't appear to 
read scientific papers. In my non-scientific judgment, the least cost and 
lowest tech 'geoengineering' intervention is to permit the natural regrowth of 
boreal and tropical forests by removing grazing animals in former Boreal forest 
areas (such as Scottish and English upland), and removing perverse incentives 
for forest clearance (eg biofuels) and restraining criminality and political 
corruption (cf Straumann, Money Logging, Geneva 2014) in tropical forests. In 
semi arid areas, such as North Africa, intercropping with native scrub plants 
(Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration) also significantly improves soil and 
water retention and carbon sequestration while also considerably benefiting 
subsistence farmers through raised crop productivity.

Professor Michael Northcott
New College
University of Edinburgh
Mound Place
Edinburgh
EH1 2LX
UK

0 (44) 131 650 7994

m.northc...@ed.ac.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk

ancestraltime.org.ukhttp://ancestraltime.org.uk

http://careforthefuture.exeter.ac.uk/blog/

edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcotthttp://edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcott

On 11 Feb 2015, at 01:20, Greg Rau 
gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Quoting the article: The main problem with existing studies is that they fail 
to correctly account for the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when 
corn, soybeans and sugarcane are grown to make biofuels, said John DeCicco, a 
research professor at U-M's Energy Institute.
Almost all of the fields used to produce biofuels were already being used to 
produce crops for food, so there is no significant increase in the amount of 
carbon dioxide being removed from the atmosphere. 

No one said there would be net uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere using 
biofuels, but there will presumably be a reduction in CO2 emissions by 
substituting bio for fossil fuel (minus, of course, the fossil CO2 penalty for 
producing the biofuels).  Biofuels (or electricity) can be C negative in the 
case of BECCS or BEAWL, fermentation + CCS or + AWL, etc? What am I missing?
Greg


From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:59 PM
Subject: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to 
promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News

Poster's note : Whoops. This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22668-a-closer-look-at-the-flawed-studies-behind-policies-used-to-promote-low-carbon-biofuels
A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 
'low-carbon' biofuels
Feb 05, 2015
Nearly all of the studies used to promote biofuels as climate-friendly 
alternatives to petroleum fuels are flawed and need to be redone, according to 
a University of Michigan researcher who reviewed more than 100 papers published 
over more than two decades.
Once the erroneous methodology is corrected, the results will likely show that 
policies used to promote biofuels—such as the U.S. Renewable 

Re: [geo] National Academies reports

[Rau, Greg]

Also this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-suggests-thinking-carefully-first/
To quote:

In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into carbon 
removal technology. Overall, there is much to be gained and very low risk in 
pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies that 
demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more 
cost-effective, regional-scale and larger solutions for the long term, it 
concludes. In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are 
currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues 
rather than direct costs.

But beyond the research programs, it's clear that neither of these approaches 
is ready for deployment, and it's not clear that either of them can ever be 
made ready, a fact driven home by the cancellation of what would have been the 
US' largest carbon capture 
experimenthttp://fortune.com/2015/02/06/as-the-feds-pull-out-dreams-of-clean-coal-fade/.
 That's in sharp contrast with non-emitting power sources, where technology is 
already mature and costs are in many cases already competitive with those of 
fossil fuels.

Very unfortunate that CDR is again equated with CCS. The potential approaches 
and success of the former need not be tied to the ongoing failure of the latter.

Greg

From: J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Reply-To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl 
j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM
To: geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] National Academies reports

Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume 
report on climate engineering. They are available here
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration
One must register to download, but may read online without doing so.

The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the 
Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and 
NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US 
came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental 
Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying 
degrees of caution expressed).
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/

The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See
https://twitter.com/elikint
https://twitter.com/janieflegal
https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink
https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc

Cheers
Jesse

-
Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher
Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
European and International Public Law
Tilburg Sustainability Center
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology
email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/


--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich

[Rau, Greg]

I share your concern, Peter. In seeking the require blessings to move forward 
with RDD, we can point to the global scale demonstration of CDR already 
occurring. As I've pointed out before (OK, like a broken record), global 
atmospheric CO2 concentrations temporarily decline each year, even at the 
remote South Pole:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_and_south_pole/mauna_loa_and_south_pole.html
Each year more than half of anthro CO2 is removed, post-emissions. So while 
politicians dither over the obvious need to reduce emissions, CDR is already 
mitigating more CO2 than any CO2 emissions reduction program, now and probably 
into the distant future. How can the possibility of building on this obvious 
and massive success be ignored in our quest to figure out how to manage air CO2?
Greg


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Peter Flynn [peter.fl...@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:35 AM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs 
to prevent climate change | Deich

I find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its 
subset, geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset, “how 
will we govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways to take 
action with a smaller chorus of negativity.

One constant element in such commentary is that any action (sometimes even 
research) will decrease the incentive for emissions reduction, and hence such 
action should be not taken. I reflect on King Canute who, when wanting to 
convince subjects of the limitations of his power, went to the surf and ordered 
the tide not to come in. Let those convinced of the reliable efficacy of CDR 
travel to China and India to convince the masses that they shouldn’t buy a car, 
and report back. I hope we can reduce worldwide emissions, but saying we 
shouldn’t have research and demonstration of thoughtful contingency options 
strikes me as reckless.

I would love to see a demonstration scale direct capture program in any 
country; it would add to the body of knowledge about the numerous choices that 
lie in the future. Ditto re a biochar demonstration scale project. Ditto re 
many others. And I would love to see some of the energy that goes into 
seemingly endless discussions of governance shift into populating our knowledge 
of options.

Peter Flynn

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.camailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
 On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: December-20-14 9:44 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to 
prevent climate change | Deich


Poster's note : view online for useful graphs.

https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/

The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate 
change

DECEMBER 20, 2014
For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to 
produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track 
record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New 
Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing 
heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments.

The idea in the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its 
developed country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air 
Capture (“DAC”) systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting 
CO2 can then be buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in 
impermeable rock formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US 
alone could fund massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of 
global GHG emissions.

Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan:

Problem #1: The hypothetical costs of the “mature” DAC systems described in the 
article are likely an order of magnitude too low. The article claims that:“If 
$30/ton were indeed possible, the U.S. government could construct huge forests 
of “artificial trees” in American deserts and absorb 30 percent of 2013’s 
carbon emissions for about $90 billion per year…”

The problem here is that the author is quoting figures in $/t Carbon (and not 
$/t CO2) as is done in the rest of the article: 30/t Carbon translates to a 
price of less than $10/t CO2 (as a CO2 molecule weighs over three times as much 
as a molecule of pure C). Today, simply injecting CO2 underground and making 
sure it doesn’t come back up — a relatively mature process thanks to 

RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[Rau, Greg]

The article asks Can Seashells Save the World.  My answer is no if you mean 
saving the world from excess atmospheric CO2. The article initially states that 
coccolithophores  convert carbon dioxide to chalk (CaCO3), while later we are 
told that seashells are common because they are very effective at converting 
dissolved calcium carbonate which is abundant in seawater.  Actually neither 
is the case.  Shell is formed from dissolved calcium bicarbonate, not CO2 or 
carbonate ion, and bicarbonate ion is by far the more abundant form of carbon 
in the water column.  Calcification removes carbon from seawater, generating 
additional atmospheric CO2 and additional sedimentary carbonate: Ca(HCO3)aq 
--- CO2g + H2O + CaCO3s, so unclear how this is an atmospheric CO2 sink. 
Admittedly, if the organism doing the calcifying is a photosynthesizer like 
coccos, then certainly CO2 will be converted to biomass. Whether this organism 
then forms a net CO2 sink will very much depend on the 
photosynthesis/calcification ratio as well as how much if any biomass escapes 
respiration and sinks from surface waters of the ocean. Or am I missing 
something? Certainly interesting that some organisms thrive in acidic water, 
but then there will also be losers, meaning ecosystems will change, but not 
necessarily to our benefit or to other marine species.
Greg

From: markcap...@podenergy.org [markcap...@podenergy.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 8:35 AM
To: Rau, Greg; gh...@sbcglobal.net; Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); 
voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | 
Everything and the Carbon Sink

Greg and Olaf,

What might be the minimum inputs such that we could grow and sequester 
seashells while rapidly recycling most of the nutrients to grow more shellfish? 
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/can-seashells-save-the-world-813915.html
 discusses Not so, it seems, with the coccolithophore, or at least with the 
most abundant species, called Emiliania huxleyi. The latest study into this 
species shows that it appears to thrive on high levels of carbon dioxide. 
Instead of finding it difficult to make its calcium carbonate plates, as some 
scientists had expected, the organism can, in fact, make bigger and bigger 
plates as carbon dioxide concentrations are increased artificially, according 
to a study published in the current issue of the journal Science.

Perhaps a more complex model of Ocean Forest would work with the carbon dioxide 
from the energy separation process (likely either anaerobic digestion or 
hydrothermal liquifaction) being sequestered as sea shells.  In this case, we 
may have to sell the shellfish meat as food (people, pets, livestock, 
aquaculture fish) and import more basic nutrients or silicate minerals or 
calcium from a few 100-1,000 kilometers distant.

Mark

Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.orghttp://www.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2
Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink
From: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov
Date: Fri, November 14, 2014 11:54 am
To: gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net 
gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net, Schuiling, R.D.
(Olaf) r.d.schuil...@uu.nlmailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl, 
voglerl...@gmail.commailto:voglerl...@gmail.com
voglerl...@gmail.commailto:voglerl...@gmail.com, 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Sorry, I meant is biology affected?

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Greg Rau [gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); voglerl...@gmail.commailto:voglerl...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | 
Everything and the Carbon Sink

Olaf,
My preference is to make ocean alkalinity, dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 (and some 
CaCO3aq via equilibrium reactions), rather than solid CaCO3. Yes, you can use 
silicates to do this, but if you have elevated CO2 (FF or BE flue gas) and 
limestone/waste shell, the kinetics are faster.
As for just putting minerals directly into the ocean for CDR, it would be 
interesting add equal equivalences (2x and 1x respectively) of equal sized 
CaCO3 and Mg2SiO4 particles to separate beakers of sterilized seawater, agitate 
for a week in the dark, and then compare the resulting SW alkalinity to each 
other and to initial (and to agitated seawater without added minerals).  Repeat 
without sterilization and in full light.  Which treatments make the most 
alkalinity and does biology matter

RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[Rau, Greg]

Sorry, I meant is biology affected?

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Greg Rau [gh...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); voglerl...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | 
Everything and the Carbon Sink

Olaf,
My preference is to make ocean alkalinity, dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 (and some 
CaCO3aq via equilibrium reactions), rather than solid CaCO3. Yes, you can use 
silicates to do this, but if you have elevated CO2 (FF or BE flue gas) and 
limestone/waste shell, the kinetics are faster.
As for just putting minerals directly into the ocean for CDR, it would be 
interesting add equal equivalences (2x and 1x respectively) of equal sized 
CaCO3 and Mg2SiO4 particles to separate beakers of sterilized seawater, agitate 
for a week in the dark, and then compare the resulting SW alkalinity to each 
other and to initial (and to agitated seawater without added minerals).  Repeat 
without sterilization and in full light.  Which treatments make the most 
alkalinity and does biology matter and/or is biology effected? ;-)
BTW congrats on the NYT spread. Let's hope some balance, sanity and open 
mindedness can be injected into the CDR debate.
Greg


From: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) r.d.schuil...@uu.nl
To: 'gh...@sbcglobal.net' gh...@sbcglobal.net; voglerl...@gmail.com 
voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:05 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | 
Everything and the Carbon Sink

Why first destroy CaCO3 and then remake it. Just add fine-grained olivine to 
add sufficient alkalinity, Olaf Schuiling



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: donderdag 13 november 2014 18:07
To: voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | 
Everything and the Carbon Sink

As I mentioned on Oct 7, in looking for large scale uses of CO2, how about 
environmental applications? By my reconning, the mean 0.1 decline in surface 
ocean pH translates into a calcium carbonate saturation state decline of 1 
unit. To return this to pre-industrial levels we'd need to use 250 - 300 GT of 
CO2 to make enough dissolved calcium bicarbonate/carbonate which when added to 
the ocean would return saturation to pre-industrial levels.  There may be 
analogies for countering soil and freshwater acidity. Anyway, plenty of need 
for inorganic carbonaceous materials and relatively easy to make from CO2, but 
paying customer demand/ government policy would obviously have to be developed. 
How much do we value shellfish, corals and the other biota being impacted?
Greg



From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.commailto:voglerl...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:57 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | 
Everything and the Carbon Sink

[ND1] The concept of CO2 utilization goes something like this: instead of 
releasing CO2 into the atmosphere through industrial processes, we could 
instead capture CO2 from smokestacks (and/or the ambient atmosphere) and use 
this CO2 to manufacture carbon-based products — such as fuels, food, and 
construction materials.
So what role might CO2 utilization play in fighting climate change? The outlook 
seems mixed, as explained below.
The Good:Cost-effective CO2 utilization has a number of interesting 
implications. First, if CO2 capture costs could come down significantly, 
existing markets for carbon-based products could drive reductions in carbon 
emission without the need for pesky-to-implement large-scale GHG regulations. 
Even with today’s CO2 capture and utilization technology, a number of companies 
are successfully turning would-be CO2 emissions into valuable end products. (My 
highlight)
[MH1] The CO2 capture costs, through micro/macro algal cultivation, are 
extremely low and uses simplistic technology. Noah's reductionist view of the 
'capture' aspects has the primary drawback of not taking into account the full 
environmental and economic systems view. In that, the use of algal cultivation 
offers a substantial list of ancillary environmental and economic benefits. The 
list of benefits have been presented, in detail, before and I'll only mention 
the top three here.
1) The biomass waste stream from the algal cultivation can be used as a feed 
stock for aquacultural feed production which can, in turn, replace the natural 
(wild caught) fish protein used in the global aquacultural sector. This is no 
small issue at the overall environmental level as the current use 

Re: [geo] Article in Toronto Star quoting Jim Fleming and me

[Rau, Greg]

Thanks, Ron. Just to expand on your comments on Prof. Fleming's CDR statements 
at 
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2014/11/09/many_experts_say_technology_cant_fix_climate_change.html

All the [CDR] plans, however, would likely entail huge costs, the use of 
dangerous chemicals and uncertain storage prospects, Fleming says. “There are 
chemical means that would use some very alkaline, harsh chemicals.”

GR -   Thank goodness most of the earth and ocean is alkaline and hence will 
eventually absorb and neutralize all of the CO2 we care to emit, no dangerous, 
harsh chemicals required, and did I say for free? Is is inconceivable that we 
can safely and cost effectively help Mother Nature speed up her CDR, while we 
also try to reduce emissions?

He notes that there are also thermodynamic means — kind of the way they make 
dry ice and they just suck it out and condense it (into a liquid or solid).” 
But thermodynamic removal and compression techniques, Fleming says, are 
prohibitively expensive and require the use of large amounts of 
carbon-producing energy. This is largely due to the increased weight carbon 
acquires by combining with oxygen during the burning process. A ton of coal, 
for example, produces more than three tons of carbon dioxide because of the 
added oxygen load, Fleming says. “To make it really effective you’d have to 
have about a 30-per-cent increase in world energy use. But it would have to 
come from renewable (sources), which are not in the offing right now.” Other 
removal plans would employ membrane filters that are permeable to all the air’s 
component molecules except carbon. “This seems viable on a small scale, but the 
question is, as in all these projects: how do you make it a very large and very 
viable and economically feasible?” Fleming says.

GR – Couldn't agree more. Making highly concentrated CO2 from air is a 
non-starter. It is also unnecessary, see my first point.  Mother Nature does  
18GT of CDR /yr  without making conc CO2, so why should we?

Most plans would see the captured CO2 turned back into a burnable fuel by 
removing the oxygen component, or have it condensed into a liquid form and 
pumped into underground caverns or ocean trenches. But the fuel idea would also 
requite massive energy inputs to crack the molecule into its two elements, and 
the storage scheme would likely produce leakage.

GR - All true, and hence so far irrelevant to cost effective and safe CDR.

Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by burning it 
in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil enrichment. “The 
problem with that one is the scale,” Fleming says. “The topsoil of the world is 
not large enough to capture all the carbon of industry.” 

GR – Fine, whatever the soil can't handle, thankfully the ocean easily can (and 
will), especially if the carbon is added in the form of (bi)carbonates or  
buryable organics, or even Ron's biochar (as long as it sinks).

Bottom line: with over half of our CO2 emissions already being removed from the 
atmosphere each year, wouldn't the logical starting point for a discussion on 
and criticism of CDR costs, benefits, capacities and ethics be here, rather 
than on expensive and risky concepts that are entirely engineered from the 
ground up?

Greg Rau



From: Ronal W. Larson 
rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net
Reply-To: rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net 
rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net
Date: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edumailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, 
geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: jflem...@colby.edumailto:jflem...@colby.edu 
jflem...@colby.edumailto:jflem...@colby.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] Article in Toronto Star quoting Jim Fleming and me


Alan cc List adding Professor Fleming

1.   Interesting news release;  thanks.   Could you give a cite for your 
expanded-to-26 list?  I found reference to a ppt on your website, which I could 
download but not open.

2.   Although called a “Geoengineering” list, your 20-list is only for SRM.  It 
would be very helpful to know if you or anyone has a similar list for CDR.

3.  For those who have not seen Professor Robock’s list of 20, it is available 
at
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2012Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf


4.   Professor Fleming (being cc’d) had this to say below about biochar in the 
article:

“Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by burning it 
in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil enrichment.   “The 
problem with that one is the scale,” Fleming says. “The topsoil of the world is 
not large enough to capture all the carbon of industry.”

5.   Minor objections to the first sentence (“burning” and  “burying”),  but I 
hope he or others could provide cites for “not large enough”.  For one, a large 
amount (100 Gt??) of the 

[geo] Speaking of CDR for profit...

[Rau, Greg]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/element-magazine/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503340objectid=11353005

Now based in Chicago, New Zealand-founded company LanzaTech has been heralded 
for recycling the carbon-rich waste from industrial operations, such as steel 
works, into ethanol and other green chemicals. The company has raised 
US$165million from international investors since it was founded in 2005.
LanzaTech's latest process, in conjunction with the IOC-DBT Centre for Advanced 
Bio-Energy Research based in India, is now turning CO2 emissions into omega-3 
fatty acids. LanzaTech-developed microbes produce acetate that is then consumed 
as carbon and energy by specially developed algae rich in omega-3. The algae 
can then be either directly eaten by fish or the oil extracted and turned into 
a marketable fish oil supplement.

GR- Unclear why this also wouldn't work with good ol' air CO2. Anyway, 
0.001 GT/yr of CO2 profitably mitigated (until omega-3 is metabolized back 
to CO2). 35 GT/yr to go.

Speaking of super biota:
http://www.nature.com/news/amped-up-plants-1.15932


What if crops could borrow the faster-acting Rubisco system of weeds and 
cyanobacteria? In theory, this would dramatically boost their growth rate and 
so their yield, all without needing any extra farmland. The appeal of such a 
strategy is obvious, particularly in the face of the often-quoted United 
Nations demand for global food production to double by 2050.

In practice, replacing the enzyme has proved difficult. But there is 
encouraging news: on Nature’s website, researchers report that they have made 
tobacco plants that use the Rubisco from a cyanobacterium (M. T. Lin et al. 
Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13776; 
2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13776). Sure enough, the transformed 
plants photosynthesize faster and have higher rates of CO2 turnover than their 
conventional counter­parts. Faster-growing tobacco plants might not sound like 
a boon for global welfare, but they do demonstrate what might be possible in 
future. (Tobacco is a common model organism for genetic-engineering research.)

GR - Question, you can amp up the bio CO2 capturing mechanism all you want, but 
if the goal is to produce biomass at large scales, aren't most plants nutrient- 
or water-limited, so where are the extra water and nutrients going to come 
from, aside from fossil fuel intensive irrigation and industrial N fixation? 
OK, in the marine environment it's just a nutrient issue. Anyway, if CO2 is not 
the limiting molecule, what is the point of souping up CO2 assimilation?



-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Session: Climate Intervention and Geoengineering: Albedo Modification (2015 AAAS Annual Meeting (12-16 February 2015))

[Rau, Greg]

the CDR complement is here:
https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2015/webprogram/Session9663.html
The other apparent NAS/NRC report rollout will occur at AGU:
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/preliminaryview.cgi/Session5204
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/preliminaryview.cgi/Paper9055

Greg


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 12:33 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Session: Climate Intervention and Geoengineering: Albedo 
Modification (2015 AAAS Annual Meeting (12-16 February 2015))


Poster's note : does anyone know of this is streamed? Please reply to the whole 
list.

https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2015/webprogram/Session9459.html

Climate Intervention and Geoengineering: Albedo Modification

Saturday, 14 February 2015: 1:30 PM-4:30 PM

Room 220C (San Jose Convention Center)

The 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that 
since the last assessment, collectively, nations have made no progress in 
reducing total greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the rate of investment in 
climate change adaptation is estimated to be orders of magnitude below what is 
needed to address the growing risk of climate change, particularly in the 
densely populated coastal zone. The topic of this session is albedo 
modification, which is a form of climate intervention that temporarily offsets 
the warming effects of carbon dioxide by altering Earth's radiation balance and 
is a companion to the session Going Negative: Removing Carbon Dioxide from the 
Atmosphere. This session will explore the scientific and technical 
underpinnings of albedo modification, including its risks, governance, and 
sociopolitical considerations.

Organizer:
Marcia McNutt, AAAS/Science Moderator:Marcia McNutt, AAAS/Science 
Discussant:Ken Caldeira, Stanford University

Speakers:
James R. Fleming, Colby College Historical Perspectives on Intervention in the 
Atmospheric System: Cautionary Notes

Lynn M. Russell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Climate Intervention: 
Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth: A Report from the NRC

Alan Robock, Rutgers University Volcanic Eruptions as Analogs for Stratospheric 
Geoengineering Impacts

Riley Duren, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Observing, Validating, and 
Verifying Albedo Modification

Ted Parson, University of California Governance of Climate Engineering

Stephen Gardiner, University of Washington Albedo Modification: The Ethical and 
Equity Issues

Meeting Information

When:12 - 16 February 2015
Where:Where: San Jose, 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: [geo] Is Capturing Carbon from the Air Practical? | MIT Technology Review

[Rau, Greg]

If you are looking for a beneficial and high capacity use of (expensively)
concentrated CO2, look no further than using it to restore carbonate
saturation state in the ocean via contacting with limestone or Olaf's
silicates.  By my calculation you'd need to consume some 250 GT of CO2 in
this fashion to generate enough alkalinity to restore surface ocean
carbonate chemistry to pre-industrial levels.  That would seem to dwarf
anything EOR has to offer, plus it actually creates a net carbon sink not
a source. But then no one is doing to get rich doing this, at least not
until those estimated $Ts in economics damages from
fossil-energy-(+EOR)-induced ocean acidification kick in.
Greg  

On 10/7/14 4:05 AM, Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote:

The current market for CO2 for EOR is closer to 50 million tons a year
(about 80% of that supplied from natural reservoirs).  Estimated demand
in the US could be 10x higher, about 500 million tons.  Not sure where
the 3 billion tons figure comes from unless it an estimate based on using
CO2 to produce oil from residual oil zones.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Andrew Lockley
andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:


Poster's note : big takeaway for me was the enormous size of market for
EOR CO2

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531346/can-sucking-co2-out-of-the-atm
osphere-really-work/

Physicist Peter Eisenberger had expected colleagues to react to his idea
with skepticism. He was claiming, after all, to have invented a machine
that could clean the atmosphere of its excess carbon dioxide, making the
gas into fuel or storing it underground. And the Columbia University
scientist was aware that naming his two-year-old startup Global
Thermostat hadn't exactly been an exercise in humility.But the reception
in the spring of 2009 had been even more dismissive than he had expected.
First, he spoke to a special committee convened by the American Physical
Society to review possible ways of reducing carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere through so-called air capture, which means, essentially,
scrubbing it from the sky. They listened politely to his presentation but
barely asked any questions. A few weeks later he spoke at the U.S.
Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory in West
Virginia to a similarly skeptical audience. Eisenberger explained that
his lab's research involves chemicals called amines that are already used
to capture concentrated carbon dioxide emitted from fossil-fuel power
plants. This same amine-based technology, he said, also showed potential
for the far more difficult and ambitious task of capturing the gas from
the open air, where carbon dioxide is found at concentrations of 400
parts per million. That's up to 300 times more diffuse than in power
plant smokestacks. But Eisenberger argued that he had a simple design for
achieving the feat in a cost-effective way, in part because of the way he
would recycle the amines. That didn't even register, he recalls. I
felt a lot of people were pissing on me.CTO and co-founder Peter
Eisenberger in front of Global Thermostat's air-capturing machine.The
next day, however, a manager from the lab called him excitedly. The DOE
scientists had realized that amine samples sitting around the lab had
been bonding with carbon dioxide at room temperature--a fact they hadn't
much appreciated until then. It meant that Eisenberger's approach to air
capture was at least feasible, says one of the DOE lab's chemists, Mac
Gray.Five years later, Eisenberger's company has raised $24 million in
investments, built a working demonstration plant, and struck deals to
supply at least one customer with carbon dioxide harvested from the sky.
But the next challenge is proving that the technology could have a
transformative impact on the world, befitting his company's name.

The need for a carbon-sucking machine is easy to see. Most technologies
for mitigating carbon dioxide work only where the gas is emitted in large
concentrations, as in power plants. But air-capture machines, installed
anywhere on earth, could deal with the 52 percent of carbon-dioxide
emissions that are caused by distributed, smaller sources like cars,
farms, and homes. Secondly, air capture, if it ever becomes practical,
could gradually reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. As emissions have accelerated--they're now rising at 2
percent per year, twice as rapidly as they did in the last three decades
of the 20th century--scientists have begun to recognize the urgency of
achieving so-called negative emissions.

The obvious need for the technology has enticed several other efforts to
come up with various approaches that might be practical. For example,
Climate Engineering, based in Calgary, captures carbon using a liquid
solution of sodium hydroxide, a well-established industrial technique. A
firm cofounded by an early pioneer of the idea, Eisenberg's Columbia
colleague Klaus Lackner, worked on the 

[geo] CDR cheaper than CCS

[Rau, Greg]

All in all this [CCS] is pretty impressive technology for mitigating CO2 but 
we need to seriously question the rationale for spending so much to justify 
keeping coal-fired power plants in operation. That's because CCS is the most 
expensive approach we can take to CDR, carbon dioxide removal.

http://www.21stcentech.com/cdr-role-mitigating-climate-change/

Confusing CO2 emissions reduction with CDR, but still interesting points.

Greg

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

RE: [geo] Youtube playlist

[Rau, Greg]

Speaking of videos, there are quite a number over at geoengineering watch:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

including:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/talking-with-geoengineers-sf-geoengineers/
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29293171
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-most-important-topic-of-our-time/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvKGWk5guY#t=43
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D06NTcSuLQE#t=121

Can 13.8M site visitors be wrong?

Greg


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:22 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Youtube playlist

I've updated the youtube playlist I manage.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF8369A27273314D8

There's now about 17hrs of content.

Please contact me if you want me to add some new videos to it, or if
you notice anything that should be removed

A

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

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

RE: [geo] Re: Dr Evil

[Rau, Greg]

OK let's assume that 30,000ppm CO2 would do it. So at 2.12 GT C per ppm CO2, 
we'd need 60,000 GT of C or 6*44/12 = 220,000 GT CO2.  Recoverable fossil fuels 
might be 5,000 GT C or 18,000 GT CO2, so that's not going to do it. On the 
other hand, the ocean contains 37,000 GT C or 136,000 GT CO2, so that would get 
you more than half way there (interesting because evaporating the ocean would 
cause half its C to degas as CO2 and half to precipitate as carbonates). Guess 
we'd have to liberate the rest from the 60MT C carbonate mineral pool. Andrew's 
idea of using non-CO2 GHGs would seem simpler (to the hypothetical Dr. Evil).

Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of David Lewis [jrandomwin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:21 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Dr Evil

Goldblatt said in 2013:  our estimate is that it would take 30,000 ppm CO2 in 
the atmosphere to make it warm enough to trigger this runaway greenhouse, i.e. 
boil the oceans away.  He said this was a finding in the Goldblatt et.al.  Low 
simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse 
climateshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1892.html paper 
published at that time.  He was 
quotedhttp://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/runaway-greenhouse-easier-trigger-earth-thought-study-says-f6C10761164
 in an NBC interview, saying this really seems quite unlikely.

Would 30,000 ppm seem unlikely to Dr. Evil?  The man had a base on the Moon. Is 
ISIS just Dr. Evil diverting our attention from his extraterrestrial carbon 
import program?


On Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote:

If Dr Evil wanted to destroy the world with geoengineering, how easy would it 
be? How much super greenhouse gas would have to be released to boil the oceans? 
How much SRM would be needed to snowball the Earth?

--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

RE: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News

[Rau, Greg]

If you have discovered a widespread, natural surface ocean process that causes 
supersaturation with respect to air CO2 to the point of forcing CaCO3aq 
undersaturation, and hence CaCO3s dissolution and CO2 conversion to 
Ca(HCO3)2aq, that is quite an observation. However, I'd need to see a full 
carbon chemistry  workup of the affected seawater/brine/ice to be convinced.
Greg

From: Soeren Rysgaard [soeren.rysga...@umanitoba.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:44 AM
To: Peter Flynn
Cc: mmacc...@comcast.net; Ken Caldeira; Rau, Greg; Andrew Lockley; 
Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in 
atmosphere | Zee News

Hi all

We have evidence that brine rejected in NE Greenland on the shelf enters the 
intermediate and sometimes deeper water layers. We are currently investigating 
if they carry with them CO2 rich water.
We have more papers coming up, but attached are some previous ones.

best Søren


On Sep 24, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Peter Flynn 
peter.fl...@ualberta.camailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote:

North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) is thought to primarily form in the open ocean 
and does not originate from the brine coming off the bottom of sea ice.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.camailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455







From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
 On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: September-23-14 6:32 PM
To: Ken Caldeira; Greg Rau
Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering; 
soeren.rysga...@ad.umanitoba.camailto:soeren.rysga...@ad.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in 
atmosphere | Zee News



In my reading, the wording was very confusing. Reading more carefully, it 
seemed to me that they were saying that there will be less CO2 in the ocean as 
a result of melting back of the sea ice. An open Arctic with no sea ice 
formation would imply less down-welling due to not forming dense brine pockets, 
so one mechanism would be a consequence of that, and another might be due to 
the greater stability of the ocean in the warm season. I did not read the 
paper, but, once I got past some unclear wording, the sign sort of made sense.

Mike


On 9/23/14 1:52 PM, Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.eduUrlBlockedError.aspx wrote:

Agree with Greg.

If there is any net effect of this process at all (relative to the no-ice 
situation) then quantitatively it must be tiny tiny tiny.

If the alkalinity represented by the Ca2+ in the CaCO3 was in the surface ocean 
with no ice, that would tend to draw CO2 into the ocean.


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.eduUrlBlockedError.aspx
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.eduUrlBlockedError.aspx


On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Rau, Greg 
r...@llnl.govUrlBlockedError.aspx wrote:
A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon dioxide from 
the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of atmospheric 
concentration of the gas. [?!]

How does removing CO2 from air increase air CO2 concentrations? Anyway, can 
believe that CaCO3 precipitates and CO2 is generated as seawater freezes and 
brine is formed: Ca(HCO3)2aq --- CaCO3s + CO2g + H2O.  But whether the CO2 is 
then subducted with the sinking brine or degasses to the atmosphere would seem 
critical to the air/ocean CO2 budget. That some CaCO3s is entrained in the the 
ice seems logical, but how the preceding reaction is reversed to consume this 
carbonate and CO2 is unclear. There would need to be a way to concentrate CO2 
to generate H2CO3 to then consume the CaCO3s to (re)make Ca(HCO3)2aq.  How does 
that happen? Anyway, if it does happen this would seem to offer a new 
explanation for glacial/ interglacial CO2 variations, not to mention a new 
method of modern day CDR - bomb sea ice sheets with limestone particles.  
Beneficial chemtrails on ice ;-)
Greg


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.comUrlBlockedError.aspx 
[geoengineering@googlegroups.comUrlBlockedError.aspx] on behalf of Andrew 
Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.comUrlBlockedError.aspx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:56 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere 
| Zee News

http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/arctic-sea-ice-depletion-to-result-in-rise-of-co2-in-atmosphere_1474406.html

Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere Last Updated: 
Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 12:38

Washington

RE: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News

[Rau, Greg]

A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon dioxide from 
the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of atmospheric 
concentration of the gas. [?!]

