[geo] New Article Published | A risk-risk assessment framework for Solar Radiation Modification

[Anita Nzeh]

Dear colleagues,

Concern about the increasing risks posed by global warming is driving the 
exploration of new techniques to artificially cool the planet through an 
approach known as solar radiation modification (SRM). Would the world be better 
off with or without such techniques? Would there be winners and losers? And how 
can we sufficiently compare the relative risks presented in a future with SRM 
against the risks faced in a future without it?

A new article published by the International Risk Governance Center (IRGC) 
explores a risk-risk assessment framework for Solar Radiation Modification
https://www.epfl.ch/research/domains/irgc/spotlight-on-risk-series/a-risk-risk-assessment-framework-for-solar-radiation-modification


===
Anita Nzeh
Knowledge Management Officer
Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G)
London, United Kingdom
Email: an...@c2g2.net | Mobile: +447885910181 | Twitter: 
Anitatriple7 | Skype: Anita Nzeh
[signature_1458376433]
www.c2g2.net
Follow C2G on
[signature_1112368414] [signature_1319989311] 
  [signature_1592640371] 


Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is 
confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others 
authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the 
contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been 
automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service 
(SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human 
generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find 
out more visit the Mimecast website.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8AEE6DDA-615F-4901-AF97-43FF3BC1657A%40c2g2.net.

Re: [geo] new article

[Adam Dorr]

We had some discussion a week or two ago here in forum on this topic when
the Guardian article and the ETC Group document made the rounds.

The lifestyle and doctor analogy you use is similar to the one I used in
that conversation (I suggested eating sugar and dentistry).

I think it would be useful to see deeper research into the psychology and
ethics of "technology antipathy" and its related rhetoric. A quick spin
with Google doesn't turn up any substantial body of literature on this
topic, so all I can offer is conjecture, but blind technology antipathy
seems likely to be rooted in cognitive biases, informal logical fallacies
(namely the naturalistic fallacy), and irrationality of various kinds
(especially hypocrisy). The doctor and dentist analogies above help
illustrate some of this irrationality, as well as hint at some of the
values that might be operative behind technology antipathy. This is not to
say there are *no* reasons to be wary of deploying a new technology. Even
something as simple as a toothbrush and toothpaste carries some potential
drawbacks (e.g. concerns, however poorly founded, about flouride ingestion,
etc.). And the twin assumptions that 1) any new technology is likely to do
more harm than good, and 2) a technology is likely to be utilized by those
in power to further oppress disadvantaged groups, are at least
*understandable* from a precautionary perspective. But having recognized
that, there is clearly also a specific type of cognitive dysfunction that
gets going in people's heads which leads to conspiratorial irrationality
about vaccines and autism, GMOs and cancer, chemtrails, climate change
denial, thinking the moon landings were faked, and all the rest. There *is*
some good psychological research about conspiracy theories (Rob Brotherton
summarizes this for the popular audience), and it may well connect to
technology antipathy.

One final thing to note is that people *very* seldomly oppose technologies
that have overwhelmingly positive benefits and minimum drawbacks. Despite
the autism nonsense, vaccines are actually quite a good example. Dentistry
is obviously another, but there countless more, from chlorinated drinking
water to safe food packaging and refrigeration to telephones to clocks and
glasses and clothing and footwear all the way back to fire and the wheel.
Technology is simply practical knowledge, and it is therefore nearly
tautological to point out that the solution to problems created by that
knowledge is never ignorance - it is always *more* and *better* knowledge.



--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Craig Morris 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I am new to this group. Several folks recommended that I post my article
> on geo-engineering here, and they all swore I could post without joining,
> but this is either not possible, or I just failed the test ;-)
>
> Anyway, this might interest you:
>
> http://blog.iass-potsdam.de/2017/05/stop-shaming-geo-
> engineering-researchers/
>
> I'll check back by in a few days to see if anyone has shared any
> reactions. Otherwise, GE is simply too far out on the margins of what I do
> to warrant me joining yet another list I can hardly keep up with, so I'll
> leave the group then unfortunately.
>
> You can keep in touch with me on Twitter: @PPchef. I am the coauthor of
> the first history of Germany's Energiewende (http://energiewendebook.de/)
> and currently a Senior Fellow at the IASS.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Craig Morris
>
>
>
> --
> 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] new article