How does removing CO2 from air increase air CO2 concentrations? Anyway, can 
believe that CaCO3 precipitates and CO2 is generated as seawater freezes and 
brine is formed: Ca(HCO3)2aq --- CaCO3s + CO2g + H2O.  But whether the CO2 is 
then subducted with the sinking brine or degasses to the atmosphere would seem 
critical to the air/ocean CO2 budget. That some CaCO3s is entrained in the the 
ice seems logical, but how the preceding reaction is reversed to consume this 
carbonate and CO2 is unclear. There would need to be a way to concentrate CO2 
to generate H2CO3 to then consume the CaCO3s to (re)make Ca(HCO3)2aq.  How does 
that happen? Anyway, if it does happen this would seem to offer a new 
explanation for glacial/ interglacial CO2 variations, not to mention a new 
method of modern day CDR - bomb sea ice sheets with limestone particles.  
Beneficial chemtrails on ice ;-)
Greg


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:56 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere 
| Zee News


http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/arctic-sea-ice-depletion-to-result-in-rise-of-co2-in-atmosphere_1474406.html

Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere Last Updated: 
Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 12:38

Washington: A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon 
dioxide from the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of 
atmospheric concentration of the gas.

Dorte Haubjerg Sogaard, PhD Fellow, Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, 
University of Southern Denmark and the Greenland Institute of Natural 
Resources, Nuuk, said that if their results are representative, then sea ice 
plays a greater role than expected, and we should take this into account in 
future global CO2 budgets.

The researchers said that they have long known that the Earth's oceans are able 
to absorb huge amounts of CO2. But they also thought that this did not apply to 
ocean areas covered by ice, because the ice was considered impenetrable. 
However, this is not true, as the new research shows that sea ice in the Arctic 
draws large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean.

Sogaard said that the chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two phases. 
First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed in sea ice in winter. During 
this formation CO2 splits off and is dissolved in a heavy cold brine, which 
gets squeezed out of the ice and sinks into the deeper parts of the ocean. 
Calcium carbonate cannot move as freely as CO2 and therefore it stays in the 
sea ice. In summer, when the sea ice melts, calcium carbonate dissolves, and 
CO2 is needed for this process. Thus, CO2 gets drawn from the atmosphere into 
the ocean -and therefore CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere.

ANI

--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

[Rau, Greg]

What qualifies as DAC CDR?

Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Fred Zimmerman [geoengineerin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 7:02 PM
To: Mark Capron
Cc: charlie.zen...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

There are summaries of cost estimates in several of the articles referenced in 
this thread. There are values reported at pretty much every stop between $45 
and $1000/ton.  I am not sure that I find any of the estimates convincing as 
yet.  I wonder if the size of global demand (whether industrial or 
governmental) is a bigger problem than cost.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:56 PM, 
markcap...@podenergy.orgmailto:markcap...@podenergy.org wrote:
Charlie,

You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren 
charthttp://http://oceanforesters.org/References.html, 
http://oceanforesters.org/References.html.  The chart is at the bottom of the 
page.  Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years.  His 2012 A 
comparative assessment... (link near top of the same page) was published in 
the same journal with Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation.

Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.orghttp://www.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.commailto:charlie.zen...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Fred,

It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of 
DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view.

Best,
Charlie

On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
Hi --

I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am 
wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry 
of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al.


Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
a fox, not a hedgehog -- Isaiah Berlin
--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

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

RE: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds

[Rau, Greg]

Toby,
I regret I will not be at the meeting to learn more about the ethics of CDR. 
Presumably this refers to enhancement of existing, natural CDR which is already 
removing about 55% of our emissions, but which is immune from ethical 
considerations(?) Regardless of our actions, this natural CDR will eventually 
consume all of our CO2 and return air CO2 (and climate?) to pre-industrial 
levels, so what are the ethics here? In any case, I assume the ethics of CDR 
referred to really means the ethics of accelerated CDR.  Good to see that 
such activity and its ethics will be put in context of alternative actions as 
stated in the session description.

Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Toby Svoboda [tobysvob...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 7:26 AM
To: Ronal W. Larson
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Response to Svoboda and Irvine, J Reynolds

Hi Ron,

I agree that CDR warrants attention from ethicists (and others). For those 
attending the Berlin Climate Engineering Conference this week, there is a 
session on the ethics of CDR that might be of interest: 
http://www.ce-conference.org/ethics-carbon-dioxide-removal.

Best,
Toby

The Ethics of Carbon Dioxide Removal
Date: Thursday, 21. August 2014 - 11:00 to 12:30
Location: Copenhagen
Speakers

  *   Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theories of Justice by David Morrow 
(University of Alabama at Birmingham) and Toby Svoboda (Fairfield University)

  *   An Overview of CDR Techniques - Adverse Impacts and Ethical Concerns by 
Haomiao Du (University of Amsterdam)

  *   Public Participation and Stakeholder Inclusion for Geoengineering: What 
Do We Know from CDM A/R? by Erik Thorstensen (Oslo and Akershus University 
College)

  *   Would the Development of a Safe, Robust and Scalable Technique to 
Sequester Carbon Dioxide from the Air Create an Obligation to 'Clean up the 
Mess'? by Tim Kruger (University of Oxford)

Session Description

Most of the current literature on ethical aspects of climate engineering (CE) 
has concentrated on solar radiation management. CDR has not gained wide 
addition up to now, even though it also seems to raise major normative 
challenges. In the session we will outline major issues regarding the ethics of 
CDR, summarize the main properties that distinguish CDR form SRM from a 
normative perspective, take a look at some case studies on different CDR 
techniques and put them in the context of mitigation and adaptation efforts.



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Ronal W. Larson 
rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
Dr. Svoboda, cc list and others in this dialog:

1.  I thank you and the others writing about a portion of the ethics of 
Geoengieering.  Your work is valuable.

2.  But I am concerned that there has been only discussion of a portion of 
Geoengineering - only about SRM. Not just in the current exchange, but in 
virtually every geoengineering/ethics article I have read.  This is true for 
most of the papers mentioned in this thread.

3.  One exception:  Dr.  Wong briefly mentions CDR and does a good job of using 
the term Geoengineering to mean both SRM and CDR.  His emphasis on post 
implementation certainly can apply to CDR - so I am applauding his small 
contribution.  However, I disagree strongly with the word only in this 
sentence quoting Vaughan and Lenton at about his p 2.4/6 (my emphasis added):

For example, Naomi E. Vaughan and Timothy M. Lenton note that the 'effect [of 
any Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques] will decay over time [ . . . ], 
and it will also decay if carbon storage is not permanent. In the long-term, 
the only way to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels is to 
permanently store [ . . . ] an equivalent amount of CO2 to the total emitted to 
the atmosphere' (Vaughan  Lenton, 2011, p. 750).

  That is, I believe there is general agreement that 
afforestation/reforestation can be a valuable CDR approach, even though it is 
certainly not permanent.  I claim the same about biochar, with a major portion 
likely to last for millennia.  My concern might extend to Dr.  Wong, but 
certainly to Drs.  Vaughan and Lenton.  Permanence should never be a 
requirement for any form of either SRM or CDR.

  So this is to urge list members to read the Wong paper for the (limited) way 
that CDR stays in his discussion.
4.  Dr.  Svoboda yesterday directed our attention in his last sentence to a 
2012 (behind pay-wall) article, whose abstract reads (emphasis added):

As a strategy for responding to climate change, aerosol geoengineering (AG) 
carries various risks, thus raising ethical concerns regarding its potential 
deployment. I examine three ethical arguments that AG ought not to be deployed, 
given that it (1) risks harming persons, (2) would harm persons, and (3) would 
be more harmful to persons than some other available strategy. I show that 
these arguments are 

[geo] call for abstracts for AGU sessions

[Rau, Greg]

FYI (Marcia McNutt a CDR expert - who knew?) - Greg

From: Dunlea, Edward edun...@nas.edumailto:edun...@nas.edu
Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:30 AM
To: Dunlea, Edward edun...@nas.edumailto:edun...@nas.edu
Subject: call for abstracts for AGU sessions

Dear Colleagues,

We would like to call your attention to two sessions at the Fall Meeting of the 
American Geophysical Union related to climate engineering.

Please consider submitting an abstract and/or sharing this announcement with 
others who might be interested.


Removing Carbon Dioxide from Earth's 
Atmospherehttps://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/webprogrampreliminary/Session3272.html

Conveners: Marcia McNutt, Jennifer Wilcox, Edward Dunlea

Human activities over the past centuries--mostly fossil fuel burning and 
deforestation--have resulted in the release of nearly two trillion tons of 
carbon dioxide, significantly increasing concentrations in the atmosphere. 
Today, scientists, engineers, and policy makers are working together to 
discover, validate, and implement strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. However, 
given the pace of emissions reductions, efforts to remove anthropogenic CO2 
from the atmosphere and sequester them may be necessary within the portfolio of 
solutions to reduce negative climate-change impacts. This session provides a 
venue to discuss various carbon dioxide removal techniques, including bioenergy 
with carbon capture and sequestration, land management (afforestation, 
reforestation, etc.), and ocean iron fertilization. Abstracts that consider 
carbon reservoir properties and carbon disposal are also invited.


Geoengineering the Climate through (Solar) Radiation 
Modificationhttps://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/webprogrampreliminary/Session1795.html

Conveners: Piers Forster, Ben Kravitz, Hauke Schmidt, and Simone Tilmes

Engineering ideas to reduce the impact of climate change have been proposed 
that involve (e.g.) injection of aerosol particles, modification of clouds 
and/or surface albedo. This session solicits papers that examine processes 
associated with these techniques and studies where such techniques have been 
implemented in either high resolution and/or global climate models. Case 
studies are welcome. Geoengineering research has significantly moved on from 
the first simple climate model experiments. Papers could give key insights into 
the effectiveness and side effects from different techniques, and how 
detectable these will be with the limitations of our observing system and 
climate variability. They could also provide insights into the engineering 
challenges and give unique tests for climate models, for example, identifying 
robust patterns of climate change caused by rapid adjustment to radiative 
perturbations.


The abstract submission deadline is Tuesday, 6 August 2014. Please go to: 
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2014/scientific-program/ for more information.


This email has been sent to multiple email lists; apologies if you receive 
multiple copies.


-
Edward Dunlea, Ph.D.
Senior Program Officer
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
The National Academy of Sciences
202-334-1334
edun...@nas.edumailto:edun...@nas.edu
Subscribe to newsletter: http://dels.nas.edu/subscribe

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] Floodgates open for adaptation GE investment

[Rau, Greg]

OK, thanks. Survival/adaptation it is. That simplifies things; I'm
investing in seawall construction and air conditioning companies so I
might be able  to afford to survive/adapt.
Greg

On 6/10/14 2:46 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

 One wonders if the money would be better spent on reducing the cause of
the problem - CO2 emissions, or are we too late for that?

It's more that there isn't a good idea of how to do it.  More
accurately, there isn't a widely accepted idea of how to replace the
energy we get from fossil fuels, particularly from liquid
hydrocarbons.  You are probably sick of my harping on how I think it
could be solved, but I don't know of any other solutions that scale
large enough or generate energy at a low enough cost to avoid an
economic collapse.

Do you?

Make a case for one.  If it's better than the one I have been working
on, I will switch.

Though it's pointed in a slightly different direction, David MacKay's
_Sustainable Energy - without the hot air_ is applicable and well
worth reading.

 And what is the CO2 footprint and environmental impact of building a
seawall?

It's not exactly the same thing, but the cost from Sandy, the storm
that is the reason for the project, was $65 B.  If they can put in a
seawall for $3.7 B and it prevents this magnitude of damage from only
one similar storm in the next few decades, the payback will be on the
order of 20 to one.

 Interesting how more costly climate change survival trumps less costly
climate change avoidance. Good luck with that. Greg

Make a case for less costly.  Measure it in dollars or human lives or
both.

Keith

 CITIES:

 'Big U' plan to protect Manhattan from storm surges begins with a sea
wall

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

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

RE: [geo] Real Problems - False Solutions: Climate Change Geo-Engineering | Cambridge Community Television

[Rau, Greg]

A geo-engineering response to climate change will cause enormous problems.

The real question is how enormous are those problems relative to those 
resulting from the ongoing lack of more conventional, effective human actions 
on climate change?

Who is authorized to act on Earth-wide bio-geo-chemical systems?

Given the enormous impact humans are having on Earth-wide bio-geo-chemical 
systems, it looks like we've authorized ourselves. Now comes the hard part of 
doing it sustainably, or is that too ethically scary?

Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 1:28 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Real Problems - False Solutions: Climate Change  
Geo-Engineering | Cambridge Community Television


http://www.cctvcambridge.org/node/245514

Cambridge Community Television

Real Problems - False Solutions: Climate Change  Geo-Engineering

A geo-engineering response to climate change will cause enormous problems. Who 
is authorized to act on Earth-wide bio-geo-chemical systems?

Posted by CCRA on Jun 8, 2014.

This program (EVN #153) was recorded on 1 June 2014, 4:30pm.Click HERE to view 
streaming version of program in a separate window.

This program (EVN #153) is available on the Google Docs website for 
downloading for one week after its initial recording and broadcast on CCTV. It 
can be downloaded by entering Ctrl S from the site below or from the 
Download option in the File menu option at the upper left hand part of the 
tool bar on the webpage:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By-jq7Ykdoy2RmVud2xRS2xmQVU/edit?pli=1

--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[geo] Maybe it is hopeless

[Rau, Greg]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1114.full

To reduce humanity's environmental footprint toward a sustainable level, it is 
necessary to reach consensus on footprint caps at different scales, from global 
to national or river-basin scale. Footprint caps need to be related to both 
production and consumption 
(32http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1114.full#ref-32, 
55http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1114.full#ref-55). The various 
components of the environmental footprint of humanity must be reduced to remain 
within planetary boundaries. Improved technologies (eco-efficiency) alone will 
not be sufficient to reach this goal; consumption patterns will need to alter 
as well (39http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1114.full#ref-39). How 
such cultural shift and transformative change in the global economy could take 
place remains an open question. It is clear, however, that such change will 
profoundly affect all sectors of the economy. There are always several entities 
playing a role in causing a footprint: the investors, the suppliers, the 
recipients, and the regulators. Hence, the responsibility for moving toward a 
sustainable footprint is to be shared among them 
(32http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1114.full#ref-32, 
56http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1114.full#ref-56). The way 
societies and economies have institutionalized responsibility is clearly 
insufficient to warrant environmental sustainability, eco-efficiency, fair 
sharing, and long-term resource security. Exploring how we can better 
institutionalize full supply-chain responsibility is one of humanity's major 
research challenges toward achieving a sustainable future.

Good luck!
Greg

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

[geo] Breaking News: Emissions reduction will solve everything

[Rau, Greg]

The first scholarly attempt [?!] to rank a wide range of approaches to 
minimizing climate change in terms of their feasibility, cost-effectiveness, 
risk, public acceptance, governability and ethics, the study appears in the 
latest issue of the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Frontiers in Ecology and 
the Environment.

We found that climate engineering doesn't offer a perfect option, said 
Daniela Cusack, the study's lead author and an assistant professor of geography 
in the UCLA College. The perfect option is reducing emissions. We have to cut 
down the amount of emissions we're putting into the atmosphere if, in the 
future, we want to have anything like the Earth we have now.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/no-way-around-it:-reducing-emissions-will-be-the-primary-way-to-fight-climate-change-ucla-led-study-finds

So let's wait for the perfect option to happen?  Greg

Perfection is the enemy of the good. Voltaire




-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Mitigate the sea-level rise

[Rau, Greg]

Relatedly, there is an interesting scheme (being tested/built in the Middle 
East somewhere) that I think goes like this. A natural or artificial marine bay 
is covered with a high arching cover such that during the day the enclosed 
space is solar heated and seawater evaporates. During the night the cover 
naturally cools, freshwater condenses on the inside, trickles down the inside 
of the cover and is collected to water fields, etc. If water is collected high 
enough it could be sent inland via gravity/pipe (+- hydroelectric generation?). 
OK, probably won't stem sea level rise, but might do some good in the meantime, 
pending GE governance approval.
Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Mick West [m...@mickwest.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:16 AM
To: celso...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Mitigate the sea-level rise

The world's largest pump does 150,000 gallons a second, and costs around $500 
Million, and is only pumping a few feet.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/saving-new-orleans-worlds-largest-water-pump

To offset 1 cm of sea level rise, this pump would have to run for 200 years.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28360+million+km2+*+1+cm%29+%2F+%2815+gallons%29+seconds+in+years

Or you could have 200 pumps do 1cm per year, at a baseline cost of $100 
Billion. But if you factor in distance and evaporation you'd probably need a 
lot more. Combined with the likely saturation of the area with only a small 
fraction of the 1cm worth of water, the destruction of the local ecosystem, and 
the need for continued pumping - I'd say this idea is a non-starter.

Mick


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Celsus 
celso...@gmail.commailto:celso...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted the following a few years ago . I'm putting it out again to see if 
there's further reaction



The following is so simple and obvious, perhaps it's not so obvious !  It's 
low-tech and uses a large hammer to help crack a very large nut. It will not 
solve the problem of sea-level rise, but might mitigate it somewhat. Major 
negative side affects are envisaged - more about that later.

The idea is to use brute force to bury the problem in the sand ! Where ? - in 
the deserts ! -- some parts of Earth's surface (which cannot be named for 
diplomatic reasons) are not as pretty as other parts (e.g. the tropical 
rainforests), and might magnanimously offer themselves (with the help of 
financial incentives) for the greater good. If sufficient numbers of pumps of 
sufficient bore/capacity pump sea-water for sufficiently long periods onto/into 
these wastelands, then at least a temporary halt in the millimeter by 
millimeter rise might be affected.

Yes there would be major ecological consequences, not least the changing of 
weather patterns on which many populations both human and non-human rely. But I 
believe these would be temporary one-off changes and a new ecological balance 
would eventually ensue. The adage No pain, no gain may apply.

* The existing ecological beauty of the affected areas would be permanently 
altered if not destroyed.

* There would be large-scale evaporation, causing a large percentage of the 
water to eventally return (as freshwater) to where it's not wanted ! However 
experiments to determine what fraction would be permanently soaked up in 
different landscapes might give widely different results. Obviously those areas 
that indicate a high absorption coefficient or soakability factor (sand 
dunes ?) would be best suited to large-scale water transfer.

* Care would need to be taken to ensure that no one specific region received 
more sea-water than the underlying mantle can safely support - the sheer weight 
of the water added could possibly produce a fissure in Earth's crust.

On the positive side, if as a consequence of the exercise, large areas were 
left with a surface of salt which had a higher reflectivity than what existed 
before (albedo effect), this would act as a mirror and cause more radiation to 
be reflected back to space.

Ingenious or idiotic ???

--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 

[geo] Nature's OIF

[Rau, Greg]

Move over Russ George.
the team estimated that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean from 
glaciers currently is between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons annually from 
Greenland and up to 100,000 metric tons from Antarctica.
Governance that.
Greg

RESEARCH:
Glacial melt pouring iron into the ocean -- study

Christa Marshall, EE reporter

Published: Thursday, May 22, 2014

Call it natural geoengineering.

Scientists report in a new study this week that glacial melt may be funneling 
significant amounts of reactive iron into the ocean, where it may counter some 
of the negative effects of climate change by boosting algal blooms that capture 
carbon. The paper, published in Nature Communications, adds to a body of 
research suggesting that melting ice at both poles may have widespread 
consequences beyond rising sea levels.

The theory goes that the more iron you add, the more productive these plankton 
are, and thus the more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere in photosynthesis, 
said Jon Hawkings, a doctoral student at the University of Bristol and lead 
author of the 
studyhttp://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html.
 Plankton 'fix' CO2 much like trees.

The work could help improve climate models of the future and fill in data holes 
about major climate transitions and ice ages in the past, he said. The effects 
on Antarctica in particular will need additional examination, he said, as iron 
currently is limited in the Southern Ocean.

Hawkings and a research team from four United Kingdom-based universities tested 
meltwater collected from the Leverett glacier in Greenland during summer 2012 
and detected large amounts of iron nanoparticles known as ferrihydrite. 
Ferrihydrite is considered to be bioavailable iron because it is easily used 
by plankton in lab experiments, Hawkings said.

Through the detected iron mineral levels in their samples, the team estimated 
that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean from glaciers currently is 
between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons annually from Greenland and up to 
100,000 metric tons from Antarctica.

That means that polar regions may rival wind-blown dust as a source of ocean 
iron. The contribution from Greenland alone could range from 8 to 50 percent of 
the global ocean flux of bioavailable iron, Hawkings said.

The iron ore counter-effect

A decade ago, a common hypothesis was that rivers and dust supplied the ocean 
with most of its iron. Since then, scientists have reported in several papers 
that icebergs and deep-sea hydrothermal vents also may be significant 
contributors.

A study last year found that a Greenland glacier was releasing iron, but it did 
not assess as large an area and for as long of a period of time as his study, 
Hawkings said. The studied area of the Leverett glacier, for instance, is more 
than 600 kilometers squared, while earlier work assessed a glacier about 5 
kilometers squared, he said.

Our study is the first to date to follow a whole melt season and the first to 
have looked at a large glacial catchment, he said.

Matt Charette, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
and co-author of an 
earlierpaperhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1746.html on 
Greenland-supplied iron, said although the new study overlaps somewhat with his 
prior work, it provides new details.

A case could be made that a larger system like the one they studied is more 
appropriate for scaling up to the entire ice sheet, he said.

Kenneth Coale, a scientist at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, said the paper 
was nicely done and added to understanding of how iron may provide a 
counter-effect to climate change.

The Greenland iron originates from stored subglacial meltwater that gets 
flushed out by surface waters carried through tunnels and cracks in ice 
during the melt season, Hawkings said. It's not fully understood how far the 
iron travels once in the ocean, but it likely stays near both poles. Evidence 
exists for transport a few 100 kilometers out to sea, but only limited amounts 
will reach the open ocean, he said.

It's also not fully understood how the iron will interact with polar 
ecosystems. Scientists have long known that iron-fueled algae can eat up 
carbon, leading to speculation that iron fertilization might be a 
geoengineering option to cool the planet. It also holds the possibility of 
boosting marine life that feed on plankton. A community in Canada two years 
ago, for instance, dumped large amounts of iron dust into the ocean to try to 
boost salmon stocks.

In the case of natural iron fertilization via ice sheets, the positive likely 
outweighs the negative, in the sense that carbon will be removed in an area 
highly vulnerable to warming, and extra algae may help polar marine life 
threatened by warming, Hawkings said. He noted that algae can boost krill, 
which can in turn can feed fish, whales and seals.

However, he pointed to a 

[geo] EGU GE post mortem

[Rau, Greg]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014EO23/asset/eost2014EO23.pdf?v=1t=hvip8icos=b0ec7713c061bf0df5261c8049de962020c6d8b1

Selected quotes:

If it's enough of an emergency to deploy the solar geoengineering system, it's 
enough of an emergency to stop deploying devices--power plants, 
automobiles--that make the problem worse.


We should wait until we see that the emissions are stabilized in the 
atmosphere before we think about advancing emergency button scenarios such as 
SRM...


Accelerating melting of the the globe's major ice sheets isn't an planetary 
emergency right now?


If you take an assessment of the current state of knowledge for all of the 
proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere--at least the ones that I 
am aware of--you have to account for very long time scales, generally in 
decades, before you would have a significant impact from these techniques, he 
said. We can't count on proposed CO2 removal measures to notably supplement 
mitigation measures anytime in the near future.


H... 55% of our current CO2 emissions don't stay in the atmosphere due to 
natural CDR.  I'd say that's beating the heck out any emissions reduction we've 
achieved. Unthinkable that we can't up this percentage some, in the near term, 
just in case that emissions reduction thing doesn't get the job done?


Greg




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

[geo] More on geo megaprojects to adapt to vs avoid AGW

[Rau, Greg]

We apparently can't afford to avoid AGW, but we can afford to adapt to it?
Greg

CLIMATE:
National strategy needed for historic sites at risk from warming -- report

Emily Yehle, EE reporter

Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2014

By the end of this century, rising sea levels will likely leave Jamestown under 
the ocean, almost 500 years after it became the first permanent English 
settlement in the Americas.

In a new 
reporthttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/national-landmarks-at-risk-from-climate-change.html
 released today, the Union of Concerned Scientists warns that the landmark is 
only one of hundreds of historic sites at risk due to climate change. Some will 
be swallowed by rising seas, others destroyed by frequent wildfires and still 
others washed away in floods, according to the report.

UCS joined archaeologists and local officials at a congressional briefing today 
to underscore the importance of creating a national plan to preserve such sites 
-- and establishing the funding to go along with it. Their efforts come as 
Congress considers how to best pay the increasing costs of wildfire 
suppression, as fires burn longer, hotter and more frequently on public lands.

Such fires destroy more than trees and vegetation -- they damage historical 
sites that have withstood centuries of less extreme weather. At Bandelier 
National Monument in New Mexico, for example, fires have impacted more than 
1,000 archaeological sites, including the Ancestral Puebloan ruins.

What's been remarkable is to see how quickly things have been changing, said 
Adam Markham, director of climate impacts at UCS. It's really been quite 
shocking to see all the damage.

The report details 17 case studies, in what its authors emphasized was just 
the tip of the iceberg. They range from Annapolis, Md.'s historic district, 
where severe flooding threatens 18th-century buildings, to the Bering Land 
Bridge National Preserve in Alaska, where archaeological sites documenting the 
first human migration to North America are threatened by coastal erosion.

But at today's briefing, Jeffrey Altschul, president of the Society for 
American Archaeology, warned against the Save Our Lighthouse approach, where 
sites are saved individually as they become threatened. That is more expensive 
in the long run, he said, and ignores the reality that some sites are more 
worth saving than others.

It's time to engage in a different conversation, he said. What sites do we 
want to save? What are we willing to let go?

Email: eye...@eenews.netmailto:eye...@eenews.net

-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Sea Ice

[Rau, Greg]

Any chance to transform that thermal energy to useful forms while you are at 
it? Arctic OTEC. In the winter that could be some serious Delta T. 
Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:21 AM
To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca
Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Sea Ice

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote:

 Ron et al.,

 Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice:

 Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, 
 pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air.

There is a third method, a completely passive one.  It's used to keep
the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline.  There are a
huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost
when the air is colder.  No moving parts, they contain a radiator on
the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling
liquid inside.

It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not
be very expensive.

They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land.

If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a
geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977.

Keith

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

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

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

[Rau, Greg]

John,
Yes buck up = cheer up over here, sorry or the cowboy colloquialism. 
Psychology is indeed at the root of behavior, a little detail they didn't teach 
us in Earth Science grad school. That's why we need the professionals in human 
behavior on our side - Madison Ave, Mark Zuckerberg, etc  ;-)
Greg

From: John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Rau, Greg
Cc: dmorr...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; dan.ka...@yale.edu; 
John Nissen
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing 
a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.  Soc. Sci.

Hi Greg,

Having researched the meaning of buck up, I realise that your meaning is to 
do with cheering me up, rather than speeding me up.

It is cheering to have a meaningful discussion on the popular rejection of 
geoengineering.  I can understand a religious objection to geoengineering, on 
the grounds that weather is God's business so we should not interfere with it.  
And I can understand that scientists are used to observing the environment 
while trying not to alter the subject of their observations.  But these are not 
sociological effects.  What fascinates me is how a psychologist can bring a new 
perspective on this.  You, Dan, have shown, in the CCT theory, how the majority 
of people, and that of course includes scientists, fall into one of two 
distinct classes and identify themselves with an associated 'camp', as I call 
it.

My deduction from what you, Dan, have said is that geoengineering is rejected 
by both camps.  The strength of emotion exhibited against geoengineering 
indicates that something is offending deeply held values - values shared by the 
associated camp.  There is certainly overt antagonism between the camps.  But a 
strong subconscious driver may be fear.  We see an aversion to the discussion 
of present danger share by both camps - anything that is at all scary.

The camp that rejects climate change has an aversion to discussing the 
scientific evidence which indicates the danger to human society from many 
degrees of global warming and from Arctic meltdown.  This camp rejects 
geoengineering because it is associated with this evidence which it does not 
wish to discuss.  People in this camp say that geoengineering will not be 
required for a long time, if ever, because the world is changing slowly.  When 
a scientist describes the actual situation to such a person, they reply it 
can't possibly be as bad as that.

On the other hand the camp which accepts climate change also has an aversion to 
the discussion of near-term danger, while they accept the long-term danger of 
climate change, e.g. by the end of the century.  Some reject geoengineering on 
the grounds that it is a conspiracy by the other camp (especially fossil fuel 
industry) to 'get out of gaol free', i.e. to continue their vile polluting 
practice of burning fossil fuels.  Others say that geoengineering is too 
dangerous - the implication it is more risky to apply geoengineering than to 
leave the climate system to change.  (This is like condemning the fire engines 
for the water damage they might produce, while the building is burning down.)  
Others have more sophisticated arguments - all having the characteristic of 
avoiding proper discussion of near-term danger, especially from the warming of 
the Arctic.

So who can escape from this emotional reaction?  There are the psychologists, 
like you, Dan, who can present the situation as a case study in psychological 
theory.  There are economists who accept the economic impact of fossil fuel 
reduction, yet realise that climate change will have a huge economic impact, 
even within a few decades, because of the limited carbon budget set by AR5.  
And there are those of us who acknowledge that there are these two camps who 
are pre-occupied by fighting a battle over emissions reductions, while two more 
immediate problems are overlooked:

1.  The global warming and ocean acidification from existing CO2 in the 
atmosphere require that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, by the CRD 
geoengineering techniques.

2.  The Arctic will proceed towards total meltdown, unless it is quickly cooled 
by SRM geoengineering techniques sufficient to halt the sea ice retreat.

Neither of the two camps is seriously engaged in discussion about these urgent 
requirements for geoengineering.  Or they will deny the science and scientific 
observations that point to these requirements.

And yet geoengineering offers a golden opportunity for international 
collaboration, for solving these most immediate and urgent problems faced by 
mankind.  It would be tragic if this opportunity were missed because of 
psychological problems.

Cheers,  John



On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Rau, Greg 
r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov wrote:
Buck up, John. Once the real hazards of rising sea level, failed crops, and 
acidified

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

[Rau, Greg]

Buck up, John. Once the real hazards of rising sea level, failed crops, and 
acidified oceans materialize, the decision-makers just might yearn for some 
hazards of the moral kind. And you and I might still be around when that 
happens. Even then there is no guarantee that any countering action will be 
effective and safe unless we do some research to find out before the real need 
for hazard mitigation arises, which for some of us is right now.
Keep up the good fight...
Greg

From: John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.commailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 11:21 AM
To: Default r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov
Cc: dmorr...@gmail.commailto:dmorr...@gmail.com 
dmorr...@gmail.commailto:dmorr...@gmail.com, geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com, 
dan.ka...@yale.edumailto:dan.ka...@yale.edu 
dan.ka...@yale.edumailto:dan.ka...@yale.edu, John Nissen 
j...@cloudworld.co.ukmailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing 
a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.  Soc. Sci.

Hi Greg,

The theory is that people tend to be polarised into two camps.  One camp is 
against the idea that climate change can have anything to do with our 
greenhouse gas emissions; and therefore (subconsciously) this camp is against 
geoengineering because it would admit of a massive problem to be solved.  The 
other camp is against geoengineering (subconsciously) because of the moral 
hazard - the idea that it's a get out of jail free for the people responsible 
for causing climate change in the first place.  They will talk of 
geoengineering as a climate fix, that it is playing with God, etc.

Kahan refers repeatedly to a 2012 study where it was shown that the moral 
hazard argument against geoengineering was scientifically invalid.  But 
subconsciously the second camp may still have this deep-seated fear of 
geoengineering.

Therefore I deduce, using his argument, that neither camp will accept 
geoengineering, whatever evidence of the need for geoengineering is presented 
to them.

I think this is the crux of the matter: nobody, identified with either of the 
common camps, will accept geoengineering.  Only when this impasse is properly 
acknowledged, will it be possible for people to accept the scientific evidence 
that geoengineering is needed, not only to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, but 
also to cool the Arctic.

Cheers,

John









On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov 
wrote:
This observation may bear repeating:
To be effective, science communication must successfully negotiate both 
channels. That is, in addition to furnishing individuals with valid and 
pertinent information about how the world works, it must avail itself of the 
cues necessary to assure individuals that assenting to that information will 
not estrange them from their communities.

Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community benefit from 
some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it? Science and 
scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially when there are 
(well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a threat to their 
communities.
Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of David Morrow [dmorr...@gmail.commailto:dmorr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a 
Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.  Soc. Sci.

FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog posts 
on culture, values, and geoengineering:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html



On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote:

Poster's note : This is just brilliant. At last an explanation of why believing 
nonsense is rational. Useful to reflect on how this paper replies to the origin 
and persistence of other belief systems, as well as climate change. Leaves me 
wondering what nonsense I believe.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three-models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html

Three models of risk perception  their significance for self-government

Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM

From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel 
Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.  Soc. Sci. (in press).

Theoretical background

Three models of risk perception

The scholarly literature

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.

[Rau, Greg]

This observation may bear repeating:
To be effective, science communication must successfully negotiate both 
channels. That is, in addition to furnishing individuals with valid and 
pertinent information about how the world works, it must avail itself of the 
cues necessary to assure individuals that assenting to that information will 
not estrange them from their communities.

Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community benefit from 
some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it? Science and 
scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially when there are 
(well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a threat to their 
communities.
Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of David Morrow [dmorr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a 
Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.  Soc. Sci.

FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog posts 
on culture, values, and geoengineering:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html



On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote:

Poster's note : This is just brilliant. At last an explanation of why believing 
nonsense is rational. Useful to reflect on how this paper replies to the origin 
and persistence of other belief systems, as well as climate change. Leaves me 
wondering what nonsense I believe.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three-models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html

Three models of risk perception  their significance for self-government

Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM

From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel 
Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol.  Soc. Sci. (in press).

Theoretical background

Three models of risk perception

The scholarly literature on risk perception and communication is dominated by 
two models. The first is the rational-weigher model, which posits that members 
of the public, in aggregate and over time, can be expected to process 
information about risk in a manner that promotes their expected utility (Starr 
1969). The second is the irrational-weigher model, which asserts that ordinary 
members of the pubic lack the ability to reliably advance their expected 
utility because their assessment of risk information is constrained by 
cognitive biases and other manifestations of bounded rationality (Kahneman 
2003; Sunstein 2005; Marx et al. 2007; Weber 2006).Neither of these models 
cogently explains public conflict over climate change--or a host of other 
putative societal risks, such as nuclear power, the vaccination of teenage 
girls for HPV, and the removal of restrictions on carrying concealed handguns 
in public. Such disputes conspicuously feature partisan divisions over facts 
that admit of scientific investigation. Nothing in the rational-weigher model 
predicts that people with different values or opposing political commitments 
will draw radically different inferences from common information. Likewise, 
nothing in the irrational-weigher model suggests that people who subscribe to 
one set of values are any more or less bounded in their rationality than those 
who subscribe to any other, or that cognitive biases will produce systematic 
divisions of opinion of among such groups.

One explanation for such conflict is the cultural cognition thesis (CCT). CCT 
says that cultural values are cognitively prior to facts in public risk 
conflicts: as a result of a complex of interrelated psychological mechanisms, 
groups of individuals will credit and dismiss evidence of risk in patterns that 
reflect and reinforce their distinctive understandings of how society should be 
organized (Kahan, Braman, Cohen, Gastil  Slovic 2010; Jenkins-Smith  Herron 
2009). Thus, persons with individualistic values can be expected to be 
relatively dismissive of environmental and technological risks, which if widely 
accepted would justify restricting commerce and industry, activities that 
people with such values hold in high regard. The same goes for individuals 
withhierarchical values, who see assertions of environmental risk as 
indictments of social elites. Individuals with egalitarian and communitarian 
values, in contrast, see commerce and industry as sources of unjust disparity 
and symbols of noxious self-seeking, and thus readily credit assertions that 
these activities are hazardous and therefore worthy of regulation (Douglass  
Wildavsky 1982). Observational and experimental studies have linked these and 

RE: [geo] Shipping emissions can lead to high local ocean acidification

[Rau, Greg]

Thanks, Oscar. However, this problem would seem to pale in comparison to CO2 
acidification with an ocean input of about 8 GT (vs the stated MTs of SOX and 
NOx).  Also, probably dwarfed by SOx and NOx from land based generation. 
Speaking of seawater scrubbing, this is also commonly done at power plants (esp 
Asia) - good for air but very efficiently acidifies the ocean.  Solution - 
place limestone downstream of the gas/seawater contacting. You could do the 
same for ships if they were wiling to sacrifice some cargo tonnage for 
limestone.
Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Oscar Escobar [oscar2000esco...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:00 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Shipping emissions can lead to high local ocean acidification

Strong acids formed from shipping emissions can produce seasonal 'hot spots' of
ocean acidification, a recent study finds. These hot spots, in ocean areas 
close to
busy shipping lanes, could have negative effects on local marine ecology and
commercially farmed seafood species.

Shipping emissions can lead to high local
ocean acidification

Oceans have become more acidic since pre-industrial times. The average global 
ocean pH -
which decreases with increasing acidity - has dropped by 0.1 because the seas 
have
absorbed 30-40% of manmade CO2. However, it is not only CO2 that can acidify 
oceans.
Shipping emissions, a significant source of atmospheric pollution, annually 
release around
9.5 million metric tons of sulphur and 16.2 million metric tons of nitric 
oxides.

When dissolved in seawater, these pollutants are converted into the strong 
sulphuric and
nitric acids, adding to ocean acidification. Increasing acidity poses a threat 
to marine
ecosystems, harming species such as coral and algae, as well as commercial 
aquaculture
species, such as shellfish.

The researchers used state of the art computer modelling techniques and 
datasets to create
a high resolution simulation of global shipping emissions' effects on ocean 
acidity. The
simulation calculated the acidifying impacts of shipping sulphur and nitric 
oxide emissions on
a month by month basis, over one year. In addition to shipping-related 
influences on acidity,
the model also included many physical and environmental factors, such as ocean 
surface
water mixing and atmospheric effects.

The results agreed with previous studies of the average annual ocean 
acidification, but,
importantly, revealed significant differences between regions and seasons. Ocean
acidification was highest in the northern hemisphere, occurring in 'hot spots' 
close to coastal
areas and busy shipping lanes during the summer months. These 'hot spots' 
coincide with
peak activity of some biological processes, such as plankton blooms and fish 
hatching,
where they may cause greater harm. On a local scale, the acidification - a pH 
drop of
0.0015-0.0020 - was equal to CO2's global annual acidifying effects.

The model did not include some coastal ocean areas, such as the Mediterranean 
Sea, as
there were limitations in the oceanographic atlases used. However, 
acidification is likely to
be high in these areas given the heavy shipping traffic from ports.

International regulation is in place to reduce shipping atmospheric sulphur 
emissions
through the International Maritime Organization's Emission Control Areas (ECA), 
which are
in force in four ocean areas, including the Baltic and North Seas. One 
technology commonly
used to achieve ECA targets is 'seawater scrubbing', where exhaust pollutants 
are removed
using seawater.

This study drew on data from 2000 and 2002, prior to the enforcement of ECAs. 
However,
the researchers note that seawater scrubbing, without additional steps to 
neutralise the
acids that it produces, causes acidification in regions where biodiversity or 
commercial
aquaculture may be most negatively affected. These previously overlooked 
sources of ocean
acidification and policy impacts could be used to inform future discussions of 
controls
relating to shipping emissions or ocean acidification

The study:

Shipping contributes to ocean acidification
Ida-Maja Hassellöv et al DOI: 10.1002/grl.50521
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50521/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50521/abstract

Abstract

[1] The potential effect on surface water pH of emissions of SOX and NOX from 
global ship routes is assessed. The results indicate that regional pH 
reductions of the same order of magnitude as the CO2-driven acidification can 
occur in heavily trafficked waters. These findings have important consequences 
for ocean chemistry, since the sulfuric and nitric acids formed are strong 
acids in contrast to the weak carbonic acid formed by dissolution of CO2. Our 
results also provide background for discussion of expanded controls to mitigate 
acidification due to these shipping 

RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.

[Rau, Greg]

OK, thanks. So the options are: 1) standard biocombustion with CCS, presumably 
this means the end fuel is electricity. 2) Gasification is the combustion 
of biomass with super hot water forming syngas, H2 + CO. This can be combusted 
for electricity (+CO2) generation, can be water shifted to form H2 (+CO2), or 
can be used (precursor) for hydrocarbon fuel production. Electricity and H2 
thus seem the only possibility for C-negative fuels if CCS were applied. 3) 
Pyrolysis (low O2 combustion) of biomass forms syngas and biochar. Here biochar 
offers some C sequestration whether the syngas is used for electricity, H2 or 
hydrocarbon fuel production. In the latter case, what would need to be shown is 
that this sequestration is larger than the C footprint of the additional energy 
subsidies needed to synthesize higher hydrocarbons from syngas (not to mention 
the C penalty in biomass cultivation, harvesting, transporting, and 
processing). OK so far?

A way to make C negative fuel abiotically is to power water electrolysis with 
non-fossil electricity, while also placing base minerals around the anode. This 
forces OH- produced at the cathode to go unneutralized until contracted by air 
CO2, whereupon the CO2 is consumed and converted to (bi)carbonate in solution. 
Thus, the H2 fuel produced is strongly C negative. Placing the resulting 
long-lived (bi)carbonate in the ocean isn't a bad thing either 
(neutralizes/offsets ocean acidification).
Details:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1222358110.full.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM30u95uC0cfeature=youtu.be

Other candidates within the C negative fuels arena? Actually, the preceding H2 
could compliment the above biofuels production because the production of 
standard hydrocarbon fuels from biomass usually requires an additional source 
of H2 for fuel upgrading.  Better that that H2 be C negative rather than the 
usual very C-positive H2 from methane reforming ;-)

Other ideas?

Greg

From: Peter Flynn [peter.fl...@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Rau, Greg; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.

Greg,

Any biofuel production without carbon sequestration is carbon neutral, based on 
the assumption that the regrowth of plants offset the carbon emitted in fuel 
usage.

Any biofuel production with carbon capture and sequestration is carbon 
negative. The three examples that come to mind are flue gas capture of CO2 from 
biomass combustion, CO2 capture from oxygen gasification, and biochar.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.camailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
 On Behalf Of Rau, Greg
Sent: February-02-14 11:55 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.

Maybe i missed something, but what is carbon negative biofuel production?
Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Michael Hayes [voglerl...@gmail.commailto:voglerl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 11:33 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: oscar2000esco...@gmail.commailto:oscar2000esco...@gmail.com; 
em...@lewis-brown.netmailto:em...@lewis-brown.net
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
Oscar,



The premise of the paper is highly biased. To quote: I argue that it is their 
inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic 
character, which can be both inimitable, frightening,...




Carbon negative biofuel production is not unpredictable, uninsurable, 
potentially catastrophic, inimitable nor frightening. The same can also 
be said about MCB, direct air capture, biochar, olivine in its' many uses, flue 
capture etc.



By characterizing the entire geoengineering tool box as Frankensteinish, the 
author shows her lack of in depth understanding of the science and engineering.



Emily makes a good point in that we are constantly involved in activities which 
affect our planetary ecology. The truly frightening thing about these 
undeclared GE activities is that few have environmental or social value. GE has 
great potential for both.




Best,

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:07:32 PM UTC-8, Oscar Escobar wrote:
Dear Emily,

I am sorry you chose to focus on such narrow area of the paper, in which she 
perhaps did not elaborate appropriately. But she does so a bit more

[geo] Soil bio-geo connection to air CO2 management?

[Rau, Greg]

I haven't read the paper, but hopefully they sorted out the bio vs abio effects 
of mineral weathering under high and low CO2. How might soil biochar addition 
change this equation? Also I wouldn't expect this effect in C4 plant 
communities whose CO2 uptake is decoupled from air CO2 concentration. Paleosoil 
evidence of reduced (e.g. glacial period) weathering?
Greg

Ancient forests stabilized Earth's CO2 and climate
posted by news on january 23, 2014 - 3:31pm
http://www.sciencecodex.com/ancient_forests_stabilized_earths_co2_and_climate-126645
UK researchers have identified a biological mechanism that could explain how 
the Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate were stabilised over the 
past 24 million years. When CO2 levels became too low for plants to grow 
properly, forests appear to have kept the climate in check by slowing down the 
removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The results are now published in 
Biogeosciences, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).

As CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere fall, the Earth loses its greenhouse 
effect, which can lead to glacial conditions, explains lead-author Joe Quirk 
from the University of Sheffield. Over the last 24 million years, the geologic 
conditions were such that atmospheric CO2 could have fallen to very low levels 
- but it did not drop below a minimum concentration of about 180 to 200 parts 
per million. Why?

Before fossil fuels, natural processes kept atmospheric carbon dioxide in 
check. Volcanic eruptions, for example, release CO2, while weathering on the 
continents removes it from the atmosphere over millions of years. Weathering is 
the breakdown of minerals within rocks and soils, many of which include 
silicates. Silicate minerals weather in contact with carbonic acid (rain and 
atmospheric CO2) in a process that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 
Further, the products of these reactions are transported to the oceans in 
rivers where they ultimately form carbonate rocks like limestone that lock away 
carbon on the seafloor for millions of years, preventing it from forming carbon 
dioxide in the atmosphere.

Forests increase weathering rates because trees, and the fungi associated with 
their roots, break down rocks and minerals in the soil to get nutrients for 
growth. The Sheffield team found that when the CO2concentration was low - at 
about 200 parts per million (ppm) - trees and fungi were far less effective at 
breaking down silicate minerals, which could have reduced the rate of CO2 
removal from the atmosphere.

We recreated past environmental conditions by growing trees at low, 
present-day and high levels of CO2in controlled-environment growth chambers, 
says Quirk. We used high-resolution digital imaging techniques to map the 
surfaces of mineral grains and assess how they were broken down and weathered 
by the fungi associated with the roots of the trees.
These are digital images of trenches in a mineral made by networks of fungi. 
The circular feature in the picture on the right is a depression made by the 
formation of a terminal spore by a mycorrhizal fungus, which was linked to the 
roots of a maple tree under high CO2. Researcher Joe Quirk says: These spores 
are characteristic of the ancient type of fungus that has associated with plant 
roots since plants first emerged onto the land over 400 million years ago. This 
is why the image is so exciting #8211 it's good evidence this ancient fungus 
weathers minerals.
The width of the trenches is approximately 5 micrometers and the diameter of 
the circular spore is about 55 micrometers (one micrometer is one-thousandth of 
a millimeter).
(Photo Credit: Joe Quirk)
As reported in Biogeosciences, the researchers found that low atmospheric CO2 
acts as a 'carbon starvation' brake. When the concentration of carbon dioxide 
falls from 1500 ppm to 200 ppm, weathering rates drop by a third, diminishing 
the capacity of forests to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
The weathering rates by trees and fungi drop because low CO2 reduces plants' 
ability to perform photosynthesis, meaning less carbon-energy is supplied to 
the roots and their fungi. This, in turn, means there is less nutrient uptake 
from minerals in the soil, which slows down weathering rates over millions of 
years.
The last 24 million years saw significant mountain building in the Andes and 
Himalayas, which increased the amount of silicate rocks and minerals on the 
land that could be weathered over time. This increased weathering of silicate 
rocks in certain parts of the world is likely to have caused global CO2 levels 
to fall, Quirk explains. But the concentration of CO2 never fell below 180-200 
ppm because trees and fungi broke down minerals at low rates at those 
concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

It is important that we understand the processes that affect and regulate 
climates of the past and our study makes an important step forward in 

[geo] Rock stars rising?

[Rau, Greg]

http://www.nature.com/news/rock-s-power-to-mop-up-carbon-revisited-1.14560

Rock’s power to mop up carbon revisited
Experts push for more research into olivine weathering.

Daniel Cressey
21 January 2014

Estimates suggest that olivine could be used to sequester a significant 
proportion of carbon emissions.
Last week, a group of geoengineers met in Hamburg to discuss what on the face 
of it sounds like a very attractive idea: to soak up anthropogenic carbon 
emissions using only rocks and water. In particular, they want to help to 
mitigate climate change by crushing rocks and dropping them into the sea or 
spreading them on land. The meeting was hailed a success, but the idea is still 
far from fruition.

The ‘weathering’, or breaking down, of rocks is a hugely important but very 
slow part of the carbon cycle. Natural weathering locks up atmospheric carbon 
dioxide by means of chemical reactions between common silicate minerals and 
air. For example, when magnesium-rich olivine, a rock of particular interest to 
geoengineers, is brought together with CO2 and water under natural conditions, 
the resulting reaction forms magnesium carbonate and silicic acid, thereby 
removing and storing carbon.

But some scientists think that this natural process could be exploited to 
offset at least some of the carbon emitted by human activities. Rather than 
waiting for rocks to be slowly weathered away, olivine could be mined on an 
industrial scale, ground up, and spread over land or in the sea, speeding up 
these chemical reactions and sucking vast quantities of CO2 out of the 
atmosphere. But this presents practical problems: according to one estimate, 
you would need to spread 5 gigatonnes of olivine on beaches annually to offset 
30% of global CO2 emissions (assuming 1990 levels of emissions; S. J. T. Hangx 
 C. J. Spiers Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Contr. 3, 757–767; 2009).

At the informal meeting, about 20 enhanced-weathering experts discussed recent 
research in the area and tried to summarize and coordinate future work, for 
example by agreeing to standardize experiments. Until now, there has been no 
organized research agenda for the fledgling field, says meeting convener Jens 
Hartmann, who works on geological cycles and carbon sequestration at the 
University of Hamburg in Germany. “It was very positive; we know we are now a 
community,” he says.


Hartmann points out that humans have been exploiting rock weathering for 
decades — for example, by spreading minerals such as olivine, pyroxenes and 
serpentines as fertilizers. “The question is, can we optimize it and can we do 
it in areas we are not doing it?” he says.

As with its use as a fertilizer, olivine would have to be finely crushed to 
maximize its exposure to carbon. Olaf Schuiling, a geochemist at Utrecht 
University in the Netherlands and a passionate advocate of enhanced weathering, 
proposes spreading coarse olivine grains on beaches that experience heavy seas. 
“There the grains are tumbling around in the surf and the waves, they collide, 
they abrade each other, and produce very rapidly a lot of tiny olivine slivers 
that weather quickly,” he says.

However, there is little evidence for the practical rates of weathering that 
could be expected if large amounts of olivine or other rocks were mined and 
spread on fields or dumped into the sea. This, in turn, means it is not clear 
how much would be needed to significantly mitigate carbon emissions, how long 
it would take to work or whether it would be cost and energy efficient.

In theory, one kilogram of olivine sequesters about one kilogram of CO2, but 
the rate at which this happens can be slow. And the actual efficiency of 
sequestration will be much lower than 100%, because of the energy used — and 
emissions released — in grinding and transporting the rock. In some cases, this 
could emit more carbon than would be sequestered.

“We have good and very promising results, but there are still a lot of 
unknowns.”
Francesc Montserrat, a marine benthic ecologist at the Royal Netherlands 
Institute for Sea Research in Yerseke, is trying to pin down the figures. He is 
using small tanks to measure the weathering of olivine in various conditions — 
including the impact of worms that live in and eat the sandy sediment. 
Montserrat’s experiments will test the idea that when these worms eat tiny 
grains of olivine they also help to break down the crust that can form on 
olivine’s surface, which slows down the weathering effect.

“You need to have some hard numbers to go to the authorities to say whether it 
will be safe enough to try it out,” he says. “We have good and very promising 
results, but there are still a lot of unknowns.”

Even advocates of this method of geo­engineering admit that large-scale 
enhanced weathering is not without risk. Olivine can contain toxic heavy metals 
such as nickel that could accumulate in the environment. Grinding rocks would 
produce dust, which might harm human 

[geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered

[Rau, Greg]

This is apparently from the upcoming IPCC Mitigation volume, or something else? 
CDRer's mount up?
Greg
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.html
Sucking CO2 from atmosphere may be only way to meet climate goals, UN report 
says

Published: January 16, 2014 - 5:51AM

Advertisement

Governments may have to extract vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the air 
by 2100 to achieve a target for limiting global warming, backed by 
trillion-dollar shifts towards clean energy, a draft U.N. report showed on 
Wednesday.

A 29-page summary for policymakers, seen by Reuters, says most scenarios show 
that rising world emissions will have to plunge by 40 to 70 per cent between 
2010 and 2050 to give a good chance of restricting warming to U.N. targets.

The report, outlining solutions to climate change, is due to be published in 
Germany in April after editing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC). It will be the third in a series by the IPCC, updating science from 
2007.

It says the world is doing too little to achieve a goal agreed in 2010 of 
limiting warming to below 2 degrees above pre-industrial times, seen as a 
threshold for dangerous floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.

To get on track, governments may have to turn ever more to technologies for 
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the air, ranging from capturing and burying 
emissions from coal-fired power plants to planting more forests that use carbon 
to grow.

Most projects for capturing carbon dioxide from power plants are experimental. 
Among big projects, Saskatchewan Power in Canada is overhauling its Boundary 
Dam power plant to capture a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

And, if the world overshoots concentrations of greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere consistent with the 2C goal, most scenarios for getting back on 
track deploy CDR technologies to an extent that net global carbon dioxide 
emissions become negative before 2100, it says.

Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C since the Industrial Revolution.

Bioenergy

To limit warming, the report estimates the world would have to invest an extra 
$US147 billion ($164 billion) a year in low-carbon energies, such as wind, 
solar or nuclear power from 2010 to 2029.

At the same time, investments in fossil fuel energy would have to be reduced by 
$US30 billion annually. And several hundred billion dollars a year would have 
to go on energy efficiency in major sectors such as transport, buildings and 
industry.

By contrast, it said that global annual investments in the energy system are 
now about $US1.2 trillion.

And it says there are huge opportunities for cleaning up, for instance by 
building cities that use less energy for a rising world population. Most of 
the world's urban areas have yet to be constructed, it says.

Overall, the report estimates that the costs of combating global warming would 
reduce global consumption of goods and services by between 1 and 4 per cent in 
2030, 2-6 per cent in 2050 and 2-12 per cent in 2100, compared to no action.

The IPCC said in September that it is at least 95 per cent probable that human 
activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant cause of 
global warming since the 1950s, up from 90 per cent in a 2007 assessment.

The world has agreed to work out a global U.N. deal by the end of 2015, 
entering into force from 2020, to fight climate change. But progress has been 
sluggish.

Global greenhouse gases have risen more rapidly between 2000 and 2010, the 
draft says, with greater reliance on coal than in previous decades. China, the 
United States and the European Union are the top emitters.

The IPCC cautioned that the findings in the draft, dated Dec. 17, were subject 
to change. This is a work in progress which will be discussed and revised in 
April, said Jonathan Lynn, spokesman for the IPCC in Geneva.

The report adds many details to earlier drafts. The IPCC's credibility suffered 
in 2007 after one of its reports wrongly said that Himalayan glaciers could all 
melt by 2035, centuries earlier than experts reckon.

The draft says that only the most radical curbs outlined in an IPCC report in 
September would give a better than 66 per cent chance of keeping temperature 
rises below 2C. The scenario corresponds to greenhouse gas concentrations of 
430 to 480 parts per million in the atmosphere - up from about 400 now.

Reuters

This story was found at: 
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.html

-- 
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] Building Climate Solutions Conference

[Rau, Greg]

Good news - looks like buildings, agriculture, and natural resources are going 
to do the heavy lifting in solving AGW. Geoengineers need not apply. Greg

[Email-Banner-2]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/
[2014-Vision-2]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/51cbfca3f702fc2ba8130b34/
[2014-Registration]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/523af4fc0cf264abcd6728be/
[2014-Agenda]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/51cbfca3f702fc2ba8130b33/
[2014-Venue2014]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/523a08ef0cf264abcd587ac3/
[2014-Leadership]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/51cbfca2f702fc2ba8130aa0
[2014-Sponsorship]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/523208a70cf2ea76e5235e3a/
[2014-Exhibit]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/52320c310cf264abcccfb669
[2014-Posters]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/5238d2b30cf264abcd4024cd/
[2014-Collabs]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/523711040cf2ea76e573f557
[2014-Affiliates]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/5239e8f10cf2ea76e5aa415d

Please note the
NEW VENUE:
Hyatt Regency Crystal 
Cityhttp://crystalcity.hyatt.com/en/hotel/our-hotel/map-and-directions.html
at Washington, D.C. National Airport
Hotel reservations close January 13, 2014

HYATT VIP WELCOME CONTEST

What can make the soothing décor of a Hyatt Regency Crystal City Guestroom more 
inviting? What about a plate of Chocolate Truffles or an Artisans Meats and 
Cheese platter when you arrive? Each month a lucky conference attendee will 
randomly be selected to receive a complementary Hyatt VIP Welcome Amenity.

You must be registered for the 
conferencehttps://www.cvent.com/events/2014-building-climate-solutions-conference/registration-715b726def1245288b37276db2dc3c38.aspx
 and book at least one night stay at the host 
hotelhttps://aws.passkey.com/g/20484301 to be eligible.  One more winner will 
be announce before the conference!



Registration Rates:

Individual Attendee:
$495 - three days
$275 - single day

Full-time Student:
$345 - three days
$190 - single day

Federal Employee:
$445 - three days
$250 - single day
___
Non-profit Organization:
$395 - three days
$220 - single day

University or Community College Affiliate Member:
 Complimentary



The 14th National Conference and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the 
Environment: Building Climate Solutions will engage over 1,200 key individuals 
from many fields of sciences and engineering, government and policy, business 
and civil society to advance solutions to minimize the causes and consequences 
of anthropogenic climate change.

The conference will be organized around two areas: [1]The Built Environment; 
and [2] Agriculture and Natural Resources.  Under these two themes, 24 tracks 
connect the conference to specific initiatives led by partnering organizations 
that advance solutions. In this manner, participants will engage with and have 
lasting impact on real world responses to climate change.


We invite you to join with others, work across traditional boundaries, and 
contribute your insights and skills to addressing the most significant 
environmental challenge of our time.


[Register-Now-Button3]http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/523af4fc0cf264abcd6728be/

Don't Miss These Keynote Speakers
[James Hansen cvent photo]
James Hansen, former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 
(GISS), is Adjunct Professor and at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, 
where he directs a program in Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions. He was 
trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van 
Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the clouds of Venus 
helped identify their composition as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he 
has focused his research on Earth's climate, especially human-made climate 
change. Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to 
congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the 
global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 
1995 and was designated by Time Magazine in 2006 as one of the 100 most 
influential people on Earth. He has received numerous awards including the 
Carl-Gustaf Rossby and Roger Revelle Research Medals, the Sophie Prize and the 
Blue Planet Prize. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to power, for 
identifying ineffectual policies as greenwash, and for outlining actions that 
the public must take to protect the future of young people and other life on 
our planet.

Hansen will receive the John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture Wednesday, January 29th 
at 6:15 p.m.


 [Gummer - cvent]


Rt. Hon. John Gummer, Lord Deben,Chairman of the UK Government’s Committee on 
Climate Change, served for sixteen years as a British minister in the 
governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, as 

RE: [geo] Implications of Current Developments in International Liability for the Practice of Marine Geo-engineering Activities

[Rau, Greg]

From below - One of the key purposes of the liability regime could be to make 
ocean users more cautious when exploring and exploiting the oceans through 
charging cleaning costs or imposing compensation for damage. This paper aims 
to identify such a preventative effect of the international liability regime, 
in particular, state liability.

Then I'm really looking forward to those liability claims for ocean cleaning 
costs and damage compensation aimed at current, evil ocean users (i.e. us) 
who are dumping of CO2 into the ocean via the atmosphere. Focussing legal 
actions here would likely have a more beneficial effect on the ocean than the 
current flurry of legal activity to aimed at those of us interested in 
researching potentially useful marine conservation measures*.  Such 
unconventional conservation approaches now must be contemplated because of the 
catastrophic failure of the legal/policy community to pass and enforce laws 
aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. So I guess it's asking too much to expect a 
legal defense of alternative approaches to saving the ocean and the planet.

* e.g., http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1555.html

Greg


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 2:01 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Implications of Current Developments in International Liability 
for the Practice of Marine Geo-engineering Activities


http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=onlineaid=9083401

Asian Journal of International Law 2013
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S2044251313000283
Published online: 29 November 2013

Implications of Current Developments in International Liability for the 
Practice of Marine Geo-engineering Activities

Jung-Eun KIM

Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Republic of Korea
ocean...@kiost.acmailto:ocean...@kiost.ac

Abstract

Ocean fertilization was first introduced as a carbon dioxide mitigation 
technique in the 1980s. However, its effectiveness to slow down climate change 
is uncertain and it is expected to damage the marine environment. Consequently, 
international law, including the London Convention/Protocol and the Convention 
on Biological Diversity, limits this activity to scientific research purposes. 
The applicability and scope of existing treaties for regulating this activity 
have been reviewed within international legal systems, in particular within the 
London Protocol. The establishment of a liability regime with respect to these 
activities has also been raised during a discussion on regulation of ocean 
fertilization under the London Protocol. One of the key purposes of the 
liability regime could be to make ocean users more cautious when exploring and 
exploiting the oceans through charging cleaning costs or imposing compensation 
for damage. This paper aims to identify such a preventative effect of the 
international liability regime, in particular, state liability.

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

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

[geo] CRS on GE

[Rau, Greg]

Apologies if this link has already been discussed:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf

Greg

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

Re: [geo] CBD Secretariat Invites Parties¹ Submissions on Geo-Engineering-Related Measures - Climate Change Policy Practice

[Rau, Greg]

Agree.  What are the consequences/risks to biodiversity of not
evaluating/considering GE in the face of rising CO2?
Greg

On 11/20/13 9:01 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:

Hi All

Should they also ask for a list of inactivities such as NOT doing a form
geoengineering which could have helped biodiversity.   I am thinking
things such as not reducing sea surface temperatures to the east of the
Philippines.

Stephen

-
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

On 20/11/2013 16:44, Andrew Lockley wrote:

 
http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/cbd-secretariat-invites-parties-submission
s-on-geo-engineering-related-measures/

 CBD Secretariat Invites Parties¹ Submissions on
 Geo-Engineering-Related Measures

 12 November 2013: The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
 Diversity (CBD) has invited parties to submit information on any
 measures they have undertaken to ensure that no climate-related
 geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place,
 and to address the exception for small-scale scientific research
 studies contained in CBD Decision X/33, subparagraph 8(w) on
 geo-engineering.

 Information on measures to ensure that no climate-related
 geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place
 until there is an adequate scientific basis to justify such activities
 and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the
 environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and
 cultural impacts, as well as on measures that address the exception
 for small-scale scientific research studies, is to be submitted by 15
 February 2014.

 The notification provides additional information related to agreed
 language on geo-engineering in the contribution of Working Group I to
 the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
 Change, as well as an amendment to the London Protocol of the London
 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
 and Other Matter, agreed on 18 October 2013.

 The amendment is structured to allow other marine geo-engineering
 activities to be considered and listed in a new annex in the future,
 if they fall within the scope of the London Protocol and have the
 potential to harm the marine environment. It will enter into force 60
 days after two-thirds of the Parties to the London Protocol accept it.

 
http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/cbd-secretariat-invites-parties-submission
s-on-geo-engineering-related-measures/

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


-

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

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

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

RE: [geo] Offtopic: For instant climate change, just add one large comet

[Rau, Greg]

It's also interesting to note that the CO2 excursion was too big to have come 
from oxidation of organic matter:
A best fit of the relationship between the total CIE magnitude and paleo-water 
depth at each site (Fig. 4Bhttp://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#F4) 
predicts an atmospheric excursion of −20‰ (R2 = 0.91; SI 
Texthttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1309188110/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201309188SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=STXT).
 Assuming a pre-CIE atmospheric reservoir of 2,000 GtC (with a δ13C of −6‰) 
(70http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#ref-70) and an instantaneous 
release, a mass balance calculation gives an estimate of the amount of carbon 
necessary to produce the ∼20‰ atmospheric excursion. No realistic amount of 
organic carbon (approximately −26‰) can produce a −20‰ atmospheric change 
(100,000 GtC is needed). Thermogenic (−40‰) and biogenic methane (−60‰) 
sources would require 2,900 and 1,200 GtC, respectively, to produce the −20‰ 
atmospheric excursion. Given the rapidity of the onset, magnitude of the δ13C 
excursion, and that the observed calcite compensation depth shoaling in deep 
ocean requires ∼3,000 GtC 
(3http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#ref-3), two mechanisms meet 
these criteria: large igneous province-produced thermogenic methane 
(6http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#ref-6, 
7http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#ref-7) and cometary carbon 
(11http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#ref-11, 
12http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#ref-12). The latter is 
consistent with the recent discovery of a substantial accumulation of 
nonbiogenic magnetic nanoparticles in the Marlboro clay, whose origin is best 
ascribed to impact condensate 
(71http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.full#ref-71). 

This is quite different from our current fossil organic carbon oxidation event, 
but nevertheless very interesting and instructive.

One concern I have is diffusion of the acidity down into pre-event sediments 
and thus anomalous depression of the %CaCO3 and possibly d13C from that in the 
original pre-event deposits.  This would tend smear the records and move the 
anomally back in time, but I'd be surprised if this hasn't been accounted for 
(or discounted) by someone.

Another thought is the effect of increased surface ocean temperature on 
carbonate saturation state (increased) and hence survival of calcifiers, 
assuming they are heat tolerant. Relatedly, could the %CaCO3 be used to 
reconstruct surface ocean pH given the (sometimes) tight relation between 
calcification rate and pH and assuming sedimentary %CaCO3 is a function of 
surface ocean production (and not (also) dissolution/preservation effects)? 
Food for thought.

Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 9:23 PM
To: Andrew Lockley
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Offtopic: For instant climate change, just add one large 
comet

if this paper is right it is good news for biodiversity.

If 3000 PgC (= 3000 GtC) were released effectively instantaneously and almost 
nothing went extinct except for some benthic formamifera, and coral reefs etc 
sailed through unscathed, it suggests that 3000 GtC released over a couple of 
centuries should not be so big a deal for most biota.

It is not clear to me that a single pulse release is consistent with the 
isotopic data however.  If you look at Fig 4 from McInerney and Wing 2011 
(attached), you can see that the isotope excursion remained more-or-less 
constant for more than 100,000 years.  I know of no plausible way in which a 
single pulse release can produce such an isotope curve.

Even if the onset of the PETM was sudden as suggested by this paper, there was 
likely additional release later.

In any case, if this paper is right, then most of the biosphere is much more 
resilient than many believe it to be. For example, most of our work would 
indicate that coral reefs would be in big trouble with a 3000 PgC CO2 release, 
but coral reefs sailed across the PETM relatively unscathed (there was loss in 
the Tethys but not so much globally).





___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira



On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Lockley 
andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
Poster's note - I've agonised for days about posting this, but it's
such an important concept in understanding the global climate system
that I think it's well worth a read.  The paper is at
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908  but the abstract doesn't say
as much as the NewScientist article below. I can't see 

RE: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks

[Rau, Greg]

From below,
According to Dixon, although emissions reductions should be the priority for 
tackling climate change, the hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate is 
another technology that needs proper consideration. Geoengineering will face 
even more challenges than CCS in getting through negotiations, he tells 
SciDev.Net. And so the scientific advice on those issues will become even more 
essential.

GR - I think the key message here is that CDRers need to distance themselves 
from geoengineering and risks associated with SRM. Certainly emissions 
reduction should be a priority, but so should enhanced air capture since 
natural air capture is doing way more to limit air CO2 conc than human actions 
including CCS can (so far) dream of. I really don't understand why RD on this 
should be such a tough sell, but continuing to lump CDR in with SRM isn't 
helping.  Happy to provide  scientific advice on those issues if it is so 
essential, so where do we send our cards and letters? Or is IEAGHG (with its 
emissions reduction agenda)  the UNFCC's information gatekeeper, as the 
abstracts imply.





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:43 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks


Poster's note : abstract below, media coverage bottom. Geoengineering 
information deficit discussed, but not in abstract.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213009466

Energy Procedures Volume 37, 2013, Pages 7590–7595GHGT-11Open Access

Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: Carbon 
Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UNFCCC

Tim Dixona, , , Dr Katherine Romanakb, Samantha Neadesa, Dr Andy Chadwickca

Abstract

This paper describes how providing scientific information to negotiators 
assisted in achieving inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in 
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean 
Development Mechanism (CDM) during 2011. We provide specific examples of how 
scientific information from IEAGHG Research Networks in the areas of 
monitoring, modelling, environmental impacts and groundwater protection were 
used to address the issues of concern listed in the Cancun Decision (2010). 
Technical input was provided by members of IEAGHG Research Networks via the 
UNFCCC's technical workshop on Modalities and Procedures for CCS under the CDM, 
such that the negotiations in Durban (2011) were better informed by an 
understanding of the most recent technical information. The outcome was the 
agreement of CCS-specific modalities and procedures for including CCS in the 
CDM.

Keywords

Regulation; Emissions Trading; International Policy; Clean Development 
Mechanism; Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; CCS


http://m.scidev.net/global/environment/news/scientific-advice-improved-outcome-of-un-climate-talks.html

Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks

Joel Winston

04/09/13

Some negotiators have no technical background and are underprepared

Expert advice on carbon capture and storage aided debates between UN talks at 
Cancun and Durban

But it is hard to conclusively link the improved debate to the input of experts

UN climate change policy negotiators need more access to expert advice on new 
technologies such as carbon storage and geoengineering, according to an expert 
whose study found that providing scientific information to negotiators before 
debates resulted in more productive discussions. The paper, published in Energy 
Procedia last month (5 August), says that the annual Conferences of the Parties 
(COPs) held in relation to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 
(UNFCCC) have limited and imperfect routes for providing scientific information 
to negotiators. Some negotiators have no technical background. Many work from 
their country's briefs and don't get a chance to get organised beforehand, 
says Tim Dixon, one of the paper's authors and manager of carbon capture and 
storage (CCS) and regulation at the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas 
RD Programme (IEAGHG), an international research initiative that evaluates 
technologies that can cut emissions from fossil fuel use.And for many 
developing countries, there are so many issues in these meetings, they struggle 
to keep up with everything they might want to comment on. Negotiations can 
therefore involve a fairly low level of technical knowledge and lead to 
misunderstandings, he tells SciDev.Net. The paper discusses improving the 
dissemination of scientific advice to negotiators in the context of CCS, the 
underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power stations. 
Developing nations that are currently considering CCS projects to minimise 
their greenhouse gas emissions include Botswana, Brazil, China, Indonesia, 

[geo] CO2 effects on plankton

[Rau, Greg]

In situ studies predict major changes to plankton community structure and C 
cycling/storage as CO2 increases. As an aside, interesting to ponder the 
politics/ethics of adding CO2 versus iron to ocean experiments at this scale.
-Greg

http://www.egu.eu/news/76/tiny-plankton-could-have-big-impact-on-climate/

As the climate changes and oceans’ acidity increases, tiny plankton seem set 
to succeed. An international team of marine scientists has found that the 
smallest plankton groups thrive under elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. 
This could cause an imbalance in the food web as well as decrease ocean CO2 
uptake, an important regulator of global climate. The results of the study, 
conducted off the coast of Svalbard, Norway, in 2010, are now compiled in a 
special issue published in Biogeoscienceshttp://www.biogeosciences.net/, a 
journal of the European Geosciences Union.

“Time and [time] again the tiniest plankton benefits from the surplus CO2, they 
produce more biomass and more organic carbon, and dimethyl sulphide production 
and carbon export are decreasing,”

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

RE: [geo] *Seeing* carbon-capture minerals using electron microscopy

[Rau, Greg]

To quote the image caption:
Capturing and storing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases deep 
underground is one of the most promising options for reducing the effects of 
energy production on the earth. Scientists at PNNL are using electron 
microscopes to understand the reaction of CO2 and minerals found underground. 
This picture, taken with an electron microscope, shows the aftermath of 
fayalite reacting with gaseous CO2 to form siderite, thereby capturing the CO2 
in a solid, stable form. Research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.

If capturing and storing CO2 underground via reaction with minerals is such a 
great idea, why not do this spontaneously, above ground in the smoke stack* and 
thus completely avoid the very costly and risky formation and transport of conc 
CO2, the ongoing showstoppers of CCS?

Anyway, my favorite image of stored carbon is an unburned and hopefully 
un-mined lump of coal.
Greg

*http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102671x






From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Dr D [durb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:53 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] *Seeing* carbon-capture minerals using electron microscopy

I thought listers who are interested in carbon capture might appreciate this 
micrograph of trapped CO2. Might be useful for your slides...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pnnl/8146324880/in/photostream/

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

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

RE: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction

[Rau, Greg]

And just to add some perspective, EIA now estimates that CO2 emission in 2040 
will be 45 GT CO2/yr relative to 31 GT/yr in 2010*.  So assumming a mean 
emissions rate during that period of 38 GT/yr and multiplying by 30 years 
yields a cummulative emissions of 1100 GT CO2. The Davis/Caldeira scheme (no 
new ff infrastucture) would yield only about 500 GT CO2 2010-2060. This 
amount (in only 50 years) would still be about 1/4 of total emissions 
1750-present (2000 GT CO2)**, while the preceding EIA BAU estimate for total 
emissions over just the next 30 years will be more than 50% of total emissions 
that have occurred over the past 260 years. So barring draconian CO2 emissions 
reduction of the Davis/Caldeira type, the planet is screwed unless alternatives 
to CO2 emissions reduction are shown safe, cost-effective, and are deployed; 
SRM, CDR, and/or whatever.
I'm just say'n...
Greg
* 
http://www.ciol.com/ciol/news/192448/world-energy-consumption-grow-56-percent-2010-2040?goback=%2Egde_2792503_member_261675789

** http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch6_Carbonbio_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch06_All_Final.pdf


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 7:43 AM
To: Bill Fulkerson
Cc: Andrew Lockley; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction

That's right 

Most of the climate risk comes from devices yet to be built (see attached 
paper).

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5997/1330.full
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Davis_Caldeira2.html


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Fulkerson, William 
wf...@utk.edumailto:wf...@utk.edu wrote:
Dear Ken:
I love your scheme.
1. Don't shut off current GHG emitters faster than they are being curtailed.

2. Don't allow more GHG emitting devices to be built.

3 Use Geo as a last resort, as a sort of hand on the brake

In theory, very sensible.

Do I have it right?

I must think about it, and ask some questions.
The best,
Bill

From: Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.commailto:kcalde...@gmail.com 
kcalde...@gmail.commailto:kcalde...@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:51 PM
To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: Google Group 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction

Note that I did not require decarbonization of the economy as a pre-requisite 
for deployment as my proposal allows existing CO2-emitting devices to continue 
being used.  I merely required that we stop building new CO2-emitting devices.

My point is that if climate change is enough of an emergency to require rapid 
deployment of solar geoengineering then it is also enough of an emergency to 
stop building devices that will exacerbate that emergency.

If we are doing solar geoengineering at the same time as we are building new 
fossil-fueled power plants that use the atmosphere as a waste dump, how do you 
assure that the solar geoengineering system does not facilitate continued 
production of those devices?


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Lockley 
andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:

Ken

We need to control temperatures far more quickly than we can hope to 
decarbonise the economy.

Are you seriously trying to argue that every car factory in the world needs to 
close before we can do any SRM at all? That seems entirely implausible.

Perhaps more sensible to suggest that emissions growth be capped (possibly at 
zero) before geoengineering starts.

As I see it  the 'buy time' argument for SRM is a strong one. We need to stop 
temperatures increasing *whilst * we decarbonise.

A

On Sep 11, 2013 5:36 PM, Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote:
We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is used 
to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions.

Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be built 
after a solar geoengineering system is deployed.

Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new 
CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system 

[geo] Russian meteor created new dust layer: Heavenly SRM experiment?

[Rau, Greg]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/19/russian-meteor-explosion-atmosphere/

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

[geo] Extreme weather causes ocean acidification

[Rau, Greg]

A climate/OA/SRM link?

Greg

Tropical cyclones cause CaCO3 undersaturation of coral reef seawater in a 
high-CO2 
worldhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wordpress/lRgb/~3/G8ZcIxq3gts/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email

Posted: 09 Sep 2013 12:56 AM PDT

Ocean acidification is the global decline in seawater pH and calcium carbonate 
(CaCO3) saturation state (Ω) due to the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the 
world’s oceans. Acidification impairs CaCO3 shell and skeleton construction by 
marine organisms. Coral reefs are particularly vulnerable, as they are 
constructed by the CaCO3 skeletons of corals and other calcifiers. We 
understand relatively little about how coral reefs will respond to ocean 
acidification in combination with other disturbances, such as tropical 
cyclones. Seawater carbonate chemistry data collected from two reefs in the 
Florida Keys before, during, and after Tropical Storm Isaac provide the most 
thorough data to-date on how tropical cyclones affect the seawater CO2-system 
of coral reefs. Tropical Storm Isaac caused both an immediate and prolonged 
decline in seawater pH. Aragonite saturation state was depressed by 1.0 for a 
full week after the storm impact. Based on current ‘business-as-usual’ CO2 
emissions scenarios, we show that tropical cyclones with high rainfall and 
runoff can cause periods of undersaturation (Ω  1.0) for high-Mg calcite and 
aragonite mineral phases at acidification levels before the end of this 
century. Week-long periods of undersaturation occur for 18 mol% high-Mg calcite 
after storms by the end of the century. In a high-CO2 world, CaCO3 
undersaturation of coral reef seawater will occur as a result of even modest 
tropical cyclones. The expected increase in the strength, frequency, and 
rainfall of the most severe tropical cyclones with climate change in 
combination with ocean acidification will negatively impact the structural 
persistence of coral reefs over this century.

Manzello D., Enochs I., Musielewicz S., Carlton R.  Gledhill D., in press. 
Tropical cyclones cause CaCO3 undersaturation of coral reef seawater in a 
high-CO2 world. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.

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

[geo] Re: Climate Colab, Two of our proposals win in this round of competition ..

[Rau, Greg]

I agree with Ken in that it is unfortunate that more proposals can't be 
promoted/supported.  There were lots of other good ideas in this competition 
(and not entered – SRM?) that deserve RD attention, and ultimately we may need 
all of them to avert global meltdown and acidification. In the meantime we will 
do our best to represent CDR in this competition, and hope that it might 
generate greater CDR interest and funding from those who should be encouraging 
(rather than ignoring) such research (US DOE and NSF to name two). Thanks to 
those who voted for us and supported us thus far, and further input on how to 
proceed from here is invited.
Regards,
Greg

From: Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
Date: Friday, September 6, 2013 7:50 AM
To: geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: Default r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov
Subject: Climate Colab, Two of our proposals win in this round of competition ..

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174

I hadn't been lobbying heavily for this proposal largely because I deemed the 
process stupid an the judges likely to be biased, but now that the process and 
judges have selected two of our proposals, one in the Energy Power Sector and 
one in the Geoengineering category, I am ready to say that this process looks 
to me to be both thoughtful and fair.

Congratulations to Greg Rau for taking on the good fight.

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1304119


The full set of winners of this round, competing for the Grand Prize can be 
found here:

http://climatecolab.org/community/-/blogs/2012-2013-climate-colab-contest-winners?_33_

I note that there was no judges choice under the category of 
geoengineering, which seems to be limited to CDR-type techniques:
http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Comments+by+Expert+Reviewers+on+the+Geoengineering+Proposals


http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174


Proposal for Electric power sector 
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10 by The Planet 
Doctors
Spontaneous Conversion of Power Plant CO2 to Dissolved Calcium Bicarbonate


Pitch

As in SO2 mitigation, spontaneously remove CO2 from power plant flue gas using 
wet limestone scrubbing.

Description
Summary

Carbonate mineral weathering is a major absorber of excess CO2 at planetary 
scales: CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2aq. However, relying on this very slow 
natural process to consume excess CO2 would in the interim commit us to many 
millennia of climate impacts and ocean acidity (1).  It is therefore relevant 
to find ways of cost-effectively accelerating this proven, natural 
(geo)chemistry in order to more quickly mitigate of our CO2 emissions, while 
also trying to rapidly transition to non-fossil energy sources.

Modeling and lab studies have shown that contacting CO2-enriched gas with water 
and limestone is an effective way of spontaneously capturing and storing CO2 as 
dissolved calcium bicarbonate (2-7). This is termed Accelerated Weathering of 
Limestone – AWL. In laboratory tests, up to 97% of the CO2 in a dilute gas 
stream was removed using this method (11). Seawater would appear the best 
option for such systems, although other non-potable water sources (wastewater, 
saline ground water) could also be relevant at inland sites.

An AWL total cost of $30/tonne CO2 avoided has been estimated, with $20/tonne 
being more likely at coastal power plants that already pump massive quantities 
of seawater for condenser cooling. The preceding mitigation cost ranges are a 
fraction of that reported for more conventional capture and underground storage 
of concentrated CO2 (CCS) when retrofitted to existing power plants (8).

CO2 mitigation is not the only potential benefit of AWL. As in natural 
carbonate weathering, the dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 added to the ocean by the process 
will help to chemically offset the effects of CO2-induced ocean acidification 
(9-11).

Despite its potential, AWL is lacking a demonstration at a scale that would 
prove its cost effectiveness, safety, and net environmental and societal 
benefit.  It is proposed that these issues be evaluated and tested at a 
relevant scale by a team of scientists, engineers, and environmental, 
economics, legal, and social experts.


[http://climatecolab.org/image/user_male_portrait?screenName=gregraucompanyId=10112portraitId=0]
 gregrauhttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1008921
Owner
[http://climatecolab.org/image/user_male_portrait?screenName=kencaldeiracompanyId=10112portraitId=0]
 kencaldeirahttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1237662  
  Member
[http://climatecolab.org/image/user_male_portrait?screenName=philrenforthcompanyId=10112portraitId=0]
 

[geo] Acidifying oceans will heat the planet: Who knew?

[Rau, Greg]

On the other hand acidification = less marine calcification = less CO2 flux to 
air from calcification. - Greg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24098-acidifying-oceans-will-heat-the-planet-more.html


Acidifying oceans will heat the planet more

18:00 25 August 2013 by Michael Marshall
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

Acidifying oceans could be bad news (Image: ESA)
WHAT goes around comes around. Our greenhouse gas emissions don't just warm the 
planet, they also acidify the oceans. Now it turns out that the change in ocean 
chemistry they cause will feed back into the climate, further driving up 
temperatures.

Ocean acidification poses a threat to many marine organisms such as corals – 
the shells of some marine snails are already dissolving. Until now it seemed 
like this was strictly a problem for marine organisms and the people who depend 
on them: 'climate scientists consider the carbon dioxide that is absorbed by 
the ocean to be stored and unable to affect the climate.

But research now suggests that the acidification it causes will rebound on the 
entire planet, by acting on tiny marine plants called phytoplankton. These 
produce a chemical called dimethyl sulphide (DMS) that drifts up into the air 
and reflects sunlight back into space, cooling the planet. DMS also makes 
clouds brighter, with the same effect.

Katharina Six of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, 
and her team gathered experimental data showing that phytoplankton produce less 
DMS as seawater becomes less alkaline. After feeding these figures into climate 
models, they estimate that 18 per cent less DMS will be released from the 
oceans in 2100, compared with preindustrial times.

If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles – which is likely to 
happen later this century – temperatures are expected to rise between 2 and 4.5 
°C. Ocean acidification will add between 0.23 and 0.48 °C to that figure, Six 
estimates. We were surprised that the effect was so large, she says. It 
certainly speeds up the warming.

The finding adds to a roster of unexpected positive feedback effects that could 
amplify global warming.

These effects could make a big difference, says Paul Pearson of Cardiff 
University in the UK. But he adds that Six's estimate of temperature change is 
based on processes that are poorly understood, like cloud physics. These sorts 
of changes are possible, but very difficult to predict with certainty.

Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1981

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

[geo] Still More CDR: Nutty idea?

[Rau, Greg]

All the other techniques we know about just prevent emission, nothing else, 
said lead author Klaus Becker of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, 
Germany. Only plants are able to extract carbon dioxide from the air.

Spoken like a true biologist. The problem with plants (unlike geochemical CO2 
uptake) is they usually don't store carbon long term. Solve that little problem 
(CROPS, biochar, etc.) plus nutrient, water, albedo, and land use issues  and 
maybe you've got something?  - Greg



CARBON CAPTURE:
Study proposes large 'carbon farms' to reverse rising temperatures

Elizabeth Harball, EE reporter

Published: Friday, August 23, 2013

A recent study by German researchers presents the possibility of carbon 
farming as a less risky alternative to other carbon capture and storage 
technologies. It suggests that a significant percentage of atmospheric CO2 
could potentially be removed by planting millions of acres of a hardy little 
shrub known as Jatropha curcas, or the Barbados nut, in dry, coastal areas.

But other experts raised doubts about the study's ambitious projections, 
questioning whether the Barbados nut would be able to grow well in sandy desert 
soils and absorb the quantity of carbon their models predict.

The researchers behind the study say Barbados nut plantations could help to 
mitigate the local effects of global warming in desert areas, causing a 
decrease in average temperature and an increase in precipitation. If a large 
enough portion of the Earth were blanketed with carbon farms, they say, these 
local effects could become global, capturing between 17 and 25 metric tons of 
CO2 per hectare each year over a 20-year period.

All the other techniques we know about just prevent emission, nothing else, 
said lead author Klaus Becker of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, 
Germany. Only plants are able to extract carbon dioxide from the air.

The studyhttp://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/237/2013/esd-4-237-2013.pdf, 
published in the journal Earth System Dynamics, states that if 730 million 
hectares of land -- an area about three-quarters the size of the United States 
-- were devoted to this method of carbon farming, the current trend of rising 
atmospheric CO2 levels could be halted.

Carbon farms would not compete with food production if they were concentrated 
in dry coastal areas, the researchers said. In their scenario, oceanside 
desalination plants, partially powered by biomass harvested from the 
plantations themselves, provide a low-emissions irrigation method.

Could huge plantations change weather patterns?

The study states that the Barbados nut is uniquely suited to growing in regions 
inhospitable to other crops. The plant, which produces a nonedible seed that 
can be used to create biodiesel, is comfortable growing at temperatures 
exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It can also withstand high levels of 
contamination in the soil, making wastewater another potential source for 
irrigation.

Additionally, the plant grows rapidly and develops pretty large roots below 
the soil, which is important for carbon binding, said co-author Volker 
Wulfmeyer, also of the University of Hohenheim. As part of their research, 
Wulfmeyer and Becker traveled to a Barbados nut plantation in Luxor, Egypt, to 
collect physical samples from the plants to estimate their carbon-storing 
potential.

There are about 1 billion hectares of desert land in coastal areas that could 
be used for Barbados nut plantations, the researchers estimate, located in 
countries such as Mexico, Namibia, Saudi Arabia and Oman. If the entirety of 
this land were used for carbon farming, the study found, atmospheric carbon 
dioxide could be reduced by 17.5 parts per million over two decades, or 16.6 
percent of the CO2 increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

But less ambitious projects may also have an impact. Using models, the 
researchers projected that 100-square-kilometer plantations in Oman and 
Mexico's Sonoran Desert could cause temperatures to fall by more than 1 degree 
Celsius. The model also saw a precipitation increase of 11 millimeters per year 
in Oman and 30 millimeters per year in the Sonoran.

Paradoxically, this is because plantations are darker than the surrounding 
desert, explained Wulfmeyer, retaining more heat during the daytime. As a 
result, a low-pressure system develops over the carbon farm, causing changes in 
wind patterns that allow clouds to develop and precipitation to increase.

Mitigating global warming on a more local scale should be a big incentive for 
countries to back large plantations, Wulfmeyer said: The technology is there 
to do this, but it needs some enthusiasm and some idealism and some more 
knowledge in the countries before it can be realized.

Barbados nut a disappointment in the past

The cost of carbon farming is comparable to the costs associated with other 
carbon capture and storage technologies, the study asserts.

The researchers 

[geo] DAC vs CRD?

[Rau, Greg]

Article below. The usual suspects and viewpoints, e.g. :

Pulling vexing carbon emissions straight from the sky might become an 
important way to keep climate change in check. As pilot projects move forward, 
the prospect of capturing carbon dioxide from the air is growing increasingly 
plausible, though it may be some time before the technology, the demand and the 
costs align to make a dent in global emissions.

To review, pulling those pesky carbon emissions straight from the sky already 
annually consumes 55% of our emissions for free, and the absolute quantity of 
this DAC is (lucky for us) increasing:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/08/07/science.1239207.full
If one is interested in further denting global emissions, perhaps the first 
thing to do is to figure out how to additionally 
accelerate/enhance/modify/engineer these existing, highly successful systems, 
rather than ignoring nature and designing a new air capture process from the 
ground up.

for carbon capture systems [DAC], the main energy sink isn't so much in 
collecting CO2 in the first place, but in regenerating the absorber and making 
a pure stream of the gas.

Exactly. This is why nature's existing, very successful CRD assiduously avoids 
this step and why our attempts at further denting air CO2 should also. On the 
other hand if CO2 EOR is your end game, then you are obviously stuck with 
making conc CO2 while also increasing atmospheric CO2: typically in EOR CO2 
in oil CO2 out. How such schemes get mentioned in the context of saving the 
planet is something I find breathtaking.

Speaking of actually saving the planet, if you haven't already done so, there's 
still time to vote for The Planet Physician's air capture (and so much more) 
concept here:

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1303630

and/or vote for this point source CO2 mitigation idea:

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304003

Your humble messenger,
Greg


CARBON CAPTURE:
Air capture needed as a tool to fight climate change, scientists say

Umair Irfan, EE reporter

Published: Friday, August 23, 2013

Pulling vexing carbon emissions straight from the sky might become an important 
way to keep climate change in check. As pilot projects move forward, the 
prospect of capturing carbon dioxide from the air is growing increasingly 
plausible, though it may be some time before the technology, the demand and the 
costs align to make a dent in global emissions.

Earlier this year, instruments showed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 
rising above 400 parts per million for the first time in 800,000 years 
(ClimateWirehttp://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1059979974/, April 24).

Energy consumption, and consequently carbon emissions, is poised to grow 
further even as cars, homes and aircraft become more efficient. Fossil fuels 
will continue to be the major energy source in the coming century as countries 
like China harness this energy to drive economic development.

As a result, some researchers argue that direct air capture is a necessary, 
though not sufficient, component of any climate change mitigation strategy.

Our view is that air capture is a pathway that could be quite important, said 
David Keith, president of Carbon Engineering, a firm developing industrial air 
capture systems. He explained that controlling emissions at the source makes 
sense for large facilities like power plants and factories but scrubbing carbon 
dioxide from tailpipes or jet exhaust is too expensive.

The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions 
in the United States, according to U.S. EPA, so there is still a critical need 
for a way to reduce the overall carbon dioxide produced from mobile sources.

Trapping CO2 in a liquid

Carbon Engineering is addressing this with a box fan-like air contactor that 
uses a liquid to sop up carbon dioxide from the air. The liquid, now enriched, 
circulates to a regeneration facility where it releases the carbon in a pure 
stream under high temperature.

This pure carbon stream is very useful, Keith observed. Carbon dioxide is a raw 
material for certain industrial processes, drillers use it to squeeze out more 
oil and gas from depleted wells and it serves as a building block for liquid 
fuels.

We are trying to reduce the risk by using technologies that are proven, he 
said. The company is designing a large pilot plant that will capture 1 kiloton 
of carbon dioxide annually, due to come online next year in Alberta.

Putting carbon dioxide to work is an important step toward making direct 
capture economically feasible as well as environmentally sustainable. Unlike a 
stream from a carbon capture system attached to a coal-fired generator, an air 
capture system recirculates carbon that is already in the atmosphere.

Using this carbon instead of the stuff from the ground to make gasoline or jet 
fuel means it offsets humanity's 

[geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation?

[Rau, Greg]

Sorry if this is old news, but in cleaning out my in box I came across this 
interesting 2012 paper – anaerobic methane oxidation also consumes CO2.  So 
with a bit of biogeoengineering we can pro-actively mitigate CH4 and CO2 
simultaneously, +/- take the lipid-rich biomass to produce biofuels, 
supplanting fossil sources???
Greg



Autotrophy as a predominant mode of carbon fixation in anaerobic 
methane-oxidizing microbial communities

  1.  Matthias Y. 
Kellermannhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Matthias+Y.+Kellermannsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3,2http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-4,3http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#corresp-1,
  2.  Gunter 
Wegenerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Gunter+Wegenersortspec=datesubmit=Submitbhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-2,chttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3,
  3.  Marcus 
Elverthttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcus+Elvertsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  4.  Marcos Yukio 
Yoshinagahttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcos+Yukio+Yoshinagasortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  5.  Yu-Shih 
Linhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Yu-Shih+Linsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  6.  Thomas 
Hollerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Thomas+Hollersortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,
  7.  Xavier Prieto 
Mollarhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Xavier+Prieto+Mollarsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  8.  Katrin 
Knittelhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Katrin+Knittelsortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,
 and
  9.  Kai-Uwe 
Hinrichshttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Kai-Uwe+Hinrichssortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1

+http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full Author Affiliations

1. aOrganic Geochemistry Group, MARUM-Center for Marine Environmental 
Sciences and Department of Geosciences, University of Bremen, D-28359 Bremen, 
Germany;
2. bAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research Group 
for Deep Sea Ecology and Technology, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany; and
3. cMax Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, D-28359 Bremen, Germany

1. Edited by Donald E. Canfield, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, 
Denmark, and approved October 5, 2012 (received for review May 24, 2012)

Next Sectionhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#sec-1
Abstract

The methane-rich, hydrothermally heated sediments of the Guaymas Basin are 
inhabited by thermophilic microorganisms, including anaerobic methane-oxidizing 
archaea (mainly ANME-1) and sulfate-reducing bacteria (e.g., HotSeep-1 
cluster). We studied the microbial carbon flow in ANME-1/ HotSeep-1 enrichments 
in stable-isotope–probing experiments with and without methane. The relative 
incorporation of 13C from either dissolved inorganic carbon or methane into 
lipids revealed that methane-oxidizing archaea assimilated primarily inorganic 
carbon. This assimilation is strongly accelerated in the presence of methane. 
Experiments with simultaneous amendments of both 13C-labeled dissolved 
inorganic carbon and deuterated water provided further insights into production 
rates of individual lipids derived from members of the methane-oxidizing 
community as well as their carbon sources used for lipid biosynthesis. In the 
presence of methane, all prominent lipids carried a dual isotopic signal 
indicative of their origin from primarily autotrophic microbes. In the absence 
of methane, archaeal lipid production ceased and bacterial lipid production 
dropped by 90%; the lipids produced by the residual fraction of the 
metabolically active bacterial community predominantly carried a heterotrophic 
signal. Collectively our results strongly suggest that the studied ANME-1 
archaea oxidize methane but assimilate inorganic carbon and should thus be 
classified as methane-oxidizing chemoorganoautotrophs.


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

Re: [geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation?

[Rau, Greg]

Yes, completely supplanting fossil fuel is indeed a pipe dream, but someday 
will be a necessity if we survive that long. Still, in reading the fine print 
in this paper the ratio of CO2 consumed to lipid produced is generally 0.6, a 
figure I find remarkably high. The incubations were conducted at 37 deg C so 
that precludes the use of ambient T in most places without genetic engineering, 
esp in mitigating Arctic methane.  They also found that the use of methane to 
make lipid was dissimilative, meaning that the carbon is not assimilated and 
does not become part of the biomass.  The use of the term methanotrophy to 
describe methane consumption therefore now needs to be used with great caution 
unless further evidence is provided. This is an example of methane oxidation 
providing energy for autotrophic CO2 fixation – a form of chemoautotrophy
Greg

From: euggor...@comcast.netmailto:euggor...@comcast.net 
euggor...@comcast.netmailto:euggor...@comcast.net
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:42 AM
To: Default r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: [geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation?

Supplanting fossil sources is a pipe dream at least in the US. Getting rid of 
CO2 and CH4 would be an interesting experiment. If it actually reduces global 
temperature it would be a real plus.


From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov
To: geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:01:07 PM
Subject: [geo] Coupled CH4 and CO2 Mitigation?

Sorry if this is old news, but in cleaning out my in box I came across this 
interesting 2012 paper – anaerobic methane oxidation also consumes CO2.  So 
with a bit of biogeoengineering we can pro-actively mitigate CH4 and CO2 
simultaneously, +/- take the lipid-rich biomass to produce biofuels, 
supplanting fossil sources???
Greg



Autotrophy as a predominant mode of carbon fixation in anaerobic 
methane-oxidizing microbial communities

  1.  Matthias Y. 
Kellermannhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Matthias+Y.+Kellermannsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3,2http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-4,3http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#corresp-1,
  2.  Gunter 
Wegenerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Gunter+Wegenersortspec=datesubmit=Submitbhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-2,chttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,1http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#fn-3,
  3.  Marcus 
Elverthttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcus+Elvertsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  4.  Marcos Yukio 
Yoshinagahttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Marcos+Yukio+Yoshinagasortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  5.  Yu-Shih 
Linhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Yu-Shih+Linsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  6.  Thomas 
Hollerhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Thomas+Hollersortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,
  7.  Xavier Prieto 
Mollarhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Xavier+Prieto+Mollarsortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1,
  8.  Katrin 
Knittelhttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Katrin+Knittelsortspec=datesubmit=Submitchttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-3,
 and
  9.  Kai-Uwe 
Hinrichshttp://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Kai-Uwe+Hinrichssortspec=datesubmit=Submitahttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#aff-1

+http://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full Author Affiliations

1. aOrganic Geochemistry Group, MARUM-Center for Marine Environmental 
Sciences and Department of Geosciences, University of Bremen, D-28359 Bremen, 
Germany;
2. bAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research Group 
for Deep Sea Ecology and Technology, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany; and
3. cMax Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, D-28359 Bremen, Germany

1. Edited by Donald E. Canfield, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, 
Denmark, and approved October 5, 2012 (received for review May 24, 2012)

Next Sectionhttp://www.pnas.org/content/109/47/19321.full#sec-1
Abstract

The methane-rich, hydrothermally heated sediments of the Guaymas Basin are 
inhabited by thermophilic microorganisms, including anaerobic methane-oxidizing 
archaea (mainly ANME-1) and sulfate-reducing bacteria (e.g., HotSeep-1 
cluster). We studied the microbial carbon flow in ANME-1/ HotSeep-1 enrichments 
in stable-isotope–probing experiments with and without methane. The relative 
incorporation of 13C from either dissolved inorganic carbon or methane into 
lipids revealed that methane-oxidizing archaea assimilated primarily inorganic 
carbon. This assimilation is strongly accelerated in the presence of methane. 
Experiments 

RE: [geo] The dangers of trying to set the Earth's thermostat - USA TODAY

[Rau, Greg]

How about the dangers of the alternative:  Continuing to unset the Earth's 
thermostat (and pH-stat)?