[Craig Morris]

Hello everyone,

I am new to this group. Several folks recommended that I post my article on 
geo-engineering here, and they all swore I could post without joining, but 
this is either not possible, or I just failed the test ;-)

Anyway, this might interest you:

http://blog.iass-potsdam.de/2017/05/stop-shaming-geo-engineering-researchers/

I'll check back by in a few days to see if anyone has shared any reactions. 
Otherwise, GE is simply too far out on the margins of what I do to warrant 
me joining yet another list I can hardly keep up with, so I'll leave the 
group then unfortunately.

You can keep in touch with me on Twitter: @PPchef. I am the coauthor of the 
first history of Germany's Energiewende (http://energiewendebook.de/) and 
currently a Senior Fellow at the IASS. 

Best regards,

Craig Morris



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

[geo] New Article : "Relevant Climate Response Tests for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection: A Combined Ethical and Scientific Analysis"

[Erik Thorstensen]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000504/full
Relevant Climate Response Tests for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection: A Combined 
Ethical and Scientific Analysis
Authors
· Alex Lenferna, Rick Russotto, Amanda Tan, Stephen Gardiner, Thomas 
Ackerman
· Accepted manuscript online: 26 April 2017Full publication 
history
· DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000504  View/save 
citation
· Cited by (CrossRef): 0 articlesCheck for 
updates
Citation tools
·
Abstract
In this paper, we focus on stratospheric sulfate injection as a geoengineering 
scheme, and provide a combined scientific and ethical analysis of climate 
response tests, which are a subset of outdoor tests that would seek to impose 
detectable and attributable changes to climate variables on global or regional 
scales. We assess the current state of scientific understanding on the 
plausibility and scalability of climate response tests. Then we delineate a 
minimal baseline against which to consider whether certain climate response 
tests would be relevant for a deployment scenario. Our analysis shows that some 
climate response tests, such as those attempting to detect changes in regional 
climate impacts, may not be deployable in time periods relevant to realistic 
geoengineering scenarios. This might pose significant challenges for justifying 
SSI deployment overall.
We then outline some of the major ethical challenges proposed climate response 
tests would face to be considered properly socially licensed forms of research. 
We consider what levels of confidence would be required to ethically justify 
approving a proposed test; whether the consequences of tests are subject to 
similar questions of justice, compensation and informed consent as full scale 
deployment; and whether questions of intent and hubris are morally relevant for 
climate response tests. We suggest further research into laboratory-based work 
and modeling may help to narrow the scientific uncertainties related to climate 
response tests, and help inform future ethical debate. However, even if such 
work is pursued, the ethical issues raised by proposed climate response tests 
are significant and manifold.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000504/full













Erik Thorstensen

Researcher

Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences Research Group on 
Responsible Innovation

Mob: +47 408 53 972

Skype: erik.thorstensen




-- 
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.

Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Ronal W. Larson]

OOps - thought this went out three days ago.  Apologies if this duplicative.

List and ccs:

1.  Thanks to David for this lead on Prof. Stavins letter  (found at 
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/)

2.  Since this provides some (not all by any means) of the detail we 
have been wondering about as the SPM changed character,  I read the Stavins 
letter with interest.  But it is hard to go back and forth between the versions 
A and B of April 7 and 12 when they are in different documents.  So I have 
combined them as follows (no way to shorten this exercise).  I have underlined 
what seems to be new in the final version and underlined what was retained in 
April 7 draft.  The numbering of paragraphs is not in the originals, nor the 
short summary titles I gave.  The only major style IPCC change is that the 
final contains no bolding.  There was some shuffling and deletion of paragraphs

3.  I have added some comments from a biochar perspective and hope 
others will do similarly


#1  On UNFCC
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the main 
multilateral 
forum focused on addressing climate change, with nearly universal 
participation. Other institutions 
organized at different levels of governance have resulted in diversifying 
international climate change 
cooperation. [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5]  
Replaced
International cooperation on climate change has diversified over the past 
decade. The United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a primary 
international forum 
for climate negotiations, and is seen by many as the most legitimate 
international climate policy 
venue due in part to its virtually universal membership [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 
13.5]. However, other 
institutions organized at many different scales have ………
risen in importance due to the inclusion of 
climate change issues in other policy arenas and growing awareness of the 
co‐benefits that can arise 
from linking climate mitigation and other issues [13.3, 13.4, 13.5]. 
[RWL comment #1 - Sorry to see the word “co-benefit” disappear.   
Objection maybe to the words “risen in importance”??