...the temptation to seriously consider a technological fix will become 
irresistible to many.

Let's hope so! Are we going to solve the CO2 problem in the absence of 
technology - new renewable energy schemes, CO2 mitigation of fossil fuels, 
greater energy efficiency? And, yes, if the preceding strategies continue to 
fail, do we not solicit and research alternative technologies like 
geoengineering in the event that some ideas prove to be effective, safe, 
timely, and needed? What is the rational alternative if the objective is  to 
collectively preserve our one small planet? Isn't technology an essential part 
of that collective?

I certainly agree that we .need to strengthen global decision making 
institutions, and we need to do so in a way that is fair and democratic. I 
might add that global decision making needs also to be open-minded, objective, 
timely and based on facts learned through carefully conducted, open research, 
not based on folklore and unproven fears that blithely whitewash all technology 
as unnecessary, unworkable, evil, or worse.

Greg



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 1:22 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] The dangers of trying to set the Earth's thermostat - USA TODAY


http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2632983

by Andrew Strauss and William C.G. Burns, USATODAY

Climate geoengineering is the name for the most audacious idea to master 
nature. Right now, energy companies, scientists, policymakers and even some 
environmentalists around the world are considering the possibility of 
attempting to manually override the Earth's thermostat to counter the effects 
of global warming.No, this isn't something out of Gene Roddenberry or Stephen 
King. This is real. In fact, it is so real that the world's most prominent body 
on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will address 
its merits in the group's Fifth Assessment Report due out early next 
year.Geoengineering covers a range of technologies. Some are apparently quite 
benign such as painting roofs white so as to reflect solar energy back into 
space. But, such schemes are also unlikely to have a significant impact on the 
climate. Those with the greatest current potential also tend to present the 
greatest risk. The two most often discussed strategies are stratospheric 
aerosol spraying and ocean iron fertilization.The former option would entail 
spraying sulfur or a similarly reflective compound into the stratosphere via 
planes or balloons to reflect solar radiation back into space. The projected 
cost of stratospheric spraying is relatively cheap, in the billions to tens of 
billions of dollars a year. Proponents argue that scientists could distribute 
enough reflective particles in the air to return temperatures back to 
pre-industrial levels if we wished.Ocean iron fertilization takes its 
inspiration from the knowledge that algae (which absorb carbon) feed on iron. 
Consequently, dump iron filings in iron-poor parts of the ocean, and soon you 
have carbon-absorbing algae blooms. Again, the cost is low.However, both of 
these options pose substantial known risks to humans and ecosystems. 
Stratospheric spraying could substantially reduce precipitation in South and 
Southeast Asia, potentially shutting down seasonal monsoons that more than a 
billion people rely upon for growing crops, or imperil replenishment of the 
ozone layer. Ocean iron fertilization could result in the proliferation of 
algae species that won't support higher order predators, or prove toxic in the 
marine environment. Moreover, the Earth's ecology is vastly complex, and both 
of these technologies may also pose significant unknown risks that are 
impossible to assess before it is too late.Sensing such dangers, most people 
have an instinctively negative reaction to climate geoengineering. The reality, 
however, is that unless we deal seriously with the climate change problem 
(which we are not) the siren call of geoengineering will grow. And, when we get 
to the point where burgeoning concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing 
undeniable catastrophes -- tornados, hurricanes, droughts, coastal flooding, 
wild fires, mass extinctions -- on a scale orders of magnitude larger than we 
are experiencing today, the temptation to seriously consider a technological 
fix will become irresistible to many.What this means for us today is that we 
should put the mechanisms in place to deal with the serious governance 
challenges that geoengineering will present. No existing global institution is 
capable of deciding whether we as citizens of the planet should collectively 
assume the risk of a substantial geoengineering project, much less where to set 
the planet's 

[geo] CRD: not very relevant and a distraction

[Rau, Greg]

Klaus Lackner and I tried to inject some hope and optimism into the earlier 
climate change mitigation discussion by Matthews and Solomon:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1522.2.full

MS reply:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6140/1523.1.full

They summarize:
In a discussion of the potential for immediate or near-future action to slow 
the growth of atmospheric CO2, we suggest that consideration of carbon dioxide 
removal (or other geoengineering) technologies would at best be not very 
relevant, and at worst could distract from the imperative of decreasing 
investment in energy technologies that lead to large CO2 emissions.

Message to CRDer's: Put down those pencils and back away from the black board - 
you are distracting the geniuses who are going to reduce CO2 emissions and you 
are a potential menace to the planet. That goes double for SRMer's.

Greg

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

RE: [geo] Re: (Ocean pipes) The Science of Climate and Geo-engineering… and more David Brin Ethical Technology

[Rau, Greg]

Michael,
I agree that there could be some interesting synergies between accelerated 
weathering and biomass production. However, if you are suggesting that biomass 
be the ultimate C storage medium, pro-actively sinking this into the subsurface 
ocean means that there will be substantial organic loading at depth.  this will 
consume O2, generate CO2, depress pH, and hence modify ocean biogeochemistry 
and possibly the atmosphere (NxOy, H2S, CH4, etc.). Making biomass means that 
you've got to bury it (quickly), modify it (biochar) or use it (biofuel to 
supplant f fuels) to avoid these impacts, while also insuring that you are not 
permanently sequestering critically needed macro and micro nutrients. All of 
this added management is avoided by having HCO3- CO3-- or CO3s as your end 
product, but by all means lets test the assumption that these will have minimal 
impact on ocean biochemistry, etc. A few billion years of Earth weathering 
would seem to support the idea that this is an effective and benign (if not 
beneficial - added SW alkalinity offsets OA effects) approach to planetary CO2 
management.
-Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Michael Hayes [voglerl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 3:47 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: (Ocean pipes) The Science of Climate and Geo-engineering… 
and more David Brin Ethical Technology

Hi Folks,

Dr. Rau, thank you for the excellent papers. I recognize the paper Direct 
electrolytic dissolution of silicate minerals for air CO2 mitigation and 
carbon-negative H2 production as the work/concept you introduced to this group 
a few years back and I'm glad to see it published. Solving for the energy to 
drive the system may lay within using passive downwelling devices, such as the 
Skaf downweller design Dr. Salter has offered above, coupled to 2 counter 
rotating subsurface turbines.

I have done some investigation into floating bag (bioreactor) algae 
cultivation, which Robert Tulip mentions, and it does offer a simple plantation 
size method for use of nutricline waters. However, it does require multi km 
long runs. Also, it is best situated in calm waters such as the central regions 
of the gyres.

One approach to solving for all of the methods that have been brought to this 
thread (without discounting issues/methodes not in this thread) would be to 
create a large scale floating algae bioreactor cultivation complex within the 
central (calm) region of a gyre which terminates in the outer (wave) region of 
the gyre. There, passive Skaf/Salter Downwellers could downwell the algae 
biomass past subsurface turbines which would then power the full complex.

You mentioned Actually, by strategically adding alkalinity to the naturally 
upwelling and degassing regions of the ocean (above), one would reduce the 
ocean's CO2 degassing and hence the air's CO2 burden without doing any air CO2 
capture/removal. Would that not also hold true if the upwelled water feeding 
the floating plantations were similarly treated?

Here is a paper which may help tie this together:

Geoengineering impact of open ocean dissolution of olivine on atmospheric CO2, 
surface ocean pH and marine 
biologyhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014009/article

Peter Köhler, Jesse F Abrams1, Christoph Völker, Judith Hauck and Dieter A 
Wolf-Gladrow

Environmental Research Letters

Ongoing global warming induced by anthropogenic emissions has opened the 
debate as to whether geoengineering is a 'quick fix' option. Here we analyse 
the intended and unintended effects of one specific geoengineering approach, 
which is enhanced weathering via the open ocean dissolution of the 
silicate-containing mineral olivine. This approach would not only reduce 
atmospheric CO2 and oppose surface ocean acidification, but would also impact 
on marine biology. If dissolved in the surface ocean, olivine sequesters 0.28 g 
carbon per g of olivine dissolved, similar to land-based enhanced weathering. 
Silicic acid input, a byproduct of the olivine dissolution, alters marine 
biology because silicate is in certain areas the limiting nutrient for diatoms. 
As a consequence, our model predicts a shift in phytoplankton species 
composition towards diatoms, altering the biological carbon pumps. Enhanced 
olivine dissolution, both on land and in the ocean, therefore needs to be 
considered as ocean fertilization. From dissolution kinetics we calculate that 
only olivine particles with a grain size of the order of 1 μm sink slowly 
enough to enable a nearly complete dissolution. The energy consumption for 
grinding to this small size might reduce the carbon sequestration efficiency by 
~30%.

The energy needs related to fine grinding needs to be solved for.

It may be possible to find an algae (Arthrospira 
maximahttp://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Arthrospira_maxima?) which 
could grow well within an 

RE: [geo] (Ocean pipes) The Science of Climate and Geo-engineering… and more David Brin Ethical Technology

[Rau, Greg]

I take issue with this statement:

Out of all of the ideas that have been raised for either removing carbon from 
the atmosphere or reducing the sunlight that feeds the greenhouse, only one 
would attempt to emulate nature's own process for removing CO2, the way by far 
the largest amount has already been removed -- through chemical and biological 
sequestration in the open ocean. That proposal is Ocean Fertilization.

While the ocean is indeed the major player in removing excess planetary CO2, 
the primary processes that do this and will do this are CO2 hydration/carbonate 
buffering, followed by carbonate and silicate weathering, not marine biology, 
e.g.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

With all due respect to the father of OIF, Iron John Martin, evidence that 
biology has played a major role in consuming excess CO2 excursions in Earth's 
past has, as far as I know, yet to be found. This is not surprising considering 
that by necessity, biomass formation normally must be a very leaky mechanism 
for sequestering C.  For the sake of future plant generations, N and P and 
other elements contained in biomass normally must be rapidly broken down and 
recycled, and in the process CO2 is regenerated (Doney's point below). 

Yes, one might modify the preceding by: enhancing N fixation, modifying the 
biomass to resist degradation (biochar), depositing biomass in O2 depleted 
zones (CROPS), and/or etc. But each of these involves tricky and unproven 
large-scale tweaking of biogeochemstry with the potential for unwanted effects 
and collateral damage. I'm not saying that such methods shouldn't be studied: 
better ideas might emerge, miracles can happen, and at the very least we would 
improve our understanding of how the ocean and the planet works.  But to pose 
OIF and artificial upwelling as the poster children of how to enhance the 
ocean's participation in CO2 mitigation seems to ignore the potential to speed 
up some proven, planetary-scale, and relatively benign geochemical CO2 
management mechanisms.

I'm just sayin' ... if we have to engineer the planet, let's start with 
something we know has worked (and is again slowly working) at scale, assuming 
that we continue to fail at the seemingly easier task of drastically reducing 
our CO2 emissions.

Greg Rau
ps In fairness and after some serious googling for email #s, tried to cc the 
principles mentioned below. Couldn't find James Lovelock's. 



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 5:00 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] (Ocean pipes) The Science of Climate and Geo-engineering… and 
more David Brin Ethical Technology

Poster's note: Some interesting stuff on ocean pipes, etc.  Lots of
links in web version.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/brin20130628

The Science of Climate and Geo-engineering… and more

David Brin
Ethical Technology

Posted: Jun 28, 2013

On June 18 I joined a blue ribbon panel (via Google Hangout) on the
topic of Reinventing Climate Management: Staring Down the Possibility
of Geoengineering, led by scenario thinker Jamais Cascio, author of
the book Hacking the Earth: Understanding Geoengineering. He moderated
a terrific group of scientists and other innovators (plus me… for
comic relief I guess) wrestling with this issue, joined by visitors
from the web with questions and ideas.

Managing the climate in the face of global warming is a wicked problem
that requires getting almost every independent nation to coordinate.
What would a system of global governance look like that's up to the
true challenges ahead? And how do we start thinking about whether we
need to take more desperate steps in the form of geoengineering?

I came away from the discussion convinced, yet again, that some things
merit much closer examination and experimentation.  Out of all of the
ideas that have been raised for either removing carbon from the
atmosphere or reducing the sunlight that feeds the greenhouse, only
one would attempt to emulate nature's own process for removing CO2,
the way by far the largest amount has already been removed -- through
chemical and biological sequestration in the open ocean. That proposal
is Ocean Fertilization.

Yes, yes we have all read about silly, half-baked experiments in
which poorly instrumented boats dumped tons of iron dust into ocean
currents. These created plankton blooms, all right, but also
questionable after-effects. They did not get very good press.  And
they poisoned the well - so to speak - for more intelligent proposals
that would more closely emulate what Nature, herself does.

And if anyone gets tentative rights to speak for Mother Nature it
would be James Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis.  With Chris
Rapley, director of the Science Museum in London, Lovelock proposed
trying an option that would place vertical 

[geo] The importance of feldspar for ice nucleation

[Rau, Greg]

See below.
Thought:
1) Pro-actively inject feldspars into the atmosphere to effect water nucleation 
and SRM.
2) The particles eventually rain out and react with CO2 and water to convert 
excess CO2 to ocean alkalinity a la Schuiling and de Boar (2011) and Koelher et 
al (2013), e.g.:
   CaAl2Si2O8 + 2CO2 + 3H2O = Ca+2 + 2HCO3- + Al2Si2O5(OH)4
3) This increases Ca carbonate saturation state in the ocean, offsetting 
effects of ocean acidification.
4) Some dissolution of the silica to silicic acid, plus feldspar trace metals 
(Fe) further boosts Si- or Fe-limited marine bio uptake and storage of excess 
CO2.
5) A grateful world is given more time to cross the bridge to a sustainable 
energy economy – Nobel Prize awarded (posthumously, given current rate of GE 
RD and implementation)?
-or-
6) Industry/gov sees green light to continue BAU, bridge never crossed, earth 
fries and acidifies during a prolonged CDR and SRM International Amalgamated  
Workers Union labor strike, Nobel Prize retracted?

-Greg

The importance of feldspar for ice nucleation by mineral dust in mixed-phase 
clouds

  *   James D. 
Atkinsonhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-1,
  *   Benjamin J. 
Murrayhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-2,
  *   Matthew T. 
Woodhousehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-3,
  *   Thomas F. 
Whalehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-4,
  *   Kelly J. 
Baustianhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-5,
  *   Kenneth S. 
Carslawhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-6,
  *   Steven 
Dobbiehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-7,
  *   Daniel 
O’Sullivanhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-8
  *Tamsin L. 
Malkinhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#auth-9

  *   
Affiliationshttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#affil-auth
  *   
Contributionshttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#contrib-auth
  *   Corresponding 
authorhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130620#corres-auth
Nature
498,
355–358
(20 June 2013)
doi:10.1038/nature12278
Received
30 January 2013
Accepted
07 May 2013
Published online
12 June 2013
The amount of ice present in mixed-phase clouds, which contain both supercooled 
liquid water droplets and ice particles, affects cloud extent, lifetime, 
particle size and radiative 
properties1http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref1,
 2http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref2. 
The freezing of cloud droplets can be catalysed by the presence of aerosol 
particles known as ice 
nuclei2http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref2.
 One of the most important ice nuclei is thought to be mineral dust aerosol 
from arid 
regions2http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref2,
 3http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref3. 
It is generally assumed that clay minerals, which contribute approximately 
two-thirds of the dust mass, dominate ice nucleation by mineral dust, and many 
experimental studies have therefore focused on these 
materials1http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref1,
 2http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref2, 
4http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref4, 
5http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref5, 
6http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref6. 
Here we use an established droplet-freezing 
technique4http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref4,
 7http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref7 
to show that feldspar minerals dominate ice nucleation by mineral dusts under 
mixed-phase cloud conditions, despite feldspar being a minor component of dust 
emitted from arid regions. We also find that clay minerals are relatively 
unimportant ice nuclei. Our results from a global aerosol model study suggest 
that feldspar ice nuclei are globally distributed and that feldspar particles 
may account for a large proportion of the ice nuclei in Earth’s atmosphere that 
contribute to freezing at temperatures below about −15 °C.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

[Rau, Greg]

I'd suggest wind pumps as used on the prairie to lift groundwater.  Just set 
them up on the windy, seasonal ice sheet, drill a hole, and pump away. They'd 
have floats so after summer-melt out they could be rounded up by ship, 
hopefully sail-powered, or they could be permanently anchored to the seafloor. 
Net carbon/climate cost/benefit? Then there is high altitude wind: tether HAW 
generators to sea ice or sea floor.  Use the electricity to pump seawater 
and/or run a pipe partway up the tether and spray seawater, making snow/aerosol 
for albedo effects +- snow/water for ice thickening. Better check with the 
seals and polar bears for preferred ice thickness.  Also, biofouling of pipes, 
pumps, and nozzles could be a showstopper.  Anyway, perhaps we should inform 
PCAST of this new adaptation strategy before their next definitive report ;-)
-Greg  

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Hawkins, Dave [dhawk...@nrdc.org]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:17 PM
To: Peter Flynn; joshuahorton...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

What is your energy source for this pumping and spraying?

-Original Message-
From: Peter Flynn [mailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 4:56 PM
To: Hawkins, Dave; joshuahorton...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

I remain of the belief that simply creating thicker and more extensive ice by 
the known and proven technique of pumping or spraying water into cold air in 
the winter is a cheap, safe (because it can be halted at any time) and already 
demonstrated process (on both fresh and salt water). If any missed the previous 
paper on this I am happy to resend.

This technique works by increasing the rate of heat transfer: water on top of 
ice freezes much more quickly than water at the bottom of ice because the ice 
is both an insulation layer and it prevents convective heat transfer from the 
water layer to the air.

I think this is intuitively safer than atmospheric modification because it can 
be stopped at once.

Peter Flynn

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of 
Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave
Sent: June-16-13 6:34 PM
To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume.

Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector.


On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi everyone,

Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at 
RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows:

There is one experiment we're currently undertaking - we're trying to look at 
rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway 
- and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we're trying to look at that as a 
very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice.

(http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climat
e-silver-bullet/)

Does anyone know what he is talking about?

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com


--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubs
geoengineering+cr
i...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at 

[geo] NASA Finds ‘Amazing’ Levels Of Arctic Methane And CO2

[Rau, Greg]

 NASA Finds ‘Amazing’ Levels Of Arctic Methane And CO2, Asks ‘Is a Sleeping 
Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?’


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/13/2138531/nasa-finds-amazing-levels-of-arctic-methane-and-co2-asks-is-a-sleeping-climate-giant-stirring-in-the-arctic/

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

Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

[RAU greg]

Thanks. Yes, lots of great ideas out there. 
Speaking of the Virgin Earth Challenge (apparently the only CDR game in town), 
what the heck happened to the prize? Did they quietly select a winner, split 
the 
money among finalists, or say sorry, no winner, thanks for all of the great 
ideas, we were just kidding.??? For all of the initial splash, the VEC seemed 
to end very somberly. Given the importance of the topic and Branson's apparent 
enthusiasm, why?
-Greg




From: Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: david.app...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
m2des...@cablespeed.com
Sent: Mon, June 3, 2013 2:42:47 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...


But why no mention of CDR by   accelerated rock weathering (AGR)? This is 
one of the solutions   selected by the Virgin Challenge - the one from 
Netherlands. And   it is being promoted by Olaf Schuilling, who is a member 
of this   Geoengineering Group. 


This is a low tech, low cost approach - which consists of mining   olivine 
bearing rock, grinding it up to approx 0.1mm, and   spreading it land / 
coast where it will completely weather away   over a period of under 10 
years, converting CO2 to bicarbonate in   solution. All for ~$10/tCO2. 
Emissions for mining, transport,   grinding, just a few % of the CO2 gain.

So what's not to include about it? Oliver.

On 02/06/2013 20:29, RAU greg wrote:

Thanks, David, very nice review. Where our technology   departs from 
the 
higher profile abiotic methods you discuss   is: 1) expensively 
concentrated CO2 is not formed (or stored),   2) reactions occur at 
ambient T and P - exotic chemicals and   conditions are avoided (so 
far), 3) excess ocean rather than   excess air CO2 can be mitigated, 
avoiding the need for more   complex air scrubbing technology. Why go 
to 
the added   expense/effort of getting air CO2 into solution to then do  
 
chemistry when vast areas of the surface ocean are already   
supersaturated in CO2?  Doing the chemistry there completely   avoids 
the giant land footprint and energy required for air   scrubbing that 
you mention, as well as avoids the need for   molecular CO2 
sequestration or use.  Obviously, the safety of   doing this in the 
ocean needs to be researched, but generating   ocean alkalinity would 
seem an improvement over our current   ocean acidification program. 
I'm not alone in my thinking;   this builds on Kheshgi (1995), House et 
al. (2007), and Harvey   (2008) among others.
-Greg




From: David Appell david.app...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com
Sent: Sun,   June 2, 2013 10:55:22 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

Mark:

I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that 
answers some of these questions:

“Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27.
http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf

David


On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote:
 I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions:
 
 I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take 
 for 
the devices to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were 
installed to capture coal plant emissions, I'd imagine that the 
capture rate would be maximized. However installing the systems 
outside of those sources might lower the capture rate to the 
point 
that the system becomes impractical (i.e. like installing a wind 
farm in a location that's simply not windy enough on average)


-- 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



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


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr

RE: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

[Rau, Greg]

Note to future prize sponsors: selecting 10 technologies in YR 1 from which one 
winner will be chosen in YR 10 runs the risk of ignoring new and potentially 
better ideas that arise in the interim. Imagine selecting a winning computer 
technology from ideas that are ten years old? Much better to have an annual 
prize of say $2M for the next ten years or longer, thus truly leveraging and 
encouraging ingenuity and new advancements in the technology. Interesting that 
those still in the VEC running have been very quite about their progress. No 
pressure, but the planet eagerly awaits your winning technology.
-Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Oliver Tickell [oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:11 AM
To: RAU greg
Cc: david.app...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
m2des...@cablespeed.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

From David A's article:
One interesting initiative is
the Virgin Earth Challenge, which was launched in
2007. Sponsored by Richard Branson, it offers $25m
to whoever can demonstrate a sustainable and scalable design to permanently 
remove a billion tonnes
of carbon from the air every year for 10 years. Some
2600 groups applied to the challenge and last November the finalists were 
picked – six from the US and
one each from Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands,
Switzerland and Canada – who now have five years
in which to win the prize.

I think all involved were expecting the winner to be announced a few years ago. 
It seems to be dragging out unnecessarily. Since after all, the whole predicate 
of this is that urgent action is needed!

Oliver.

--
Oliver Tickell
Kyoto2 - for an effective climate agreement.

On 03/06/2013 16:59, RAU greg wrote:


Thanks. Yes, lots of great ideas out there.
Speaking of the Virgin Earth Challenge (apparently the only CDR game in town), 
what the heck happened to the prize? Did they quietly select a winner, split 
the money among finalists, or say sorry, no winner, thanks for all of the 
great ideas, we were just kidding.??? For all of the initial splash, the VEC 
seemed to end very somberly. Given the importance of the topic and Branson's 
apparent enthusiasm, why?
-Greg


From: Oliver Tickell 
oliver.tick...@kyoto2.orgmailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org
To: gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: david.app...@gmail.commailto:david.app...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
m2des...@cablespeed.commailto:m2des...@cablespeed.com
Sent: Mon, June 3, 2013 2:42:47 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

But why no mention of CDR by accelerated rock weathering (AGR)? This is one of 
the solutions selected by the Virgin Challenge - the one from Netherlands. And 
it is being promoted by Olaf Schuilling, who is a member of this Geoengineering 
Group.

This is a low tech, low cost approach - which consists of mining olivine 
bearing rock, grinding it up to approx 0.1mm, and spreading it land / coast 
where it will completely weather away over a period of under 10 years, 
converting CO2 to bicarbonate in solution. All for ~$10/tCO2. Emissions for 
mining, transport, grinding, just a few % of the CO2 gain.

So what's not to include about it? Oliver.

On 02/06/2013 20:29, RAU greg wrote:
Thanks, David, very nice review. Where our technology departs from the higher 
profile abiotic methods you discuss is: 1) expensively concentrated CO2 is not 
formed (or stored), 2) reactions occur at ambient T and P - exotic chemicals 
and conditions are avoided (so far), 3) excess ocean rather than excess air CO2 
can be mitigated, avoiding the need for more complex air scrubbing technology. 
Why go to the added expense/effort of getting air CO2 into solution to then do 
chemistry when vast areas of the surface ocean are already supersaturated in 
CO2?  Doing the chemistry there completely avoids the giant land footprint and 
energy required for air scrubbing that you mention, as well as avoids the need 
for molecular CO2 sequestration or use.  Obviously, the safety of doing this in 
the ocean needs to be researched, but generating ocean alkalinity would seem an 
improvement over our current ocean acidification program. I'm not alone in my 
thinking; this builds on Kheshgi (1995), House et al. (2007), and Harvey (2008) 
among others.
-Greg


From: David Appell david.app...@gmail.commailto:david.app...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.commailto:m2des...@cablespeed.com
Sent: Sun, June 2, 2013 10:55:22 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

Mark:

I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers some of 
these questions:

“Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27.
http://www.davidappell.com/articles

Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

[RAU greg]

Thanks, David, very nice review. Where our technology departs from the higher 
profile abiotic methods you discuss is: 1) expensively concentrated CO2 is not 
formed (or stored), 2) reactions occur at ambient T and P - exotic chemicals 
and 
conditions are avoided (so far), 3) excess ocean rather than excess air CO2 can 
be mitigated, avoiding the need for more complex air scrubbing technology. Why 
go to the added expense/effort of getting air CO2 into solution to then do 
chemistry when vast areas of the surface ocean are already supersaturated in 
CO2?  Doing the chemistry there completely avoids the giant land footprint and 
energy required for air scrubbing that you mention, as well as avoids the need 
for molecular CO2 sequestration or use.  Obviously, the safety of doing this in 
the ocean needs to be researched, but generating ocean alkalinity would seem an 
improvement over our current ocean acidification program. I'm not alone in my 
thinking; this builds on Kheshgi (1995), House et al. (2007), and Harvey (2008) 
among others.
-Greg




From: David Appell david.app...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com
Sent: Sun, June 2, 2013 10:55:22 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...

Mark:

I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers some of 
these questions:

“Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27.
http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf

David


On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote:
 I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions:
 
 I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take for the devices 
to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were installed to capture coal 
plant 
emissions, I'd imagine that the capture rate would be maximized. However 
installing the systems outside of those sources might lower the capture rate 
to 
the point that the system becomes impractical (i.e. like installing a wind 
farm 
in a location that's simply not windy enough on average)


-- 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[geo] Meanwhile, in CDR news...

[RAU greg]

Our latest offering on abiotic CDR can be found here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1222358110.full.pdf

Some highlights:
air CO2 captured and safely stored - check
carbon-negative H2 produced - check
ocean alkalinity beneficially increased, OA and impacts reduced - check
$100/tonne CO2 mitigated, about the cost of CCS - check
OK, more research is needed to better evaluate all of this.  While trying to 
locate the funds to do this, perhaps the APS would like to reconvene its crack, 
air capture evaluation team and have a go. In any case, constructive comments 
and criticism invited.

Another point we make is that reducing air CO2 need not involve air capture.  
By 
adding hydroxide to regions of the ocean that naturally degas to the atmosphere 
(e.g. upwelling systems), excess ocean CO2 is consumed and the natural ocean 
CO2 
flux to the atmosphere (300 GT/yr) is reduced along with the air CO2 burden, 
sidestepping the need for more difficult air capture. Air scrubbing is not 
necessary; cost effective and safe ways of producing and applying (geo)chemical 
base to CO2-degassing regions of the ocean would seem an easier alternative, 
especially considering that effective air capture ultimately also requires 
effective ocean CO2 removal (Cao and Caldeira). Bio approaches that could 
reduce 
CO2 flux to air include OIF, biochar, and CROPS, but while likely cheaper, 
these 
don't also generate ocean alkalinity and supergreen H2. Other ideas?

Greg

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

RE: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira

[Rau, Greg]

Ditto. I appreciate the difficult task you are doing.  - Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of John Latham [john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 12:42 PM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; ebic...@mail.utexas.edu; geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira

Hello Andrew,

I think you do a very difficult job extremely well, handling tricky
issues fairly and with great sensitivity. Thank you!

John   (Latham)


John Latham
Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000
Email: lat...@ucar.edu  or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429
 or   (US-Cell)   303-882-0724  or (UK) 01928-730-002
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 June 2013 19:33
To: ebic...@mail.utexas.edu; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira

I'm responding because of the criticism of my moderation.

Clive has previously been unable to defend himself, as for technical reasons 
he's been unable to post to the group. Accordingly, I allowed him fairly free 
rein to respond as he saw fit. Members can draw their own conclusions about his 
arguments and conduct.

I note that, on occasion, people on both sides of this debate haven't conducted 
themselves particularly well. I'm aiming for a light touch moderation strategy, 
but a firmer hand may soon be needed. If the present squabbling continues, I'll 
be putting a large number of people on moderation without warning, and without 
thinking too carefully in any particular individual's case. I hope this won't 
be necessary.

I suggest that there's been adequate exploration of this incident, and of 
Clive's recent arguments and conduct. To protect everyone's nerves and your 
inboxes, it may be time we put this particular issue to bed.

A

On Jun 1, 2013 6:57 PM, Bickel 
ebic...@mail.utexas.edumailto:ebic...@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
Having just read Clive Hamilton’s response to Lee Lane’s post, I found myself 
wondering if this list is still moderated. First, Clive levels ad hominem 
attacks against my co-author, Lee Lane, and fails to take any account of the 
facts Lee just provided. Second, as Tom points out, Clive lays out a logic that 
because someone is associated with a group Clive disapproves of (or even if 
they are pre-associated as the case with Lee and AEI) that they must have ill 
intentions or, at least, intentions that Clive defines as nefarious. This 
assertion is false on its face. One cannot correctly claim that everyone 
associated with ExxonMobil or AEI believes or does x, y, or z. Thus, these 
attacks must be false, yet they allowed through by the moderator. I fear the 
discussion on this group is devolving to the point where serious members need 
to consider a different venue.
Now, let me address another of Clive’s misunderstandings or “mistakes” that may 
be due a correction in the next edition his new book. Clive states that:
“Lane is responsible for an ‘economic analysis’ (published by the AEI) 
purporting to show that SRM would be a much cheaper way to deal with global 
warming than cutting greenhouse gas emissions and is to be preferred.”
“Lee Lane's paper purporting to show that sulphate aerosol spraying is the 
cheapest and best response to global warming is a travesty by any measure, and 
it is not surprising that it was published and heavily promoted by Bjorn 
Lomborg.”
Clive appears to be referring to the paper that Lee and I contributed as part 
of the 2009 Copenhagen Consensus on Climate. This paper was drafted in early 
2009 and published in Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and 
Benefits in 2010 (Bjorn Lomborg, Cambridge University Press, pp. 9-51).
It is interesting that Clive associates the paper only with Lee and AEI, when, 
in fact, I was also an author on the paper. It could be that it is harder to 
claim that everyone at the University of Texas at Austin is part of the 
right-wing conspiracy to destroy the planet.
Clive’s claim about the paper’s message is provably false. Lee and I do not 
“purport to show that sulphate aerosol spraying is the cheapest and best 
response to global warming” or that SRM is “preferred” to emissions reductions. 
Rather we argue that the potential benefits of SRM appear to be large, but that 
the indirect costs are uncertain and could be large. Thus, we should pursue 
RESEARCH.
A more careful reading of our paper may be in order. In terms of SRM vs 
emissions reductions, here is a quote from the second paragraph:

“The reader should not interpret our focus on climate engineering as implying 
that other responses to climate change are unneeded. The proper mix and 
relative priority of various responses to climate change is in the purview of 
the 

Re: [geo] Second Haida OIF Test Set for June Cancelled

[RAU greg]

George - “The reports that I have been removed as a director of Haida Salmon 
Restoration Corp. are, unfortunately, inaccurate,”

Unfortunate for whom? - Greg




From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:09:23 PM
Subject: [geo] Second Haida OIF Test Set for June Cancelled


I think most of us will regard this as a very good development:
 
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dumping-of-iron-into-sea-off-haida-gwaii-suspended-amid-acrimony-1.229839

 
Dumping of iron into sea off Haida Gwaii suspended amid acrimony
Judith Lavoie / Times Colonist 
May 23, 2013 
* Email
* Print
Previous Next 
*  
*  
*  
Controversial U.S businessman Russ George, who orchestrated a dump of more than 
100 tonnes of iron sulfate into international waters off the coast of Haida 
Gwaii last year, has been fired by the Old Massett-based Haida Salmon 
Restoration Corp.
“We have parted ways,” Old Massett Village chief councillor Ken Rea said in an 
interview.
The unauthorized iron experiment, which was designed to increase salmon runs by 
creating an algae bloom for fish to feed on, led to international controversy 
and accusations of geoengineering.
The Haida Salmon Restoration Corp., which was funded to the tune of $2.5 
million 
through the Gwaii Trust Society and a village reserve fund, will undergo a 
strategic review, Rea said.
That means greater community input and restructuring the business “so that it … 
effectively responds to legitimate concerns raised by various stakeholders 
around the world,” he said.
“It starts with some bold steps — like parting ways with Russ George,” he said.
Old Massett economic development officer John Disney, who will serve as interim 
CEO, said he is confident in the technology but the right leadership and 
business plan are needed.
“We have a responsibility, not only to the shareholders but the citizens of Old 
Massett and Haida Gwaii to get it right,” he said.
However, in a twist, George denied in an email that he had been fired.
“The reports that I have been removed as a director of Haida Salmon Restoration 
Corp. are, unfortunately, inaccurate,” he wrote.
“The other board members of HSRC did not have any authority to remove me as a 
director.”
Ocean Pastures, a company owned by George, holds 48 per cent of HSRC shares and 
has the right to appoint two out of the four board members, he said.
“I shall remain a director of HSRC and look forward to moving the business plan 
of the company forward,” he said.
That will include commercialization of last year’s experiment, he said.
For Rea, the future does not include George.
The strategic review means that the second iron fertilization test, planned for 
June, will not take place, Rea said.
“I can’t say if it will be done again ever. I won’t know until we get the 
results of the strategic review,” he said.
Rea would not speculate whether the village has lost out financially.
“There’s value in the company and value in the data, and we intend to preserve 
that value,” he said.
The unauthorized test was heavily criticized by the Council of the Haida Nation 
and federal Environment Minister Peter Kent, who called it a “demonstration of 
rogue science.”
In March, Environment Canada officials seized scientific data, journals and 
files from the company’s Vancouver headquarters, and the corporation is now 
fighting to have them returned.
It is too early to say whether the algae bloom will mean better salmon 
survival, 
but anecdotally other marine species are doing well, Rea said.
George previously told Old Massett council that there was money to be made 
through the sale of carbon credits, although there is no proof it is a viable 
method of carbon capture.
It was the second time that George had proposed a carbon-credit scheme for Old 
Massett. The first plan, to cut down alders beside creeks and replace them with 
fast-growing evergreens, was scuttled by Fisheries and Oceans.
George has a history of trying to conduct iron fertilization experiments around 
the world, resulting in his ships being banned from ports by the Spanish and 
Ecuadorian governments.
jlav...@timescolonist.com
© Copyright 2013
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 

RE: [geo] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US by 0.5 C

[Rau, Greg]

Agreed. All of us are now knowingly warming and acidifying the planet via our 
unmitigated use of fossil fuels.  Would love to have a meaningful 
conversation as to what to do now about this extensive, announced and 
well-reviewed, but so far inadequately regulated climate and chemistry 
intervention.
Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Ninad Bondre [nrbon...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:24 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US 
by 0.5 C

Measures that tackle air pollution have led to well-documented, largely 
positive health outcomes that need not be repeated here. That cooling is an 
unintended consequence of such measures is hardly news: that is why several 
recent endeavours have called for tackling air pollution and climate in an 
integrated fashion (e.g. 
http://www.igacproject.org/sites/all/themes/bluemasters/images/IGBP_IGAC_AirPolClim_Statement_FINAL.pdf).

Are members of this group considering researching aerosol removal to 
intentionally warm the climate? Any current research or proposed research 
projects aimed at tackling climate change by engaging in climate warming? Do 
update the group if that is the case. Then we can have a meaningful 
conversation about that extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated 
a climate intervention.


On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote:

Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this?

They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on 
the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing.



On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Russell Seitz 
russel...@gmail.comUrlBlockedError.aspx wrote:
So extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate 
intervention must surely contravene the London Convention!


On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722

[X]
Atmospheric Environmenthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310

Volume 46http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C, 
January 2012, Pages 545–553

[Cover image]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C
Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a 
transient 2010–2050 climate simulation

  *   L.J. 
Mickleyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1,
 [Corresponding author contact information] 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#cor1 , 
[E-mail the corresponding author] ,
  *   E.M. 
Leibenspergerhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1,
 bhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff2,
  *   D.J. 
Jacobhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1,
  *   D. 
Rindhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff3

We find that
removing U.S. aerosol significantly enhances the warming from greenhouse gases 
in a spatial pattern that
strongly correlates with that of the aerosol. Warming is nearly negligible 
outside the United States, but
annual mean surface temperatures increase by 0.4 - 0.6 K in the eastern United 
States


This article suggests that inadvertent regional geoengineering is already 
cooling the US by about 0.5 C in the eastern US.  Note that they find little 
effect outside of the geoengineered region.

(This came out last year but I missed it then.)


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html

Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things 
Consideredhttp://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.comUrlBlockedError.aspx.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengi...@googlegroups.comUrlBlockedError.aspx.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this 

Re: [geo] Opinion: Dreams we cannot afford, by Russ George — The Daily Climate

[RAU greg]

Thanks, Andrew. A couple of comments:
As far as I know, Marchetti (1977), not David Keith, was the father of the 
term 
'geoengineering'

I thought Klaus Lackner, not David Keith, is known as the father of the 
artificial tree.

Capturing excess air/ocean CO2 for mere pennies per ton would indeed be 
welcomed news, especially if more than a few percent of this captured carbon 
were permanently stored. I look forward to seeing those 200 million discrete 
measurements of the ocean environment and the bloom that supposedly will prove 
this hypothesis, assuming these haven't vanished along with George's departure 
from the project.

As for restoring salmon, it would seem that the Haida Gwaii have voiced there 
opinion by terminating George. 

Dreams indeed.

I think all of this is very unfortunate because I share George's belief that 
the 
ocean could play a much bigger role than it already does in consuming our 
excess 
CO2, though I don't share his (and other's) insistence that leaky and 
unpredictable marine biology should do the heavy lifting.  But whatever your 
marine method of choice, George's attempts at large-scale pirate science will 
now make it more difficult for those wishing to conduct legitimate, open, 
scientific research on this topic. This is a situation that, with options and 
time dwindling, truly we cannot afford. 

-Greg





From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 11:12:52 PM
Subject: [geo] Opinion: Dreams we cannot afford, by Russ George — The Daily 
Climate


http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/opinion-ocean-geoengineering
Dreams we cannot afford 
By Russ George
The Daily Climate
VANCOUVER, British Columbia – 
The billions of dollars required by geoengineers to scrub the atmosphere of 
carbon will bankrupt us. I have a cheaper solution.
I met David Keith, often described as the father of geoengineering, a few years 
back in the backstage green room in New York City as we were preparing to go 
on stage for a TED event. TED talks charge high ticket prices for lavishly 
produced events on worldly topics that the intelligentsia and cognoscenti of 
technology and science like to attend. David, Martin Hoffert and I were 
speaking 
that night on a common theme: What to do about anthropogenic carbon 
dioxide.Geoengineers are presenting ideas that require hundreds of billions, 
even trillions, of dollars to solve the crisis of human-driven climate 
change.Marty, retired now from New York University, is a voluble advocate for 
getting off fossil fuels to avoid climate change impacts. David is a physics 
professor at Harvard University and is backed by Bill Gates. He's proud to be 
the father of the term geoengineering, where we alter the climate to suit our 
needs instead of Nature's. Me? I am displeased to have the term hung around my 
neck. But I am an old hippy tree-planter who has spent life living outside of 
the box, with some bit of help from folks inside said box. I compromise and 
call 
myself an ecoengineer.What transpired in the green room started out as a 
friendly exchange of views that became a heated discussion and rapidly devolved 
into an argument with sparks flying. My premise: The cost of dealing with 
anthropogenic CO2 must be and can be a tiny fraction of the cost demanded by 
those working in the field inside the box.
David and other geoengineers are presenting ideas and inventions to the world 
that require hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars to solve the 
crisis of human-driven climate change. David's artificial trees – named after 
plants' abilities to pull carbon dioxide from the air – consist of vast arrays 
of fans blowing our carbon-rich air over a pool of sodium hydroxide. Other 
plans 
would have us send a fleet of planes or blimps aloft to seed the clouds with 
light-reflecting particles, much as a large volcanic explosion do. More 
farfetched are plans to lob trillions of mirrors into orbit to deflect the 
sun's 
energy.My work over the past two decades shows that we can solve a large part 
of 
the crisis for a small fraction of the cost. And because it's ecoengineering, 
we're restoring ecosystems at the same time we're solving climate change.Last 
summer, in the largest geoengineering project to date, I oversaw an ocean 
experiment that sowed 120 tons of iron sulphate and iron ore rock dust into the 
Pacific Ocean more than 200 miles west of British Columbia's Haida Gwaii 
islands. The premise was simple: Iron, acting as a fertilizer, would trigger a 
phytoplankton bloom that would pull carbon from the ocean. We'd simply be 
replenishing the sea with a natural mineral micronutrient. The whole ocean food 
chain would benefit, as well as the Haida, who have suffered from diminished 
salmon runs.
Our carbon emissions are an immediate, cataclysmic problem for the oceans that 
make up more than 70 percent of our blue planet. We 

[geo] Thought for the day

[RAU greg]

It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in 
hand, 
more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the 
lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has 
for 
enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm 
defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly 
from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from 
the 
incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have 
had 
a long experience of them.  Machiavelli, The Prince (1513)

-Greg

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

[geo] More on air capture

[Rau, Greg]

We have to invest in technology to remove the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/05/direct_air_carbon_capture_technology_must_be_developed_to_help_fight_climate.html

Greg

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

Re: [geo] Grist magazine on geoengineering

[RAU greg]

Just to follow up, we may not entirely understand the system but we know that 
elevated air CO2 (sand) is not good for it. Job 1 is then to stop air CO2 from 
increasing. Given that we have thus far failed to do this, what are the ethics 
of actively discouraging research on any CO2 management methods (engineering or 
otherwise) that might help us in this task?  Ethics, economics, and politics 
should enter the equation once research tells us if we actually have any 
technically and environmentally viable options. Or is SRM the only ethics 
target 
here? Or simply any engineering? Or anything that disturbs pre-1750 BAU?
Greg 




From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
To: geoengineerin...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, May 14, 2013 7:48:25 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Grist magazine on geoengineering

The context of course is that we are already interfering in Earth's climate 
system in a major way ... we are already throwing sand in the gears.

Model results indicate that throwing some oil on the gears will help make the 
clock run smoothly, despite not knowing how all the gears really fit together.

When efforts to stop throwing sand fail, where does hubris lie? Does it reside 
in the person who wants to consider oiling the gears or in the person who 
claims 
a priori that their heightened ethical sensitivity demands that the gears not 
be 
oiled (as we watch the clockwork mechanism grind to a halt)?



On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com 
wrote:

From scott Rosenberg, who moderated last week's Caldeira/Hamilton event:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/geoengineering-research-never-or-now/


Hamilton’s Earthmasters book quotes Lawrence Livermore Labs scientist Lowell 
Wood: “We’ve engineered every other environment we live in — why not the 
planet?”
If the hubris there is too much for you, Hamilton balances it with a line from 
another scientist, Ron Prinn: “How can you engineer a system you don’t 
understand?”

---
Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!   
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 
-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 


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

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

Re: comment Re: [geo] Fw: [CAN-talk] Outcome statement of Climate Space at the World Social Forum in Tunisia

[RAU greg]

Thanks Emily (Janet?). I think the title says it all: To Reclaim Our Future, We 
Must Change the Present. Our Proposal for Changing the System AND NOT THE 
CLIMATE  
Indeed, this would appear to be a strategy calling for social and political 
(re)engineering, with questionable relevance to preventing climate change. Yes, 
we could go back to the good old, low emission days of pre 1750, but that would 
appear to require some significant sacrifice in food, heat, light, and medical 
care that most might balk at. Sustainably supporting 7+ B people and a 
habitable 
climate will need some broader thinking and engineering (of all kinds). Under 
the circumstances let's not prematurely jettison our options until they are 
proven unnecessary.
-Greg




From: Emily em...@lewis-brown.net
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 13, 2013 12:39:01 PM
Subject: comment Re: [geo] Fw: [CAN-talk] Outcome statement of Climate Space at 
the World Social Forum in Tunisia

hi

I had written a front comment to the Outcome statement I forwarded, but 
it got stripped out:

I am not surprised that this statement calls for a ban on geo-eng when I 
look at the list of signatories.

I have replied to 'Janet' and I know some ETC people are alos monitoring 
this list - to say that statements like withis with no definition or 
qualification are unwise given the dire state of things.
It'd be like banning all medicine because some have side effects.

I call on the NGO world to take a reasoned, balanced and sophisticated 
approach to all climate adaptation and mitigation opportunities.

To clarify - I do not support the Outcome statement.

Best wishes,

Emily.

On 13/05/2013 19:56, Emily L-B wrote:
 Hi folks -

 I wanted to share with you a statement that was drafted at the conclusion
 of a week of workshops, plenaries, dialogues and debates convened in a
 dedicated 'climate space' at the World Social Forum in Tunisia this April.

 I think it paints a pretty good picture of what's on the minds of many in
 the global climate justice movement. Food for thought in our policy work.

 -Janet
 p.s. The statement is also attached in multiple languages


 To Reclaim Our Future, We Must Change the Present. Our Proposal for
 Changing the System and not the Climate

 The capitalist system has exploited and abused nature, pushing the planet
 to its limits, so much so that the system has accelerated dangerous and
 fundamental changes in the climate.

 Today, the severity and multiplicity of weather changes – characterized by
 droughts, desertification, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, forest fires and
 the melting of glaciers and sea ice – indicate that the planet is burning.
 These extreme changes have direct impacts on humans through the loss lives,
 livelihoods, crops and homes all of which have led to human displacement in
 the form of forced migration and climate refugees on a massive an
 unprecedented scale.

 Humanity and nature are now standing at a precipice. We can stand idle and
 continue the march into an abysmal future too dire to imagine, or we can
 take action and reclaim a future that we have all hoped for.

 We will not stand idle. We will not allow the capitalist system to burn us
 all. We will take action and address the root causes of climate change by
 changing the system. The time has come to stop talking and to take action.

 We must nurture, support, strengthen and increase the scale of grassroots
 organizing in all places, but in particular in frontline battlegrounds
 where the stakes are the highest.

 System Change means:

 - Leave more than two thirds of fossil fuel reserves under the soil, as
 well as beneath the ocean floor, in order to prevent catastrophic levels 
of
 climate change.
 - Ban all new exploration and exploitation of oil, tar sands, oil shale,
 coal, uranium, and natural gas.
 - Support a just transition for workers and communities away from the
 extreme energy economy and into resilient local economies based on social,
 economic and environmental justice.
 - Decentralize the generation and ownership of energy under local
 community control using renewable sources of energy. Invest in community
 based, small-scale, local energy infrastructure.
 - Stop building mega and unnecessary infrastructure projects that do not
 benefit the population and are net contributors to greenhouse gasses like,
 mega dams, excessive huge highways, large-scale centralized energy
 projects, and superfluous massive airports.
 - End the dominance of export-based industrial forms of food production,
 (including in the livestock sector), and promote small-scale integrated 
and
 ecologically sound farming and an agriculture system that ensures food
 sovereignty, and that locally grown crops meet the nutritional and 
cultural
 needs of the local community. These measures will help to cool the planet.
 - Adopt Zero 

RE: [geo] Fw: [CAN-talk] Outcome statement of Climate Space at the World Social Forum in Tunisia

[Rau, Greg]

Thanks Emily (Janet?). I think the title says it all: To Reclaim Our Future, We 
Must Change the Present. Our Proposal for Changing the System AND NOT THE 
CLIMATE
Indeed, this would appear to be a strategy calling for social and political 
(re)engineering, with questionable relevance to climate change. Yes, we could 
go back to the good old, low emission days of pre 1750, but that would appear 
to require some significant sacrifice in food, heat, light, and medical care 
that most might balk at. Sustainably supporting 7+ B people and a habitable 
climate will need some broader thinking and engineering (of all kinds). Under 
the circumstances let's not prematurely jettison our options until they are 
proven unnecessary.
-Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Emily L-B [em...@lewis-brown.net]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:56 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Fw: [CAN-talk] Outcome statement of Climate Space at the World 
Social Forum in Tunisia

Hi folks -

I wanted to share with you a statement that was drafted at the conclusion of a 
week of workshops, plenaries, dialogues and debates convened in a dedicated 
'climate space' at the World Social Forum in Tunisia this April.

I think it paints a pretty good picture of what's on the minds of many in the 
global climate justice movement. Food for thought in our policy work.

-Janet
p.s. The statement is also attached in multiple languages


To Reclaim Our Future, We Must Change the Present. Our Proposal for Changing 
the System and not the Climate

The capitalist system has exploited and abused nature, pushing the planet to 
its limits, so much so that the system has accelerated dangerous and 
fundamental changes in the climate.

Today, the severity and multiplicity of weather changes – characterized by 
droughts, desertification, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, forest fires and the 
melting of glaciers and sea ice – indicate that the planet is burning. These 
extreme changes have direct impacts on humans through the loss lives, 
livelihoods, crops and homes all of which have led to human displacement in the 
form of forced migration and climate refugees on a massive an unprecedented 
scale.

Humanity and nature are now standing at a precipice. We can stand idle and 
continue the march into an abysmal future too dire to imagine, or we can take 
action and reclaim a future that we have all hoped for.

We will not stand idle. We will not allow the capitalist system to burn us all. 
We will take action and address the root causes of climate change by changing 
the system. The time has come to stop talking and to take action.

We must nurture, support, strengthen and increase the scale of grassroots 
organizing in all places, but in particular in frontline battlegrounds where 
the stakes are the highest.

System Change means:

  *   Leave more than two thirds of fossil fuel reserves under the soil, as 
well as beneath the ocean floor, in order to prevent catastrophic levels of 
climate change.
  *   Ban all new exploration and exploitation of oil, tar sands, oil shale, 
coal, uranium, and natural gas.
  *   Support a just transition for workers and communities away from the 
extreme energy economy and into resilient local economies based on social, 
economic and environmental justice.
  *   Decentralize the generation and ownership of energy under local community 
control using renewable sources of energy. Invest in community based, 
small-scale, local energy infrastructure.
  *   Stop building mega and unnecessary infrastructure projects that do not 
benefit the population and are net contributors to greenhouse gasses like, mega 
dams, excessive huge highways, large-scale centralized energy projects, and 
superfluous massive airports.
  *   End the dominance of export-based industrial forms of food production, 
(including in the livestock sector), and promote small-scale integrated and 
ecologically sound farming and an agriculture system that ensures food 
sovereignty, and that locally grown crops meet the nutritional and cultural 
needs of the local community. These measures will help to cool the planet.
  *   Adopt Zero Waste approaches through promoting comprehensive recycling and 
composting programs that end the use of greenhouse gas emitting incinerators – 
including new generation hi-tech incinerators – and landfills.
  *   Stop land grabbing and respect the rights of small farmers, peasants and 
women. Recognize the collective rights of indigenous and tribal peoples 
consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 
including their rights to their lands and territories.
  *   Develop economic strategies that create new kinds of ‘climate jobs’ – 
decent paying jobs that directly contribute to carbon reductions – in such 
sectors as renewable energy, agriculture, public transportation and building 
retrofits.
  *   Recover the 

[geo] 400 ppm: Get used to it

[RAU greg]

Lots of hand-wringing here from our fellow scientists (below), but no mention 
of 
Plan B's - 
Scientists say that unless far greater efforts are made soon, the goal of 
limiting the warming will become impossible without severe economic disruption.
“If you’re looking to stave off climate perturbations that I don’t believe our 
culture is ready to adapt to, then significant reductions in CO2 emissions have 
to occur right away...”
“It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster”

If mainstream scientists don't even raise the possibility of climate 
intervention, then the public and the decisionmakers surely won't.  Together 
with the PCAST weighin: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/22/pcast-releases-new-climate-report
guess it's official - adapt to 400 ppm and/or suffer the consequences. Hope 
those chemtrailers and some GE ethicists are pleased - party while you still 
can.
-Greg


Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising FearsBy JUSTIN GILLIS  NYTimesThe 
level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon 
dioxide, 
has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a 
concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.
Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level 
above 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a 
sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions 
under control are faltering.
The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not 
been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and 
scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level 
of the sea.
“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” 
said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic 
and 
Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading.
Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the Scripps Institution 
of 
Oceanography in San Diego, said a continuing rise could be catastrophic. “It 
means we are quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below what 
people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,” he said.
Virtually every automobile ride, every plane trip and, in most places, every 
flip of a light switch adds carbon dioxide to the air, and relatively little 
money is being spent to find and deploy alternative technologies.
China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been consuming fossil 
fuels 
extensively for far longer, and experts say the United States is more 
responsible than any other nation for the high level.
The new measurement came from analyzers atop Mauna Loa, the volcano on the big 
island of Hawaii that has long been ground zero for monitoring the worldwide 
trend on carbon dioxide, or CO2. Devices there sample clean, crisp air that has 
blown thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean, producing a record of rising 
carbon dioxide levels that has been closely tracked for half a century.
Carbon dioxide above 400 parts per million was first seen in the Arctic last 
year, and had also spiked above that level in hourly readings at Mauna Loa.
But the average reading for an entire day surpassed that level at Mauna Loa for 
the first time in the 24 hours that ended at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on 
Thursday. The two monitoring programs use slightly different protocols; NOAA 
reported an average for the period of 400.03 parts per million, while Scripps 
reported 400.08.
Carbon dioxide rises and falls on a seasonal cycle, and the level will dip 
below 
400 this summer as leaf growth in the Northern Hemisphere pulls about 10 
billion 
tons of carbon out of the air. But experts say that will be a brief reprieve — 
the moment is approaching when no measurement of the ambient air anywhere on 
earth, in any season, will produce a reading below 400.
“It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,” said Maureen E. Raymo, a 
scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia 
University.
From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists know that going 
back 800,000 years, the carbon dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from 
about 180 parts per million in the depths of ice ages to about 280 during the 
warm periods between. The evidence shows that global temperatures and CO2 
levels 
are tightly linked.
For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 years, the carbon 
dioxide level was relatively stable near that upper bound. But the burning of 
fossil fuels has caused a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since 
the 
Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and scientists say the 
climate 
is beginning to react, though they expect far larger changes in the future.
Indirect measurements suggest that the last time the carbon dioxide level was 
this high was at least three million years ago, during an epoch called the 
Pliocene. 

Re: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk.

[RAU greg]

Answers below - Greg




From: rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com
Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 9:47:18 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 
'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk.


Greg etal

  Thanks for the report.  Three areas of questions

   1. The message below yours by Vivian Warkentin only uses the term 
geoengineering - never SRM and CDR.   How well did Hamilton and Caldeira 
explain the differences and only use the more specific meanings of all three?  
Same for audience - if questions were part of the program?

Ken distinguished between the two and emphasize fewer issues with CDR. I'm not 
sure Clive believes this, instead lumping both into the potentially dangerous 
category when managed by humans at global scales. Private funding of RD and 
patenting is a big issue with him, i.e. loss of societal control of technology. 

   2.  You use the term climate manipulation below.  Was that term used and 
is 
it the same as geoengineering.  Would this assembled group last night have 
voted to preclude RD on all CDR (and especially afforestation and biochar)?

Don't remember manipulation being specifically used. No vote was taken, but my 
sense was that the audience in general left with opened minds on the topic.


   3.   Do you feel the anti-geoengineering folk had any minds changed over 
anything said?

Not sure those folks had there minds changed, but I think those on the fence 
got 
a better understanding of the issues and why GE needs to be on the table.

Ron




From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net
To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:50:52 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 
'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk.


Thanks for the warning, Andrew, but I risked going anyway without my body 
guards, and glad I did. The chem trail folks were indeed there and at times 
voiced their agitation over perceived major sky hacking already ongoing, but 
neither Ken nor Clive accommodated their fears. I think the debate really 
boiled 
down to whether or not humans can be trusted with researching and managing 
climate manipulation. Clive's view seems to be no. On the other hand, he made 
a startling prediction that, given the relatively low cost, he anticipated that 
SRM will be done in 30-40 years by  one or more developing countries desperate 
to counter the climate change wreaked on them by the developed world's CO2. 
That 
seems an admission that more conventional actions won't work by then, and 
argues 
that in the meantime  nations must come together to scientifically evaluate 
whether or not SRM is a viable, safe option before rogue states take matters 
into their own hands.  Ken did a good job in arguing for a rational, open 
evaluation of the technology and in defusing the Dr. Strangelove persona that 
the chemtrailers were expecting.
Anyway, I think it was an informative evening for the audience, and Earth 
Island 
Institute is to be commended for bravely hosting discussion on this important 
topic. It was nearly a full house; I'd say there were 90 people in attendance. 
Anyone else from this list?

Greg




From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@gmail.com
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 12:47:46 AM
Subject: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack 
the Sky' Caldeira talk.


Poster's note : see bottom of below piece for info on rally. Suggest that any 
well known researchers avoid the area. May be worth asking police to attend. I 
would advise searching audience for concealed arms before allowing entry.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-05-03/article/41048?headline=Hack-the-Sky---Vivian-Warkentin

Public Comment
New: Hack the Sky?
Vivian Warkentin
Sunday May 05, 2013 - 05:54:00 PM
On May 9th, 7:00PM at the Brower Center, 2150 Allston way in Berkeley, 
corporate, billionaire- backed geoengineer, Ken Caldiera will be laying out the 
scientists' plans to mitigate global warming by blocking sunlight from the 
earth 
with chemical jet aerosols, such as sulphur dioxide and aluminum oxide dust. 
Earth Island Institute, the sponsor of this debate, is calling the event, Hack 
the Sky? An ethicist, not a scientist, has been chosen to debate Caldiera. Is 
the Earth Island Institute telling us there are no scientific arguments against 
this scheme? Arguments like: These chemical dusts will fall to earth to be 
absorbed and breathed by humans and all living things. The sun gives the earth 
life. Sunlight is necessary for plants to perform photosynthesis

Re: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk.

[RAU greg]

Thanks for the warning, Andrew, but I risked going anyway without my body 
guards, and glad I did. The chem trail folks were indeed there and at times 
voiced their agitation over perceived major sky hacking already ongoing, but 
neither Ken nor Clive accommodated their fears. I think the debate really 
boiled 
down to whether or not humans can be trusted with researching and managing 
climate manipulation. Clive's view seems to be no. On the other hand, he made 
a startling prediction that, given the relatively low cost, he anticipated that 
SRM will be done in 30-40 years by  one or more developing countries desperate 
to counter the climate change wreaked on them by the developed world's CO2. 
That 
seems an admission that more conventional actions won't work by then, and 
argues 
that in the meantime nations must come together to scientifically evaluate 
whether or not SRM is a viable, safe option before rogue states take matters 
into their own hands.  Ken did a good job in arguing for a rational, open 
evaluation of the technology and in defusing the Dr. Strangelove persona that 
the chemtrailers were expecting.
Anyway, I think it was an informative evening for the audience, and Earth 
Island 
Institute is to be commended for bravely hosting discussion on this important 
topic. It was nearly a full house; I'd say there were 90 people in attendance. 
Anyone else from this list?

Greg




From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@gmail.com
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 12:47:46 AM
Subject: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack 
the Sky' Caldeira talk.


Poster's note : see bottom of below piece for info on rally. Suggest that any 
well known researchers avoid the area. May be worth asking police to attend. I 
would advise searching audience for concealed arms before allowing entry.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-05-03/article/41048?headline=Hack-the-Sky---Vivian-Warkentin

Public Comment
New: Hack the Sky?
Vivian Warkentin
Sunday May 05, 2013 - 05:54:00 PM
On May 9th, 7:00PM at the Brower Center, 2150 Allston way in Berkeley, 
corporate, billionaire- backed geoengineer, Ken Caldiera will be laying out the 
scientists' plans to mitigate global warming by blocking sunlight from the 
earth 
with chemical jet aerosols, such as sulphur dioxide and aluminum oxide dust. 
Earth Island Institute, the sponsor of this debate, is calling the event, Hack 
the Sky? An ethicist, not a scientist, has been chosen to debate Caldiera. Is 
the Earth Island Institute telling us there are no scientific arguments against 
this scheme? Arguments like: These chemical dusts will fall to earth to be 
absorbed and breathed by humans and all living things. The sun gives the earth 
life. Sunlight is necessary for plants to perform photosynthesis which takes 
carbon out of the atmosphere. The sun is the source of vitamin D required for 
human health. I for one, would like to hear from some forestry scientists, soil 
scientists, ocean scientists, biologists, botanists, entomologists, and non 
corporate atmospheric scientists. It is time for those who truly care about the 
environment to question blind trust in scientists and for that matter 
established environmental organizations. Science at our Universities is 
sponsored and directed by corporations now. Corporations have discovered that 
the best way to control environmentalists is to fund them. It seems that the 
neo environmentalists are running the environmental wing of the global war on 
terror, scaring us into all sorts of banker, developer, corporation, scientist 
enriching schemes ala disaster capitalism. I know there are plenty of well 
meaning caring people working with these groups, but has fear numbed their 
critical thinking? Geoengineering is massive pollution of the earth and it's 
inhabitants, and nothing less than the corporate scientific takeover of our 
greatest commons, our sky and atmosphere, natural weather and climate. It needs 
to be noted that the description of geoengineering matches what many already 
regularly observe in our skies. Please show up for this discussion on a subject 
that has been mostly hidden from the public. There will be an educational rally 
and march opposing geoengineering beginning at 6:00pm corner of Oxford and 
University.
-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this 

[geo] New NRC study on Geoengineering

[Rau, Greg]

Dear Colleagues:

The Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate is pleased to announce the 
formation of a new study committee, the Geoengineering Climate: Technical 
Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts.

This committee is charged to evaluate what is currently known about the science 
of proposed climate geoengineering techniques, including potential risks and 
consequences, such as impacts, or lack thereof, on ocean acidification; 
describe what is known about the viability for implementation of the proposed 
techniques including technological and cost considerations; briefly explain 
other geoengineering technologies that have been proposed (beyond the selected 
examples); and identify research needed to provide a credible scientific 
underpinning for future discussions.

The committee's statement of task and details about the members are available 
at:

https://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=49540

Public comments may be submitted to the NRC via this site.

Sincerely,

Ed

P.S. Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this announcement.





Edward Dunlea, Ph.D.