 #2  On cooperation agreements
Existing and proposed international climate change cooperation arrangements 
vary in their focus and 
degree of centralization and coordination. They span: multilateral agreements, 
harmonized national 
policies and decentralized but coordinated national policies, as well as 
regional and regionally‐
coordinated policies. [Figure TS.37, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] 
Replaced
Existing and proposed international climate agreements and instruments vary in 
their focus and 
degree of centralization. International climate agreements and instruments 
span: multilateral 
agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol targets and accounting rules), 
harmonized national policies, 
and decentralized but coordinated national policies (such as planned linkages 
of national and sub‐
national emissions trading schemes) Also, .regional and regionally coordinated 
policies exist and 
have been proposed. [Figure 13.2, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] 
RWL comment:   Doesn’t seem to be a big change, especially from biochar 
angles.

#3   On Kyoto
The Kyoto Protocol offers lessons towards achieving the ultimate objective of 
the UNFCCC, 
particularly with respect to participation, implementation, flexibility 
mechanisms, and environmental 
effectiveness. (medium evidence, low agreement). [5.2, 13.7.2, 13.13.1.1, 
13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1, Table 
TS.9] 
Replaced 
The Kyoto Protocol was the first binding step toward implementing the 
principles and goals 
provided by the UNFCCC, but it has had limited effects on global emissions 
because some 
countries did not ratify the Protocol, some Parties did not meet their 
commitments, and its 
commitments applied to only a portion of the global economy (medium evidence, 
low agreement). 
The Parties collectively surpassed their collective emission reduction target 
in the first commitment 
period, but the Protocol credited emissions reductions that would have occurred 
even in its absence. 
The Kyoto Protocol does not directly influence the emissions of non‐Annex I 
countries, which have 
grown rapidly over the past decade. [5.2, 13.13.1.1] The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean 
Development 
Mechanism (CDM), which created a market for emissions offsets from developing 
countries, had 
generated credits equivalent to over 1.3 GtCO2eq by July 2013. Its 
environmental effectiveness has 
been mixed due to concerns about the additionality of projects, the validity of 
baselines, the 
possibility of emissions leakage, and recent credit price decreases (medium 
evidence; medium 
agreement). CDM projects were concentrated in a limited number of countries. 
[13.7.2, 13.13.1.2, 
14.3.7.1] 
RWL comment:  Missing details on Kyoto now, but I am not sure how or if this 
impacts biochar.



#4 ON UNFCCC

Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[David Lewis]

On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call 
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/to
 
the three Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC 
should tell all people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need 
to read the entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page 
summary.  It matters, when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the 
document in question was subject to government *comment*, or whether it was 
subject to government* approval*.  He suggests the Summary *For* Policy 
Makers  should be called the Summary *By* Policymakers from now on.  

He blogs that the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that 
built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity.  In the 
part of the SPM he was a Co-coordinating Lead Author on, *all* 
controversial text, i.e. 75% of what they started with was removed.  The 
objections of one country were enough to force removal of whatever they 
were objecting to.  It didn't matter whether the country was rich or poor:  
any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and 
positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.