Senior Program Officer

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate The National Academy of Sciences

202-334-1334

edun...@nas.edumailto:edun...@nas.edu

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Warming-induced increase in aerosol number concentration likely to moderate climate change

[Rau, Greg]

Warming-induced increase in aerosol number concentration likely to moderate 
climate change

  *   Pauli 
Paasonenhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-1,
  *   Ari 
Asmihttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-2,
  *   Tuukka 
Petäjähttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-3,
  *   Maija K. 
Kajoshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-4,
  *   Mikko 
Äijälähttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-5,
  *   Heikki 
Junninenhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-6,
  *   Thomas 
Holsthttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-7,
  *   Jonathan P. D. 
Abbatthttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-8,
  *   Almut 
Arnethhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-9,
  *   Wolfram 
Birmilihttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-10,
  *   Hugo Denier van der 
Gonhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-11,
  *   Amar 
Hamedhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-12,
  *   András 
Hofferhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-13,
  *   Lauri 
Laaksohttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-14,
  *   Ari 
Laaksonenhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-15,
  *   W. Richard 
Leaitchhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-16,
  *   Christian 
Plass-Dülmerhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-17,
  *   Sara C. 
Pryorhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-18,
  *   Petri 
Räisänenhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-19,
  *   Erik 
Swietlickihttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-20,
  *   Alfred 
Wiedensohlerhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-21,
  *   Douglas R. 
Worsnophttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-22,
  *   Veli-Matti 
Kerminenhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-23
  *Markku 
Kulmalahttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#auth-24

  *   
Affiliationshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#affil-auth
  *   
Contributionshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#contrib-auth
  *   Corresponding 
authorhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#corres-auth
Nature Geoscience
(2013)
doi:10.1038/ngeo1800
Received
01 October 2012
Accepted
14 March 2013
Published online
28 April 2013

Atmospheric aerosol particles influence the climate system directly by 
scattering and absorbing solar radiation, and indirectly by acting as cloud 
condensation 
nuclei1http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref1,
 2http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref2, 
3http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref3, 
4http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref4. 
Apart from black carbon aerosol, aerosols cause a negative radiative forcing at 
the top of the atmosphere and substantially mitigate the warming caused by 
greenhouse 
gases1http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref1.
 In the future, tightening of controls on anthropogenic aerosol and precursor 
vapour emissions to achieve higher air quality may weaken this beneficial 
effect5http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref5,
 6http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref6, 
7http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref7. 
Natural aerosols, too, might affect future 
warming2http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref2,
 3http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref3, 
8http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref8, 
9http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html#ref9. 
Here we analyse long-term observations of concentrations and compositions of 
aerosol particles and their biogenic precursor vapours in continental mid- and 
high-latitude environments. We use measurements of particle number size 
distribution together with boundary layer heights derived from reanalysis data 
to show that the boundary layer burden of cloud condensation nuclei increases 
exponentially with temperature. Our results confirm a negative feedback 
mechanism between the continental biosphere, aerosols and climate: aerosol 
cooling effects are strengthened by rising biogenic organic vapour emissions in 
response to warming, 

Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist

[RAU greg]

Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky 
(planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate 
volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on 
commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch.  Perhaps more 
importantly, 
get involvement and buy-in  from the science community, governments, and NGO's 
to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch 
rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest 
that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might 
be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to 
mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can 
George). 
-Greg




From: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com
To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com; Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu; geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - 
News - Times Colonist


1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security.
2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research 
vessels.
3) I would extend the concern about security to information security.  



---
Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!   
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
wrote:

I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent 
about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't 
wait until after an attack to beef up security.  Some of the larger conferences 
or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing 
target for violent extremists.
In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's 
enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him.  

I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't 
the 
way to solve anything.
As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security 
officers) 
or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun 
costs 
only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have 
to 
be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this 
isn't an over reaction.
On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote:

Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled The Return of a 
Dangerous Ecological Criminal published by his Sea Shepherd Society online 
October 29 2012.  This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe 
and 
Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and geoengineering 
as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously).   Watson, in 
his 
article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the 
scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use 
PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands].  Watson, 
apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law be 
upheld.   (This is what his article states).  The Globe and Mail reporter 
couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public 
since July when he skipped bail in Germany...


As for ETC, their Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering webpage is still 
up.  ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world 
geoengineering 
experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen 
if 
the slightest thing is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering.  From 
their 
first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be atechnological strategy that 
could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a 
practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions]  


Naturally,no one wants that.  Reasonable people, obviously, would want 
toincrease or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and 
make a 
practical agreement that might mitigate it? 

From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll:  I don't think they play at all 
fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so 
dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any 
rules 
in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them.  



On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase 
fishery 
yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change?


Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former?


On Friday, April 26, 2013, David 

[geo] A critical evaluation of volcanic cooling

[Rau, Greg]

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3997-4031, 2013
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/
doi:10.5194/acp-13-3997-2013
© Author(s) 2013. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

An empirical model of global climate – Part 1: A critical evaluation of 
volcanic cooling

T. Canty1, N. R. Mascioli1,*, M. D. Smarte2,**, and R. J. Salawitch1,2,3
1Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College 
Park, MD, USA
2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland, College 
Park, MD, USA
3Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College 
Park, MD, USA
*now at: Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, 
New York, NY, USA
**now at: Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute 
of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

 Abstract. Observed reductions in Earth's surface temperature following 
explosive volcanic eruptions have been used as a proxy for geoengineering of 
climate by the artificial enhancement of stratospheric sulfate. Earth cools 
following major eruptions due to an increase in the reflection of sunlight 
caused by a dramatic enhancement of the stratospheric sulfate aerosol burden. 
Significant global cooling has been observed following the four major eruptions 
since 1900: Santa María, Mount Agung, El Chichón and Mt. Pinatubo, leading IPCC 
(2007) to state major volcanic eruptions can, thus, cause a drop in global 
mean surface temperature of about half a degree Celsius that can last for 
months and even years. We use a multiple linear regression model applied to 
the global surface temperature anomaly to suggest that exchange of heat between 
the atmosphere and ocean, driven by variations in the strength of the Atlantic 
Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), has been a factor in the decline of 
global temperature following these eruptions. The veracity of this suggestion 
depends on whether sea surface temperature (SST) in the North Atlantic, 
sometimes called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but here referred to as 
Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV), truly represents a proxy for the 
strength of the AMOC. Also, precise quantification of global cooling due to 
volcanoes depends on how the AMV index is detrended. If the AMV index is 
detrended using anthropogenic radiative forcing of climate, we find that 
surface cooling attributed to Mt. Pinatubo, using the Hadley Centre/University 
of East Anglia surface temperature record, maximises at 0.14 °C globally and 
0.32 °C over land. These values are about a factor of 2 less than found when 
the AMV index is neglected in the model and quite a bit lower than the 
canonical 0.5 °C cooling usually attributed to Pinatubo. This result is driven 
by the high amplitude, low frequency component of the AMV index, demonstrating 
that reduced impact of volcanic cooling upon consideration of the AMV index is 
driven by variations in North Atlantic SST that occur over time periods much 
longer than those commonly associated with major volcanic eruptions. The 
satellite record of atmospheric temperature from 1978 to present and other 
century-long surface temperature records are also consistent with the 
suggestion that volcanic cooling may have been over estimated by about a factor 
of 2 due to prior neglect of ocean circulation. Our study suggests a 
recalibration may be needed for the proper use of Mt. Pinatubo as a proxy for 
geoengineering of climate. Finally, we highlight possible shortcomings in 
simulations of volcanic cooling by general circulation models, which are also 
being used to assess the impact of geoengineering of climate via stratospheric 
sulfate injection.

 Final Revised 
Paperhttp://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.pdf (PDF, 
9366 KB)   
Supplementhttp://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013-supplement.pdf
 (828 KB)   Discussion 
Paperhttp://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/23829/2012/acpd-12-23829-2012.html
 (ACPD)

Citation: Canty, T., Mascioli, N. R., Smarte, M. D., and Salawitch, R. J.: An 
empirical model of global climate – Part 1: A critical evaluation of volcanic 
cooling, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3997-4031, doi:10.5194/acp-13-3997-2013, 2013. 
  Bibtexhttp://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.bib   
EndNotehttp://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.ris   
Reference Manager 
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.ris
XMLhttp://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.xml

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit 

Re: [geo] “Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God? | IASS Potsdam

[RAU greg]

Thanks for the kind reminder/invitation, Andrew. Unfortunately, my non-existant 
travel budget forbids me from attending the event. Perhaps there will be reruns 
on YouTube.
As for the question Are people allowed to put their hand on the climate?, I 
might remind the participants that is exactly the problem - humans are putting 
their hands on climate (and ocean chemistry and biology) via their carbon 
intensive lifestyle. And it doesn't look like those hands and their sinful, 
earth-threatenting mischief are going away anytime soon.  So my vote is that we 
indeed learn to play (and act) like God, and with our hands and changed 
behavior 
save the sky and the rest of the planet. 
My answer to the workshop's two-part title question then is a resounding yes, 
barring some other divine/better intervention. Praying for guidance in this 
immense task  (and for forgiveness from future earth inhabitants if we fail) 
might also be a good idea.

Greg




From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, April 22, 2013 3:53:06 PM
Subject: [geo] “Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God? | IASS 
Potsdam


http://www.iass-potsdam.de/research-clusters/sustainable-interactions-atmosphere-siwa/news/climate-engineering-saving-sky-or

“Climate Engineering – Saving the Sky, Or Playing God?
Should humans try to control the climate? 
Climate Engineering (CE), the purposeful intervention into the global climate 
system, increasingly raises the hope that the effects of climate change could 
be 
compensated with the help of technology. However, these methods, even if they 
are able to affect global mean temperatures quickly and significantly, also 
involve large uncertainties and risks that are by far not sufficiently 
explored.  They also raise questions such as: Are people allowed to put their 
hand on the climate? In the media, climate engineering therefore is sometimes 
compared to “playing God”.
The IASS is convening a workshop on “Religious and Spiritual Perspectives on 
Climate Engineering” from April 24 to 26, 2013 addressing the following 
questions:
How do different religious and spiritual thought traditions frame the 
human-environment relationship, and how does climate engineering fit into or 
challenge this?
How do these traditions weigh the potential alleviation of current and future 
suffering through climate change against the risks and uncertainties of climate 
engineering?
Is it already possible to make conclusive statements about how acceptable or 
unacceptable climate engineering will be viewed within individual religious and 
spiritual traditions?
The event builds on previous workshops aimed at understanding the more basic 
relationship between religions and the climate change we are already facing, as 
well as building on current work being done at the IASS cluster “Sustainable 
Interactions with the Atmosphere” (SIWA) on understanding the impacts, 
uncertainties and risks of climate engineering.
On the evening of April 25th, there will be a public panel discussion at the 
IASSon the topic of religion and climate engineering, titled “Climate 
Engineering: Saving the Sky, or Playing God?” In the focus of the discussion is 
particularly the question on the relationship between climate engineering, the 
deliberate manipulation of the global climate system, and religious and 
spiritual traditions.
The discussion deals with the following questions:
What is the relationship like between religion and climate engineering?
How relevant is climate engineering for religious and spiritual communities?
How do some religious and spiritual groups understand the potential of climate 
engineering I order to compensate the effects of climate change in the context 
of its risks?
The discussion will be chaired by PD Dr. Mark Lawrence (Scientific director at 
the IASS) and feature:Dieter Gerten (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact 
Research)
Shlomo Shoham (Former Commissioner for Future Generations, Parliament of 
Israel)Michael Northcott (University of Edinburgh)Venerable Vivekananda 
(Panditarama Lumbini International Vipassana Meditation Center)
Attendance is by appointment only! Please register with Stefan Schäfer 
(stefan.schae...@iass-potsdam.de) for the panel discussion. Media 
representatives please register with me...@iass-potsdam.de. The workshop as 
well 
as the panel discussion will be in English.
-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

[geo] RE: Biochar: Downstream effects

[Rau, Greg]

Here's the Science link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6130/345.abstract


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Rau, Greg [r...@llnl.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:56 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Biochar: Downstream effects

Press Release 13-069
Where Does Charcoal, or Black Carbon, in Soils Go?


Scientists find surprising new answers in wetlands such as the Everglades
[Charred boreal forest after a fire]

Charred boreal forest after a fire has raged: where does the charcoal go?
Credit and Larger 
Versionhttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=127577org=NSF


April 18, 2013

Scientists have uncovered one of nature's long-kept secrets--the true fate of 
charcoal in the world's soils.

The ability to determine the fate of charcoal is critical to knowledge of the 
global carbon budget, which in turn can help understand and mitigate climate 
change.

However, until now, researchers only had scientific guesses about what happens 
to charcoal once it's incorporated into soil. They believed it stayed there.

Surprisingly, most of these researchers were wrong.

The findings of a new study that examines the result of charcoal once it is 
deposited into the soil are outlined in a paper published this week in the 
journal Science.

The international team of researchers was led by scientists Rudolf Jaffe of 
Florida International University and Thorsten Dittmar of the German Max Planck 
Society.

Most scientists thought charcoal was resistant, says Jaffe. They believed 
that once it was incorporated into soils, it stayed there. But if that were the 
case, soils would be black.

Charcoal, or black carbon, is a residue generated by combustion including 
wildfires and the burning of fossil fuels.

When charcoal forms, it is usually deposited into the soil.

From a chemical perspective, no one really thought it dissolved, but it does, 
Jaffe says.

It doesn't accumulate for a long time. It's exported into wetlands and rivers, 
eventually making its way to the oceans.

It all started with a strange finding in the Everglades.

At the National Science Foundation (NSF) Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term 
Ecological Research (LTER) site--one of 26 such NSF LTER sites in ecosystems 
around the 
worldhttp://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/goodbye?http://www.lternet.edu/sites/map--Jaffe
 studied the glades' environmental chemistry.

Dissolved organic carbon is known to be abundant in wetlands such as the 
Everglades and plays a critical role in the ecology of these systems.

Jaffe wanted to learn more about what comprised the organic carbon in the 
Everglades.

He and colleagues discovered that as much as 20 percent of the total dissolved 
organic carbon in the Everglades is charcoal.

Surprised by the finding, the researchers shifted their focus to the origin of 
the dissolved charcoal.

In an almost serendipitous scientific journey, Dittmar, head of the Max Planck 
Research Group for Marine Geochemistry at the University Oldenburg in Germany, 
was also tracing the paths of charcoal, but from an oceanographic perspective.

To map out a more comprehensive picture, the researchers joined forces. Their 
conclusion is that charcoal in soils is making its way into the world's waters.

This study affirms the power of large-scale analyses made possible through 
international collaborations, says Saran Twombly, program director in NSF's 
Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research along with NSF's 
Directorate for Geosciences.

What started out as a puzzling result from the Florida Everglades engaged 
scientists at other LTER sites in the U.S., and eventually expanded worldwide, 
says Twombly. The result is a major contribution to our understanding of the 
carbon cycle.

Fire is probably an integral part of the global carbon cycle, says Dittmar, its 
effects seen from land to sea.

The discovery carries significant implications for bioengineering, the 
scientists believe.

The global carbon budget is a balancing act between sources that produce carbon 
and sources that remove it.

The new findings show that the amount of dissolved charcoal transported to the 
oceans is keeping pace with the total charcoal generated by fires annually on a 
global scale.

While the environmental consequences of the accumulation of black carbon in 
surface and ocean waters are currently unknown, Jaffe said the findings mean 
that greater consideration should be given to carbon sequestration techniques.

Biochar addition to soils is one such technique.

Biochar technology is based on vegetation-derived charcoal that is added to 
agricultural soils as a means of sequestering carbon.

As more people implement biochar technology, says Jaffe, they should take into 
consideration the potential dissolution of the charcoal to ensure that these 
techniques are environmentally friendly.

Jaffe and Dittmar agree

[geo] Biochar: Downstream effects

[Rau, Greg]

Press Release 13-069
Where Does Charcoal, or Black Carbon, in Soils Go?


Scientists find surprising new answers in wetlands such as the Everglades
[Charred boreal forest after a fire]

Charred boreal forest after a fire has raged: where does the charcoal go?
Credit and Larger 
Versionhttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=127577org=NSF


April 18, 2013

Scientists have uncovered one of nature's long-kept secrets--the true fate of 
charcoal in the world's soils.

The ability to determine the fate of charcoal is critical to knowledge of the 
global carbon budget, which in turn can help understand and mitigate climate 
change.

However, until now, researchers only had scientific guesses about what happens 
to charcoal once it's incorporated into soil. They believed it stayed there.

Surprisingly, most of these researchers were wrong.

The findings of a new study that examines the result of charcoal once it is 
deposited into the soil are outlined in a paper published this week in the 
journal Science.

The international team of researchers was led by scientists Rudolf Jaffe of 
Florida International University and Thorsten Dittmar of the German Max Planck 
Society.

Most scientists thought charcoal was resistant, says Jaffe. They believed 
that once it was incorporated into soils, it stayed there. But if that were the 
case, soils would be black.

Charcoal, or black carbon, is a residue generated by combustion including 
wildfires and the burning of fossil fuels.

When charcoal forms, it is usually deposited into the soil.

From a chemical perspective, no one really thought it dissolved, but it does, 
Jaffe says.

It doesn't accumulate for a long time. It's exported into wetlands and rivers, 
eventually making its way to the oceans.

It all started with a strange finding in the Everglades.

At the National Science Foundation (NSF) Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term 
Ecological Research (LTER) site--one of 26 such NSF LTER sites in ecosystems 
around the 
worldhttp://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/goodbye?http://www.lternet.edu/sites/map--Jaffe
 studied the glades' environmental chemistry.

Dissolved organic carbon is known to be abundant in wetlands such as the 
Everglades and plays a critical role in the ecology of these systems.

Jaffe wanted to learn more about what comprised the organic carbon in the 
Everglades.

He and colleagues discovered that as much as 20 percent of the total dissolved 
organic carbon in the Everglades is charcoal.

Surprised by the finding, the researchers shifted their focus to the origin of 
the dissolved charcoal.

In an almost serendipitous scientific journey, Dittmar, head of the Max Planck 
Research Group for Marine Geochemistry at the University Oldenburg in Germany, 
was also tracing the paths of charcoal, but from an oceanographic perspective.

To map out a more comprehensive picture, the researchers joined forces. Their 
conclusion is that charcoal in soils is making its way into the world's waters.

This study affirms the power of large-scale analyses made possible through 
international collaborations, says Saran Twombly, program director in NSF's 
Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research along with NSF's 
Directorate for Geosciences.

What started out as a puzzling result from the Florida Everglades engaged 
scientists at other LTER sites in the U.S., and eventually expanded worldwide, 
says Twombly. The result is a major contribution to our understanding of the 
carbon cycle.

Fire is probably an integral part of the global carbon cycle, says Dittmar, its 
effects seen from land to sea.

The discovery carries significant implications for bioengineering, the 
scientists believe.

The global carbon budget is a balancing act between sources that produce carbon 
and sources that remove it.

The new findings show that the amount of dissolved charcoal transported to the 
oceans is keeping pace with the total charcoal generated by fires annually on a 
global scale.

While the environmental consequences of the accumulation of black carbon in 
surface and ocean waters are currently unknown, Jaffe said the findings mean 
that greater consideration should be given to carbon sequestration techniques.

Biochar addition to soils is one such technique.

Biochar technology is based on vegetation-derived charcoal that is added to 
agricultural soils as a means of sequestering carbon.

As more people implement biochar technology, says Jaffe, they should take into 
consideration the potential dissolution of the charcoal to ensure that these 
techniques are environmentally friendly.

Jaffe and Dittmar agree that there are still many unknowns when it comes to the 
environmental fate of charcoal, and both plan to move on to the next phase of 
the research.

They've proved where charcoal goes.

Now they'd like to answer how that happens, and what the environmental 
consequences are.

The more scientists can understand the process and the environmental factors 

[geo] Aerosol geography and radiative forcing

[Rau, Greg]

Little net clear-sky radiative forcing from recent regional redistribution of 
aerosols

  *   D. M. 
Murphyhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1740.html#auth-1
Nature Geoscience
6,
258–262
(2013)
doi:10.1038/ngeo1740
Received
12 November 2012
Accepted
22 January 2013
Published online
10 March 2013
Article tools
·   PDFUrlBlockedError.aspx

  *   Citationhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/ris/ngeo1740.ris
  *   
Reprintshttps://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGRpublication=Nature+Geosciencetitle=Little+net+clear-sky+radiative+forcing+from+recent+regional+redistribution+of+aerosolscontentID=10.1038%2Fngeo1740volumeNum=6issueNum=4numPages=5pageNumbers=pp258-262orderBeanReset=truepublicationDate=2013-03-10author=D.+M.+Murphy
  *   Rights  
permissionshttps://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGpublication=Nature+Geosciencetitle=Little+net+clear-sky+radiative+forcing+from+recent+regional+redistribution+of+aerosolscontentID=10.1038%2Fngeo1740volumeNum=6issueNum=4numPages=5pageNumbers=pp258-262publicationDate=2013-03-10author=D.+M.+Murphy
  *   Metricshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/ngeo1740/metrics

Aerosols both scatter and absorb incoming solar radiation, with consequences 
for the energy balance of the atmosphere. Unlike greenhouse gases, atmospheric 
aerosols are distributed non-uniformly around the Earth. Therefore, regional 
shifts in aerosol abundance could alter radiative forcing of the climate. Here, 
I use multi-angle imaging spectroradiometer (MISR) satellite data and the 
Atmospheric and Environmental Research radiative transfer 
model1http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1740.html#ref1 to 
assess the radiative effect of the spatial redistribution of aerosols over the 
past decade. Unexpectedly, the radiative transfer model shows that the movement 
of aerosols from high latitudes towards the Equator, as might happen if 
pollution shifts from Europe to southeast Asia, has little effect on clear-sky 
radiative forcing. Shorter slant paths and smaller upscatter fractions near the 
Equator compensate for more total sunlight there. Overall, there has been an 
almost exact cancellation in the clear-sky radiative forcing from aerosol 
increases and decreases in different parts of the world, whereas MISR should 
have been able to easily detect a change of 0.1 W m−2 per decade due to 
changing patterns. Long-term changes in global mean aerosol optical depth or 
indirect aerosol forcing of clouds are difficult to measure from satellites. 
However, the satellite data show that the regional redistribution of aerosols 
had little direct net effect on global average clear-sky radiative forcing from 
2000 to 2012.


-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] More on Geoengineering in Africa

[RAU greg]

Actually, biogeoenineering as described in this fascinating article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6127/1618.abstract

and in the media here:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/fairy-circle-termites/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/science/fairy-circles-in-africa-may-be-work-of-termites.html


Building on the termite's (and beaver's) successes, could humans then also 
safely and sustainably geoengineer their environment?
Greg




From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 7, 2013 12:01:21 PM
Subject: [geo] Dealing with the uncertainties of climate engineering: Warnings 
from a psychological complex problem solving perspective D. Amelung, J. Funke

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X13000110

Dealing with the uncertainties of climate engineering: Warnings from a
psychological complex problem solving perspective

Dorothee Amelung, ,
Joachim Funke
Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Hauptstraße 47-51,
69117 Heidelberg, Germany

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 6221 547571; fax: +49 547273.
Available online 28 March 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.001, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

1. Introduction
2. Why finding a solution to climate change means solving a complex problem
3. Psychological complex problem solving research in the context of
climate politics
4. Implications of the complex problem solving perspective for the
problem solver
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion

Abstract
Decision-makers in the context of climate politics are confronted with
considerable uncertainties due to the complexities inherent in the
relevant natural and social systems. Nonetheless, pressure on
decision-makers to find solutions to dangerous climate change is
rising due to the inertia in the climate system. Considering these
pressures, technological options (climate engineering) have been
proposed to counteract the effects of climatic change. However,
introducing options that bear their own scientific uncertainties means
further adding to the complexity of the situation. By adopting the
psychological perspective of complex problem solving research, we
analyze one frequently neglected source of uncertainty with regard to
climate engineering: errors of the political problem-solver in his
interaction with the situational demands of complex problems. More
specifically, we examine the psychological sources for human error
that are common in dealing with the uncertainties implied in this type
of problem. We will conclude from the complex problem solving
perspective that a consideration of climate engineering in the context
of climate change can provide a dangerous illusion of controllability.

Highlights

► Newly emerging climate engineering technology complicates climate
strategy selection.
► We apply psychological complex problem solving research to this topic.
► We examine the specific difficulties for the political problem-solver.
► Difficulties lie in model building, information retrieval,
prediction and goal setting.
► Climate engineering provides a dangerous illusion of controllability.

Keywords

Complex problem solving;
Geoengineering technology;
Decision-making;
Uncertainty;
Climate politics

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

Re: [geo] Re: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall : Nature Climate Change

[RAU greg]

Thanks Oliver.
Just to clarify from the link, ETC's stated Plan A is:

 pull out and dust off the many practical proposals that have been around 
for decades that would plant trees, push back the Sahara, and support 
sustainable agricultural strategies in the region. And, if that’s not enough in 
a dire emergency, then make sure there is sufficient food aid. 

I'd also suggest throwing in some significant family planning aid.  Apparently 
sufficient food aid will be required because the planted trees will be 
occupying otherwise arable land(?)

In any case sounds like some serious social, bio,  and geo engineering to me, 
which I'm all for carefully considering.  But how is this immune from the same 
criticism as GE with regard to effectiveness and unintended consequences, and 
especially what is the likelihood of achieving Plan A goals given African 
social 
and political instability, not to mention lack of global will? This is why it's 
dangerous at this stage to dismiss any Plan B option until it is proven that it 
is not needed, and why ETC's vehement opposition to such seems so irrational. 
 This is making a big assumption that their true agenda is to maintain earth 
habitability.
-Greg




From: O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, April 6, 2013 2:27:49 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts 
Sahelian rainfall : Nature Climate Change

Opps: forgot teh URL of Jim's post 
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/normalizing-geoengineering-foreign-aid

On Monday, 1 April 2013 11:17:28 UTC+1, andrewjlockley  wrote:
Posters note: a discussion of the policy implications of this paper can be 
found 
at http://m.guardian.co.uk/ environment/2013/mar/31/earth- 
cooling-schemes-global-signoff , pasted below.
http://www.nature.com/ nclimate/journal/vaop/ ncurrent/full/nclimate1857. html
Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall
Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones, Nicolas Bellouin  David Stephenson
Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/ nclimate1857
Received 23 October 2012 
Accepted 22 February 2013 
Published online 31 March 2013
The Sahelian drought of the 1970s–1990s was one of the largest humanitarian 
disasters of the past 50 years, causing up to 250,000 deaths and creating 10 
million refugees. It has been attributed to natural variability, 
over-grazing and the impact of industrial emissions of sulphur dioxide. Each 
mechanism can influence the Atlantic sea surface temperature gradient, which 
is 
strongly coupled to Sahelian precipitation. We suggest that sporadic volcanic 
eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere also strongly influence this gradient and 
cause Sahelian drought. Using de-trended observations from 1900 to 2010, we 
show 
that three of the four driest Sahelian summers were preceded by substantial 
Northern Hemisphere volcanic eruptions. We use a state-of-the-art coupled 
global 
atmosphere–ocean model to simulate both episodic volcanic eruptions and 
geoengineering by continuous deliberate injection into the stratosphere. In 
either case, large asymmetric stratospheric aerosol loadings concentrated in 
the 
Northern Hemisphere are a harbinger of Sahelian drought whereas those 
concentrated in the Southern Hemisphere induce a greening of the Sahel. 
Further 
studies of the detailed regional impacts on the Sahel and other vulnerable 
areas 
are required to inform policymakers in developing careful consensual global 
governance before any practical solar radiation management geoengineering 
scheme 
is implemented.

Comment piece below, http://m.guardian.co.uk/ environment/2013/mar/31/earth- 
cooling-schemes-global-signoff
Guardian, Sunday 31 March 2013 17.59 BST 
AIan Sample, science correspondent
Earth-cooling schemes need global sign-off, researchers say
World's most vulnerable people need protection from huge and unintended 
impacts 
of radical geoengineering projects.
Controversial geoengineering projects that may be used to cool the planet must 
be approved by world governments to reduce the danger of catastrophic 
accidents, 
British scientists said.Met Office researchers have called for global 
oversight 
of the radical schemes after studies showed they could have huge and 
unintended 
impacts on some of the world's most vulnerable people.The dangers arose in 
projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused 
devastating 
droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but 
left 
huge areas of Brazil parched.The massive complexities associated with 
geoengineering, and the potential for winners and losers, means that some form 
of global governance is essential, said Jim Haywood at the Met Office's 
Hadley 
Centre in Exeter.The warning builds on work by scientists and engineers to 
agree 
a regulatory framework that would ban full-scale geoengineering projects, at 
least temporarily, but allow smaller research projects to go 
ahead.Geoengineering 

Re: [geo] Adam Corner – On geoengineering

[RAU greg]

Thanks, Andrew. As for the title's question  ..are humans the ones who are out 
of control? the answer is obviously yes otherwise we wouldn't be having a 
discussion about increasing CO2 and it's global consequences and needed 
remedies. It is the ongoing failure of social, political, and cultural systems 
to deal with this problem that should force everyone to consider other possible 
solutions including evil technology. At the end of the day social, political, 
and cultural systems will make the ultimate decisions as to how to proceed. 
Given what is at stake it would be best for those systems and the planet to 
fully, carefully, and quickly evaluate all options rather than prematurely and 
ill-advisedly jettisoning possible solutions including those involving 
engineering. 
As for engineers as deities, this apparently speaks to a perceived lack of 
social control over technology. Fine, let's make sure society is the ultimate 
deity and decider. Still, whoever is going to play God here is going to need 
to know to the best they can all of the options and consequences before 
(quickly) proceeding. So let's cut the demonization of the potential 
contributors here, and get on with determining what viable social, political, 
and technical solutions we may have (if any).
-Greg




From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, April 5, 2013 1:14:28 AM
Subject: [geo] Adam Corner – On geoengineering


http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/adam-corner-geoengineering-climate-change/

Blue sky thinking
Geoengineers are would-be deities who dream of mastering the heavens. But are 
humans the ones who are out of control?
by Adam Corner - a research associate in psychology at Cardiff University. His 
latest book is Promoting Sustainable Behaviour: A Practical Guide to What 
Works (2012).
At a small conference in Germany last May, I found myself chuckling at the 
inability of the meeting organisers to control the room’s electronic blinds. 
It’s always fun when automated technology gets the better of its human masters, 
but this particular malfunction had a surreal pertinence. Here was a room full 
of geoengineering experts, debating technologies to control the climate, all 
the 
while failing to keep the early summer sun’s rays away from their PowerPoint 
presentations. As the blinds clicked and whirred in the background, opening and 
closing at will, I asked myself: are we really ready to take control of the 
global thermostat?Geoengineering, the idea of using large-scale technologies to 
manipulate the Earth’s temperature in response to climate change, sounds like 
the premise of a science fiction novel. Nevertheless, it is migrating to the 
infinitely more unsettling realm of science policy. The notion of a direct 
intervention in the climate system — by removing carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere, or reflecting a small amount of sunlight back out into space — is 
slowly gaining currency as a ‘Plan B’. The political subtext for all this is 
the 
desperation that now permeates behind-the-scenes discourse about climate 
change. 
Despite decades of rhetoric about saving the planet, and determined but mostly 
ineffectual campaigns from civil society, global emissions of carbon dioxide 
continue to rise.Officially, climate policy is all about energy efficiency, 
renewables and nuclear power. Officially, the target of keeping global 
temperatures within two degrees of the pre-industrial revolution average is 
still in our sights. But the voices whispering that we might have left it too 
late are no longer automatically dismissed as heretical. Wouldn’t it be better, 
they ask, to have at least considered some other options — in case things get 
really bad?This is the context in which various scary, implausible or simply 
bizarre proposals are being put on the table. They range from the relatively 
mundane (the planting of forests on a grand scale), to the crazy but 
conceivable 
(a carbon dioxide removal industry, to capture our emissions and bury them 
underground), to the barely believable (injecting millions of tiny reflective 
particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight). In fact, the group of 
technologies awkwardly yoked together under the label ‘geoengineering’ have 
very 
little in common beyond their stated purpose: to keep the dangerous effects of 
climate change at bay.Monkeying around with the Earth’s systems at a planetary 
scale obviously presents a number of unknown — and perhaps unknowable — 
dangers. 
How might other ecosystems be affected if we start injecting reflective 
particles into space? What would happen if the carbon dioxide we stored 
underground were to escape? What if the cure of engineering the climate is 
worse 
than the disease? But I think that it is too soon to get worked up about the 
risks posed by any individual technology. The vast majority of geoengineering 
ideas will never 

Re: [geo] The Truth About Geoengineering | Foreign Affairs

[RAU greg]

carbon-sucking zooplankton - the authors have a real scoop there, unless they 
meant phytoplankton. Unfortunately, The Truth... is paywalled. 
Greg





From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 28, 2013 1:48:04 AM
Subject: [geo] The Truth About Geoengineering | Foreign Affairs


http://m.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139084/david-g-victor-m-granger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-kathari/the-truth-about-geoengineering

The Truth About Geoengineering
Science Fiction and Science Fact
By David G. Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, Katharine 
Ricke
March 27, 2013
Summary: 
With predictions about climate change growing direr every week, geoengineering 
(which includes everything from fertilizing the oceans in an attempt to cajole 
great blooms of carbon-sucking zooplankton to spraying particles into the upper 
atmosphere to make the earth more reflective) is starting to look more 
attractive. But the science still lags behind the ambitions. To understand how 
such schemes would work in practice -- and what their consequences would be -- 
it is time to start small-scale field tests.
-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

Re: [geo] Holdren et al weigh in

[RAU greg]

 by rising seas, for example, and farming areas could be better 
prepared for droughts. The United States has too many programs that 
essentially 
provide economic incentives for people to live in harm's way, Schrag told 
PCAST 
at a briefing.
Efforts to adapt to climate change will ultimately be overwhelmed, however, 
unless the government moves to curb, or mitigate, carbon emissions, PCAST 
notes. 
That's why the report also encourages Obama to support more drilling for 
natural 
gas, which produces fewer carbon emissions than oil or coal. And it urges the 
expansion of tax credits for developing renewable energy sources, such as wind 
and solar power.
Although the administration can take action independently on some of PCAST's 
ideas—such as regulating power plants or supporting expanded drilling—it will 
need cooperation from a sometimes hostile Congress for others, such as 
retooling 
the tax code. But energy expert Robert Socolow of Princeton University says 
PCAST's emphasis on adaptation first and mitigation second could help reframe 
public discussion about such policies. There is a large overlap of climate 
threats and threats we already deal with, such as floods and droughts, he 
notes. Linking the two could reduce resistance to discussing climate policy, 
Socolow says, and reopen a completely muffled national conversation.
Obama could also leverage action at the state level during his second term, 
adds 
former Obama adviser Joseph Aldy, now at Harvard University. This year, the 
nation's first comprehensive emissions trading system began operating in 
California, while an existing nine-state pact in the Northeast, the Regional 
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, is mulling stricter limits for existing plants. If 
federal officials could link such systems piece by piece, Aldy says, it could 
open the door to the broader type of emissions trading system that Obama was 
unable to get through Congress during his first term. And that step, he says, 
could help Obama meet his first-term goal of cutting U.S. carbon emissions by 
17% from 2005 levels by 2020—an aspiration rarely mentioned these days by the 
president or his advisers.




From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, March 22, 2013 9:25:15 PM
Subject: [geo] Holdren et al weigh in


Whitehouse science advisers offer their views of (anthro?) climate change 
mitigation/management - letter here*. Adaptation (climate preparedness) 
prominently appears as the Plan B (actually item # 1) to failed CO2 
policy/technology, ignoring the possibility of post-emissions mitigation or 
SRM. 
Under the rather dire  circumstances the planet now faces and given the 
abundance of GE possibilities proposed, the preceding oversight seems 
dangerously narrow minded.  
-Greg
*http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_energy_and_climate_3-22-13_final.pdf



http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/22/pcast-releases-new-climate-report
PCAST Releases New Climate ReportToday the President’s Council of Advisors on 
Science and Technology (PCAST) released a letter to the Presidentdescribing six 
key components the advisory group believes should be central to the 
Administration’s strategy for addressing climate change.Posted by Rick Weiss on 
March 22, 2013 at 01:53 PM EDT
The 9-page “letter report” responds to a November request from the President 
for 
advice as the Administration prepares new initiatives to tackle the challenges 
posed by Earth’s changing climate. The letter calls for a dual focus on  
mitigation—reducing the pace and magnitude of climate-related changes—and 
adaptation—minimizing the unavoidable damage that can be expected to result 
from 
climate change.
“Both approaches are essential parts of an integrated strategy for dealing with 
climate change,” the letter states. “Mitigation is needed to avoid a degree of 
climate change that would be unmanageable despite efforts to adapt.  Adaptation 
is needed because the climate is already changing and some further change is 
inevitable regardless of what is done to reduce its pace and magnitude.”
The six key components are:
* Focus on national preparedness for climate change, which can help 
decrease 
damage from extreme weather events now and speed recovery from future damage;
* Continue efforts to decarbonize the economy, with emphasis on the 
electricity 
sector;
* Level the playing field for clean-energy and energy-efficiency 
technologies 
by removing regulatory obstacles, addressing market failures, adjusting tax 
policies, and providing time-limited subsidies for clean energy when 
appropriate;
* Sustain research on next-generation clean-energy technologies and 
remove 
obstacles for their eventual deployment;
* Take  additional steps to establish U.S. leadership on climate change 
internationally; and
* Conduct an initial Quadrennial Energy Review.
To see

[geo] Holdren et al weigh in

[RAU greg]

Whitehouse science advisers offer their views of (anthro?) climate change 
mitigation/management - letter here*. Adaptation (climate preparedness) 
prominently appears as the Plan B (actually item # 1) to failed CO2 
policy/technology, ignoring the possibility of post-emissions mitigation or 
SRM. 
Under the rather dire circumstances the planet now faces and given the 
abundance 
of GE possibilities proposed, the preceding oversight seems dangerously narrow 
minded.  
-Greg
*http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_energy_and_climate_3-22-13_final.pdf



http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/22/pcast-releases-new-climate-report
PCAST Releases New Climate ReportToday the President’s Council of Advisors on 
Science and Technology (PCAST) released a letter to the Presidentdescribing six 
key components the advisory group believes should be central to the 
Administration’s strategy for addressing climate change.Posted by Rick Weiss on 
March 22, 2013 at 01:53 PM EDT
The 9-page “letter report” responds to a November request from the President 
for 
advice as the Administration prepares new initiatives to tackle the challenges 
posed by Earth’s changing climate. The letter calls for a dual focus on 
mitigation—reducing the pace and magnitude of climate-related changes—and 
adaptation—minimizing the unavoidable damage that can be expected to result 
from 
climate change.
“Both approaches are essential parts of an integrated strategy for dealing with 
climate change,” the letter states. “Mitigation is needed to avoid a degree of 
climate change that would be unmanageable despite efforts to adapt.  Adaptation 
is needed because the climate is already changing and some further change is 
inevitable regardless of what is done to reduce its pace and magnitude.”
The six key components are:
* Focus on national preparedness for climate change, which can help 
decrease 
damage from extreme weather events now and speed recovery from future damage;
* Continue efforts to decarbonize the economy, with emphasis on the 
electricity 
sector;
* Level the playing field for clean-energy and energy-efficiency 
technologies 
by removing regulatory obstacles, addressing market failures, adjusting tax 
policies, and providing time-limited subsidies for clean energy when 
appropriate;
* Sustain research on next-generation clean-energy technologies and 
remove 
obstacles for their eventual deployment;
* Take additional steps to establish U.S. leadership on climate change 
internationally; and
* Conduct an initial Quadrennial Energy Review.
To see the full letter report, please click here.
To learn about PCAST, please click here.
Rick Weiss is Assistant Director for Strategic Communications and Senior Policy 
Analyst at OSTP

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785?

[RAU greg]

Thanks, Mark. 

To quote the FOA:
A market-based solution to improve the economics of CO2 capture includes the 
utilization of captured CO2 for EOR to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 
coal-based power generation sources while improving energy security. A National 
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) study[1] estimates that the utilization of 
approximately 20 billion tonnes of CO2 captured from coal-fired power plants, 
natural sources, and industrial sources in EOR applications could produce up to 
67 billion barrels of domestic oil from economically recoverable resources.

So let's see if I understand this. If 0.42 tonnes of CO2 are released to the 
atmosphere per barrel of oil, the 67 Bbls of oil produced from 20 Gt CO2 
injected will unsequester 28 GT CO2.  Considering that power plant CO2 would 
only make up 18 GT of the injected CO2 (see fine print)  means that 1.6 GT CO2 
would be unsequestered for every tonne of anthro CO2 injected.  The current 
CO2-EOR industry average is more like 3 GT CO2 out per GT injected and it is 
unclear what the economic motivation would be to lower this ratio given the 
high 
cost of CCS CO2 relative to conventional geologic CO2 sources for EOR. 

Then there is this interesting analogy offered to put things in perspective: 
However, large numbers such as billions of tons of CO2 demand and storage 
capacity are different [sic] to grasp and thus often of limited value. An 
alternative way to illustrate the CO2 demand and storage capacity offered by 
“Next Generation” CO2-EOR is to use the metric of the number of one-GW size 
power plants that could rely on CO2-EOR for purchasing and storing their 
captured CO2:
 After subtracting out the 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 supply currently 
available, CO2-EOR still offers sufficient technical storage capacity for all 
of 
the anthropogenic CO2 captured from 228 one-GW size coal-fired power plants for 
30 years of operation. [1]

What is not stated is that the equivalent CO2 emissions of 365 one-GW 
coal-fired 
power plants x 30 years will be unsequestered and released to the atmosphere 
via 
the oil produced and combusted. This does not square with the FOA's stated 
intent: ...to provide solutions for addressing the CO2 emission and global 
climate change concerns ...

In any case, a cost of concentrated CO2 of $61/tonne is the stated goal, a 
real 
challenge for retrofit CCS at conventional power plants, and a miracle for CDR 
(Socolow et al., House et al.). Those offering to mitigate CO2 by (cheaper) 
means other than making conc CO2 (for EOR) need not apply (FOA, pg. 7), and can 
continue to wait for meaningful policy and public funding in support of ideas 
that might actually help save the world rather that perpetuate BAU.

-Greg


 
[1]Dipietro, Philip, Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 
Emissions with “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions 
with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)”, Report # 
DOE/NETL-2011/1504, June 2011. 
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NextGen_CO2_EOR_06142011.pdf




From: markcap...@podenergy.org markcap...@podenergy.org
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 19, 2013 7:07:03 AM
Subject: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-785?

The U.S. Department of Energy seaks proposals for capturing coal exhause CO2, 
due May 2nd.  They expect the captured CO2 will be used for Enhansed Oil 
Recovery.  

 
If you have a capture-CO2-from-air (CDR) system that could be located close to 
an oil well and might therefore be less expensive than capture-from-exhaust, 
you 
might propose.  DOE is likely to consider such a proposal non-responsive.  


Bench- and Pilot-Scale Applications for Research and Development of 
Post-Combustion and Pre-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies for 
Coal-Fired Power Plants
 
Funding Opportunity Number:   DE-FOA-785 

Response Due Date: 5/2/2013 11:59:00 PM ET 

Use the following link to view this opportunity:

https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect?doc=DE-FOA-785agency=DOE

If you wish to continue to be notified about this opportunity, please be sure 
to 
Register. If someone else in your company has already registered your company's 
interest, add yourself to the Response Team by clicking Join.

This message is sent to you as a courtesy because you listed DOE in your 
FedConnect user profile. If you wish to be removed from future emails about 
this 
agency, please update your user profile at 
https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect 




Mark E. Capron, PE
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org
  
-- 
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 

RE: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage OR Sea Urchins May Save the World

[Rau, Greg]

Anyone have an e-copy of Siller and Bhaduri?
Still unclear how catalysts are a panacea for CO2 air capture. There still 
needs to be a chemical driving force that transfers gas into solution and keeps 
it there. Adding CA, nano particles, etc to water doesn't magically consume 
CO2. You've got to remove acid or add base to the solution to drive the 
reaction. If you are talking about mitigating point sources, then obviously 
pCO2 flue gas  pCO2 water is the driving force. Then keeping it in solution 
requires some additional chemistry like adding a base. If minerals are added as 
the base, carbonates would be must preferred over silicates because of CO2 
reaction kinetics. I can't imagine CO2 hydration being the rate limiting step 
in most silicate weathering, so unclear how a hydration catalyst helps here, 
but i should read the paper.
-Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of David Lewis [jrandomwin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:38 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon 
dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage OR Sea Urchins May Save 
the World

I was interested that Siller and Bhaduri, authors of this nickel nanoparticle 
paper, compared what they think nickel nanoparticles can do favorably to what 
carbonic anhydrase can do.

A discussion of the properties and significance of carbonic anhydrase is 
located on the Stanford website, i.e. at the Global Climate and Energy Project, 
i.e. in this Jennifer Wilcox Carbon Capture 101 
Tutorialhttp://vimeo.com/30557085.

Wilcox devotes most of the tutorial discussing the best CO2 capture chemistry 
presently commercially available, i.e. amine chemistry.

As an aside, she brought up carbonic anhydrase at minute 34:30.  A transcript:

There is a special case called carbonic anhydrase.  This is an enzyme.  This 
is how we filter out CO2 in our own bodies.  So this is present in the red 
blood cells of mammals.  And essentially carbonic anhydrase is a zinc  based 
enzyme and you can see here there are three histadine groups surrounding the 
zinc.  And you have water associated with it.  In solution, the proton will go 
into solution and so you have this hydroxyl group directly bound to the zinc 
and so what ends up happening is that OH will hydrate CO2.  So [garbled] its 
carbonate interaction with the OH of the zinc, and the interesting aspect about 
this is that it occurs about ten orders of magnitude faster.  So CO2 to 
bicarbonate formation is up to ten orders of magnitude faster than CO2 in 
aqueous solution without anything added.  That's just in water.It can be 
anywhere from four to six orders of magnitude greater than amine chemistry - 
for forming carbonate from CO2.  So it's a pretty significant enzyme.  
Currently though the source is questionable, where we can get this, since it is 
only available in red blood cells.  And, you know, that's limited.  So there 
are a lot of groups - there's a group at Columbia, there's a group at Lawrence 
Livermore National Labs, working on synthetically making carbonic anhydrase as 
additives for the absorption process for separation.

I asked Siller for a description of the speed she and Bhaduri observed nickel 
could catalyse CO2 to carbonic acid, in the terms Wilcox uses, i.e. compared to 
CO2 in water, and/or compared to amine chemistry, i.e. CO2 and amines in water. 
 Her reply:

We have tried to determine the rates of conversion of CO2 to acid by nickel 
nanoparticles with stop-flow technique to compare them with carbonic anhydrase 
from the literature - however we have problems since nobody before us did not 
work (sic) on this system and if we just copy literature and try to use 
reagents which are used for CO2 capture by carbonic anhydrase... the measured 
rates are unreliable  So we are trying to find the right reagents for 
kinetic measurements.

I asked Klaus Lackner for his reaction about the importance of this discovery 
that nickel acts similarly to carbonic anhydrase.  He commented on the 
Siller/Bhaduri plan to remove carbonic acid as it forms so the nickel can 
continually produce more, by using olivine:

Keep in mind that other people have used bicarbonate brines to digest olivine 
and they were rate limited too.  These processes which start with bicarbonate 
ions in the water end up being severely rate limited even though they simply 
ignored the question of how to get the CO2 in the water.

I asked Siller what she thought of what Lackner brought up.  Siller:  we have 
some ideas we are exploring currently.

Lackner also thought having a magnetic catalyst wasn't necessarily going to be 
a game changer.  With regard to the ability to recover the catalyst.  Yes it 
is easy to pick up nickel magnetically, but the same will happen to the iron 
that one invariably finds in the olivine rock.  So magnetic 

[geo] Weathering CO2

[Rau, Greg]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20004/abstract


  1.  Enhanced Chemical Weathering as a Geoengineering Strategy to Reduce 
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, a Nutrient Source and to Mitigate Ocean 
Acidification†http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20004/abstract#rog20004-note-0001
  2.  Jens Hartmann1,*,
  3.  Josh West2,
  4.  Phil Renforth3,
  5.  Peter Köhler4,
  6.  Christina L. De La Rocha5,
  7.  Dieter A. Wolf-Gladrow4,
  8.  Hans Dürr6,
  9.  Jürgen Scheffran7

DOI: 10.1002/rog.20004



[1] Chemical weathering is an integral part of both the rock and carbon cycles 
and is being affected by changes in land use, particularly as a result of 
agricultural practices such as tilling, mineral fertilization, or liming to 
adjust soil pH. These human activities have already altered the chemical 
terrestrial cycles and land-ocean flux of major elements, although the extent 
remains difficult to quantify. When deployed on a grand scale, Enhanced 
Weathering (a form of mineral fertilization), the application of finely ground 
minerals over the land surface, could be used to remove CO2 from the 
atmosphere. The release of cations during the dissolution of such silicate 
minerals would convert dissolved CO2 to bicarbonate, increasing the alkalinity 
and pH of natural waters. Some products of mineral dissolution would 
precipitate in soils or taken up by ecosystems, but a significant portion would 
be transported to the coastal zone and the open ocean, where the increase in 
alkalinity would partially counteract “ocean acidification” associated with the 
current marked increase in atmospheric CO2. Other elements released during this 
mineral dissolution, like Si, P or K, could stimulate biological productivity, 
further helping to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. On land, the terrestrial 
carbon-pool would likely increase in response to Enhanced Weathering in areas 
where ecosystem growth rates are currently limited by one of the nutrients that 
would be released during mineral dissolution.In the ocean, the biological 
carbon pumps (which export organic matter and CaCO3 to the deep ocean) may be 
altered by the resulting influx of nutrients and alkalinity to the ocean.

[2] This review merges current interdisciplinary knowledge about Enhanced 
Weathering, the processes involved, and the applicability as well as some of 
the consequences and risks of applying the method.

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy

[RAU greg]

Paywall. Anyone have a copy? - Greg




From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 19, 2013 4:47:34 PM
Subject: [geo] A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy

Critical Discourse Studies

Volume 9, Issue 2, 2012 pages 163-175

A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy



http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17405904.2012.656377?journalCode=rcds20


DOI:10.1080/17405904.2012.656377
Tina Sikkaa

31 Jan 2012
Article Views: 150


Abstract
In this paper, I examine the discursive field of geoengineering by
unpacking how particular members, associates and academics allied with
private institutes frame, treat and discursively construct a
justification of geoengineering technologies. I begin with a brief
introduction to geoengineering, followed by a discussion of relevant
international agreements and an overview of critical discourse
analysis. I outline several discursive strategies employed by
scientific and political advocates of geoengineering to reify a
particular understanding of its need. While there are multiple ways
geoengineering is being framed by a wide variety of actors, I discuss
the framings of the market and exceptionalism made by The American
Enterprise Institute, The Climate Response Fund and The Climate
Institute in detail which I then supplement by some additional
material where appropriate.


Keywords
geoengineering, climate change, critical discourse analysis,
exceptionalism, market economy, American Enterprise Institute,
framings, Climate Institute, Climate Response Fund

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[geo] SRM = bandaid, CDR = cure

[Rau, Greg]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1785
No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down

This article suggests that the current atmospheric CO2 level is already 
triggering amplifying feedbacks from the Earth system and therefore, in 
themselves, efforts at reduction in atmospheric CO2-emission are no longer 
sufficient to prevent further global warming. For this reason, along with sharp 
reductions in carbon emissions, efforts need to be undertaken in an attempt to 
reduce atmospheric CO2 levels from their current level of near-400 ppm to well 
below 350 ppm. NASA-applied outer space-shade technology may buy time for such 
planetary defense effort.

The scale and rate of modern climate change have been greatly underestimated. 
The release to date of a total of over 560 billion ton of carbon through 
emissions from  industrial and transport sources, land clearing and fires, has 
raised CO2 levels from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial 
periods to 397-400 ppm and near 470 ppm CO2-equivalent (a value which includes 
the CO2-equivalent effect of methane), reaching a current CO2 growth rate of 
about 2 ppm per yearhttp://www.globalcarbonproject.org/

[http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/glikson_figure1.gif]

Figure 1: Part A. Mean CO2 level from ice cores, Mouna Loa observatory and 
marine sites; Part B (inset). Climate forcing 1880 - 
2003http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html. Aerosol forcing includes all 
aerosol effects, including indirect effects on clouds and snow albedo. GHGs 
include ozone (O3) and stratospheric H2O, in addition to well-mixed greenhouse 
gases.

[http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/glikson_figure2.gif]

Figure 2: Relations between CO2 rise rates and mean global temperature rise 
rates during warming periodshttp://cci.anu.edu.au/files/download/?id=4951, 
including the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Oligocene, Miocene, glacial 
terminations, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and the post-1750 period.

These developments are shifting the Earth's climate toward Pliocene-like (5.2 - 
2.6 million years-ago; mean global temperatures of +2-3oC above pre-industrial 
temperatures) and possibly toward mid-Miocene-like (approximately 16 million 
years-ago; mean global temperatures +4oC above pre-industrial 
temperatureshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/fig_tab/ngeo1186_ft.html)
 conditions within a few centuries--a geological blink of an eye.

The current CO2 level generates amplifying feedbacks, including the reduced 
capacity of warming water to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, CO2 released from 
fires, droughts, loss of vegetation cover, disintegration of methane released 
from bogs, permafrost and methane-bearing ice particles and methane-water 
molecules.

With CO2 atmospheric residence times in the order of thousands to tens of 
thousands 
yearshttp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract, 
protracted reduction in emissions, either flowing from human decision or due to 
reduced economic activity in an environmentally stressed world, may no longer 
be sufficient to arrest the feedbacks.

Four of the large mass extinction of species events in the history of Earth 
(end-Devonian, Permian-Triassic, end-Triassic, K-T boundary) have been 
associated with rapid perturbations of the carbon, oxygen and sulphur cycles, 
on which the biosphere depends, at rates to which species could not 
adapthttp://theconversation.edu.au/is-another-mass-extinction-event-on-the-way-5397.

Since the 18th century, and in particular since about 1975, the Earth system 
has been shifting away from Holocene (approximately 10,000 years to the 
pre-industrial time) conditions, which allowed agriculture, previously hindered 
by instabilities in the climate and by extreme weather events. The shift is 
most clearly manifested by the loss of polar 
icehttp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml. Sea level rises 
have been accelerating, with a total of more than 20 cm since 1880 and about 6 
cm since 
1990http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-1/assessment.

For temperature rise of 2.3oC, to which the climate is committed if sulphur 
aerosol emission discontinueshttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html (see 
Figure 1), sea levels would reach Pliocene-like levels of 25 meters plus or 
minus 12 meters, with lag effects due to ice sheet hysteresis (system inertia).

With global atmospheric CO2-equivalent (a value which includes the effect of 
methane) above 470 ppm, just under the upper stability limit of the Antarctic 
ice sheethttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf, with 
current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, 
land clearing and fires of ~9.7 billion ton of carbon in 
2010http://www.science.org.au/natcoms/nc-ess/documents/GEsymposium.pdf, 
global civilization faces the following alternatives:

  1.  With carbon reserves sufficient to raise atmospheric CO2 levels to above 
1000 

[geo] CDR: Stanford weighs in

[Rau, Greg]

http://planetsave.com/2013/02/18/stanford-scientists-aim-to-remove-co2-from-atmosphere/
Stanford Scientists Aim To Remove CO2 From Atmosphere
Joshua S Hill
[http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/plugins/repostus/repostus_bttn_lng_repost.png]


Turn the clock back a decade and we had all sorts of grand plans for reducing 
our greenhouse gas emissions levels, hoping that by 2020 we would be on the 
path to saving our planet.

[Reducing Carbon Means Destroying 
Carbon]http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/02/750px-Cwall99_lg.jpg

Image Credit: Wikimediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cwall99_lg.jpg

Welcome to 2013 and … not so much.

Unsurprisingly, scientists at Stanford University have recently come out and 
said that curbing our CO2 emissions may simply not be enough any more. Instead 
of simply hoping the long-tail of emissions reductions do something, they 
believe we need to start looking at carbon-negative technologies that actively 
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

“To achieve the targeted cuts, we would need a scenario where, by the middle of 
the century, the global economy is transitioning from net positive to net 
negative CO2 emissions,” said report co-author Chris Field, a professor of 
biology and of environmental Earth system science at Stanford. “We need to 
start thinking about how to implement a negative-emissions energy strategy on a 
global scale.”

The Stanford scientists findings are summarised in a report by Stanford’s 
Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP), which describe a suite of emerging 
carbon-negative solutions to global warming.

BECCS

“Net negative emissions can be achieved when more greenhouse gases are 
sequestered than are released into the atmosphere,” explained Milne, an energy 
assessment analyst at GCEP. “One of the most promising net-negative 
technologies is BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.”

For example, a BECCS system could convert woody biomass, grass, and other 
vegetation into electricity, chemical products, or fuels such as ethanol, 
leaving the CO2 emissions released during the process to be captured and stored.

Estimates show that by 2050 BECCS technologies could sequester 10 billion 
metric tonnes of industrial CO2 emissions from installations like power plants, 
paper mills, ethanol processors, and other manufacturing facilities. But we 
have a ways to go before we are technologically able to manage this.

Biochar

Biochar is a plant byproduct similar to charcoal that is made from lumber 
waste, dried corn stalks, and other plant residues. A process called pyrolysis 
— which heats the vegetation slowly without oxygen — produces carbon rich 
chunks of biochar that can be placed in the soil as a fertiliser, which locks 
the CO2 underground instead of letting the CO2 re-enter the atmosphere as the 
plant decomposes as it naturally would.

EHowever, long-term sequestration “would require high biochar stability,” they 
wrote. “Estimates of biochar half‐life vary greatly from 10 years to more than 
100 years. The type of feedstock also contributes to stability, with wood being 
more stable than grasses and manure.”

Net-negative Farming

Another option included in the GCEP report is the idea of net-negative farming. 
The authors cited research done by Jose Moreira of the University of Sao Paulo 
who found that from 1975 to 2007, ethanol production from sugar cane in Brazil 
resulted in a net-negative capture of 1.5 metric tons of CO2 per cubic meter of 
ethanol produced.

“In this model, the system took 18 years to recoup carbon emissions, with most 
reductions coming from soil replenishment from root growth and replacement of 
gasoline with ethanol,” the GCEP authors wrote.

However, questions remain about the long-term effects of ethanol combustion on 
climate.

Other Options

The report also explored other options, such as sequestering carbon in the 
ocean, specifically the problem of ocean acidification. Currently, the more CO2 
the oceans absorb the more acidic they become, resulting in algae blooms often 
seen in locations throughout Asia as well as the Gulf of Mexico in the US.

However, research by David Keith of Harvard University suggests that adding 
magnesium carbonate and other minerals to the ocean to reduce acidity would 
also sequester atmospheric CO2 in absorbed in seawater.

For more information on these options, check out the full report 
herehttp://gcep.stanford.edu/events/workshops_negemissions2012.html.

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Volcanos and climate change: Location, location, location

[Rau, Greg]

Interesting – no discussion of cooling effects of aerosol release? Short-lived 
relative to CO2? -Greg

Volcano Location: Greenhouse-Icehouse Key? Episodic Purging of 'Carbonate 
Capacitor' Drives Long-Term Climate Cycle

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207115014.htm

Feb. 6, 2013 — A new Rice University-led study finds the real estate mantra 
location, location, location may also explain one of Earth's enduring climate 
mysteries. The study suggests that Earth's repeated flip-flopping between 
greenhouse and icehouse states over the past 500 million years may have been 
driven by the episodic flare-up of volcanoes at key locations where enormous 
amounts of carbon dioxide are poised for release into the atmosphere.



We found that Earth's continents serve as enormous 'carbonate capacitors,' 
said Rice's Cin-Ty Lee, the lead author of the study in this month's GeoSphere. 
Continents store massive amounts of carbon dioxide in sedimentary carbonates 
like limestone and marble, and it appears that these reservoirs are tapped from 
time to time by volcanoes, which release large amounts of carbon dioxide into 
the atmosphere.

Lee said as much as 44 percent of carbonates by weight is carbon dioxide. Under 
most circumstances that carbon stays locked inside Earth's rigid continental 
crust.

One process that can release carbon dioxide from these carbonates is 
interaction with magma, he said. But that rarely happens on Earth today 
because most volcanoes are located on island arcs, tectonic plate boundaries 
that don't contain continental crust.

Earth's climate continually cycles between greenhouse and icehouse states, 
which each last on timescales of 10 million to 100 million years. Icehouse 
states -- like the one Earth has been in for the past 50 million years -- are 
marked by ice at the poles and periods of glacial activity. By contrast, the 
warmer greenhouse states are marked by increased carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere and by an ice-free surface, even at the poles. The last greenhouse 
period lasted about 50 million to 70 million years and spanned the late 
Cretaceous, when dinosaurs roamed, and the early Paleogene, when mammals began 
to diversify.

Lee and colleagues found that the planet's greenhouse-icehouse oscillations are 
a natural consequence of plate tectonics. The research showed that tectonic 
activity drives an episodic flare-up of volcanoes along continental arcs, 
particularly during periods when oceans are forming and continents are breaking 
apart. The continental arc volcanoes that arise during these periods are 
located on the edges of continents, and the magma that rises through the 
volcanoes releases enormous quantities of carbon dioxide as it passes through 
layers of carbonates in the continental crust.

Lee, professor of Earth science at Rice, led the four-year study, which was 
co-authored by three Rice faculty members and additional colleagues at the 
University of Tokyo, the University of British Columbia, the California 
Institute of Technology, Texas AM University and Pomona College.

Lee said the study breaks with conventional theories about greenhouse and 
icehouse periods.

The standard view of the greenhouse state is that you draw carbon dioxide from 
the deep Earth interior by a combination of more activity along the mid-ocean 
ridges -- where tectonic plates spread -- and massive breakouts of lava called 
'large igneous provinces,' Lee said. Though both of these would produce more 
carbon dioxide, it is not clear if these processes alone could sustain the 
atmospheric carbon dioxide that we find in the fossil record during past 
greenhouses.

Lee is a petrologist and geochemist whose research interests include the 
formation and evolution of continents as well as the connections between deep 
Earth and its oceans and atmosphere..

Lee said the conclusions in the study developed over several years, but the 
initial idea of the research dates to an informal chalkboard-only seminar at 
Rice in 2008. The talk was given by Rice oceanographer and study co-author 
Jerry Dickens, a paleoclimate expert; Lee and Rice geodynamicist Adrian 
Lenardic, another co-author, were in the audience.

Jerry was talking about seawater in the Cretaceous, and he mentioned that 93.5 
million years ago there was a mass extinction of deepwater organisms that 
coincided with a global marine anoxic event -- that is, the deep oceans became 
starved of oxygen, Lee said. Jerry was talking about the impact of anoxic 
conditions on the biogeochemical cycles of trace metals in the ocean, but I 
don't remember much else that he said that day because it had dawned on me that 
93 million years ago was a very interesting time for North America. There was a 
huge flare-up of volcanism along the western margin of North America, and the 
peak of all this activity was 93 million years ago.

I thought, 'Wow!' Lee recalled. I know coincidence doesn't mean causality, 
but it certainly got me 

RE: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing)

[Rau, Greg]

OK, so what is happening is that you are adding NiO and/or NiO is formed once 
Ni is added to oxygenated water, which is then hydrated to form Ni(OH)2.  This 
then neutralizes the H2CO3 to form Ni(HCO3)2.  You are adding or forming a 
chemical base to/in the system, not necessarily a catalyst. If it were purely a 
catalyst the carbon content in the +Ni and -Ni treatments would be identical, 
only the +Ni treatment would attain max [C(inorg)]  faster.  This then begs the 
question why not add cheaper metal oxides e.g., FeO or CaO to do the same 
thing, the latter explored by Kheshgi (1995)? Then there's the C footprint of 
reduced metal and/or metal oxide production
-Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of lidijasil...@gmail.com [lidijasil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:26 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: lidijasil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of 
carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis 
Science  Technology (RSC Publishing)


Yes there is a driving force - we see OH and HCO3 on surface of nickel 
particles . Due to large surface area of particles the Ni-HCO3 plays large part 
how much of CO2 in total can be stored in this system.
If you need a paper I can send you via my university account- 
lidia.sil...@ncl.ac.ukmailto:lidia.sil...@ncl.ac.uk.
Regarding the mineralisation part we are working on this.
ohttp://o

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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

Re: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing)

[Rau, Greg]

Thanks for responding.  I really don't follow this. If I have a beaker of water 
fully equilibrated with air (CO2) and add your Ni particles, you are saying 
that more HCO3- and ultimately CO3s will spontaneously be produced. This won't 
happen unless thermodynamically favored, and if that water if fully 
equilibrated with air CO2 there is no thermodynamic condition that will force a 
change in the C chemistry.  If your Ni particles are somehow consuming H+ or 
producing OH- then you've got a driving force, but you still need a source 
cations to make CaCO3s (am very interested to learn how you cheaply extract 
cations from silicates.)  Otherwise, adding a catalyst to a system at 
thermodynamic equilibrium does nothing.  On the other hand, adding something to 
seawater that overcomes the natural, chemical inhibition of abiotic CaCO3s 
precipitation could really cause some serious precipitation and CO2 injection 
into the atmosphere. No?
-Greg

From: lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com 
lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com
Reply-To: lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com 
lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:32 AM
To: geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon 
dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science  
Technology (RSC Publishing)


With presence of Ni we have increases at the same time trapping of CO2 and 
increased the rates of conversion to carbonic acid on room temperature and on 
the atmospheric pressure.
We still working to find the best mineralisation pathway - we will use 
silicates (magnesium calcium silicates) as a source of Ca2+ or Mg2+.

While nickel nanoparticles are toxic as already mentioned in the paper we do 
not propose to spread this around in the enviroment but to have local disposal 
next to power plant or industrial plant.
We made brief cost - 8$ per ton of CO2 if we can recover Ni 99% yield based on 
current price of nickel.




--
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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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