He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people 
such as himself to put enormous amounts of their time over multi-year 
periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected

If  Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an 
argument such as Stavins puts forward.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:

 I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering 
 by politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, 
 that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in 
 order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you 
 don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want 
 one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having 
 governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the 
 politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of 
 various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove 
 politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics)

 best, 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Greg Rau]

Further scientist perspectives here:
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations


Stavin's comment quoted from below ... a [IPCC] process that built political 
credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity is revealing(?)  Political 
credibility to whom? To the majority who will suffer the consequences of GHG 
effects, or to the few who will benefit (in the short term) by ignoring them?  
This begs the question how capable and willing is the international political 
process in mitigating GHG's, regardless of what scientific reports and 
summaries say and regardless of what is in the best long term interest of the 
majority of their constituents? Then there is the adaptation lobby, eagerly 
waiting in the wings to attempt to expensively treat/cope with GHG symptoms 
rather than more cost effectively removing root causes.  In this regard, it 
would be revealing to learn what sort of politics if any went on with the SPM 
for WG II.

Greg

Greg   





 From: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Cc: Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net; Alan Robock 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
 


On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call to the three 
Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC should tell all 
people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need 
to read the entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page 
summary.  It matters, when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the 
document in questionwas subject to government comment, or whether it was 
subject to governmentapproval.  He suggests the Summary For Policy Makers  
should be called the Summary By Policymakers from now on.  

He blogs thatthe process the IPCC followed resulted
in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific
integrity.  In the part of the SPM he was a Co-coordinating
Lead Author on, all controversial text, i.e. 75% of what they started with 
was removed.  The objections of one country were enough to force removal of 
whatever they were objecting to.  It didn't matter whether the country was rich 
or poor:  any text that was considered inconsistent with
their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as
unacceptable.

He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people such 
as himself to put enormous amounts of their time over
multi-year periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected

If  Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an 
argument such as Stavins puts forward.


On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:
I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by 
politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that 
gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to 
create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a 
consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to 
explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. 
Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. 
there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are 
more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary 
matter in WGIII about ethics)


best, 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.
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] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Ken Caldeira]

These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the
Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians.

The underlying chapters can be found here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM
and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation
for who objected to what and why.


___
Ken Caldeira

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

Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu



On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson
rongretlar...@comcast.netwrote:

 Ken, Alan, List:

 Thanks for the lead on the *Science*  story.  I learned a little more.

  Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion of
 five figures and considerable text.  It sure would be interesting to have a
 separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions.  Even
 better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for
 these changes.  Anyone already done this?

 Ron


 On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
 wrote:

 As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to
 support the following assertion, other than his own book:

 *Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a
 substitute for emissions reductions.*

 I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world
 controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an
 article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists
 when it comes to climate change:


 http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations



 ___
 Ken Caldeira

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

 Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu



 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduwrote:

  Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173



 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html

 The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon
 dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the
 sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of
 geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize
 climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already,
 conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute
 for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over
 geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were
 divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering
 scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult.
 Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a
 technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the
 conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a
 just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on
 geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence
 Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons
 laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to
 exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of
 thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis.
 
 Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of
 geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in
 Keith's book.

 But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at
 Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated
 with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and
 geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with
 geoengineering.

 Alan

 --
 Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
 Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
 Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at 

Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[O Morton]

I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by 
politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that 
gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to 
create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want 
a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you 
have to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in 
the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the 
politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The 
politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal 
of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics)

best, o

On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote:

 These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the 
 Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians.

 The underlying chapters can be found here:  
 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

 It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM 
 and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation 
 for who objected to what and why.


 ___
 Ken Caldeira

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

 Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:



 On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson 
 rongre...@comcast.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Ken, Alan, List:

 Thanks for the lead on the “*Science”*  story.  I learned a little more.

  Apparently the week’s political negotiations resulted in the deletion 
 of five figures and considerable text.  It sure would be interesting to 
 have a separate “pirate” publication that only showed these deletions. 
  Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most 
 responsible for these changes.  Anyone already done this?

 Ron


 On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira 
 kcal...@carnegiescience.edujavascript: 
 wrote:

 As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to 
 support the following assertion, other than his own book:

 *Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a 
 substitute for emissions reductions.*

 I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world 
 controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an 
 article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists 
 when it comes to climate change:


 http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations



 ___
 Ken Caldeira

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

 Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:



 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock 
 rob...@envsci.rutgers.edujavascript:
  wrote:

  Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 
 10.1177/0096340214531173 



 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html

 The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
 (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering—methods for removing carbon 
 dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the 
 sun’s radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of 
 geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize 
 climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, 
 conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute 
 for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over 
 geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were 
 divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering 
 scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. 
 Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a 
 technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the 
 conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a 
 just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on 
 geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence 
 Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons 
 laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind’s right to 
 exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of 
 thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. 
 
 Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a 

Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Ronal W. Larson]

Oliver etal

1.  I support everything you say below.

2.  I learned a bit about Bolin at 
http://www.bolin.su.se/index.php/about-bert-bolin .  Thanks for using his name.

3.  The current issue is how much of the week of political discussions 
should be in Executive Session (not to be reported)?   Is there a place to 
view the rules?  I believe most corporate boards would say that the meetings 
need to be closed and minutes can be pretty skimpy.  But most public elected or 
appointed boards have strict rules on closure (personnel topics can exclude 
reporters but not much else). I presume the latter model for the IPCC?  How do 
we learn how the consensus discussions took place?  Or should we not - so that 
something/anything can emerge?

Ron


On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:21 AM, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote:

 I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by 
 politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that 
 gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to 
 create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a 
 consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to 
 explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. 
 Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. 
 there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' 
 are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary 
 matter in WGIII about ethics)
 
 best, o
 
 On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote:
 These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the 
 Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians.
 
 The underlying chapters can be found here:  
 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
 
 It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM 
 and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation for 
 who objected to what and why.
 
 
 ___
 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  
 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
 
 Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu
 
 
 
 On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongre...@comcast.net 
 wrote:
 Ken, Alan, List:
 
   Thanks for the lead on the Science  story.  I learned a little more.
 
   Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion 
 of five figures and considerable text.  It sure would be interesting to have 
 a separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions.  Even 
 better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for 
 these changes.  Anyone already done this?
 
 Ron
 
 
 On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu wrote:
 
 As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support 
 the following assertion, other than his own book:
 
 Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a 
 substitute for emissions reductions.
 
 I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world 
 controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an 
 article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists 
 when it comes to climate change:
 
 http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations
 
 
 
 ___
 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  
 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
 
 Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu
 
 
 
 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
 wrote:
 Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 
 
 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html
 
 The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
 include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide 
 from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's 
 radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of 
 geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize 
 climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, 
 conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute 
 for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over 
 geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were 
 divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a 

[geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Alan Robock]

Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 
10.1177/0096340214531173


http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html

The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering---methods for removing 
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting 
more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals 
the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, 
and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global 
warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting 
it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are 
sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan 
Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. 
Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is 
inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers 
highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, 
experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely 
that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of 
scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or 
collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The 
history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a 
belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over nature. With 
geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in 
the face of climate crisis.


Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of 
geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in 
Keith's book.


But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at 
Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated 
with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and 
geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with 
geoengineering.


Alan

--
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
  http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

--
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] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Ronal W. Larson]

Alan and list:

  1.  This is to ask for a clarification on your sentence from below:
 Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of 
 geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in 
 Keith's book.


Do you support the ramp up of at least some forms of CDR - as I think 
urged by the authors of the WG3 report?

2.  I haven't the foggiest idea how Prof. Hamilton would respond - as 
(at least from the abstract), he doesn't seem to recognize that the CDR portion 
of geoengineering was considered part of mitigation.  Anyone read the whole BOS 
article to know if he makes any CDR distinction there?  That is - what is his 
view of the latest AR5 report?   My belief is that his book sees CDR as 
benign.  

3.   This is another example of a need for new nomenclature for the 
topics being discussed on this list.

Ron



On Apr 23, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote:

 Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 
 
 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html
 
 The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
 include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide 
 from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's 
 radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of 
 geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize 
 climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, 
 conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for 
 emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over 
 geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were 
 divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering 
 scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment 
 would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic 
 elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of 
 daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A 
 disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering 
 have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National 
 Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold 
 War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over 
 nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful 
 comeback in the face of climate crisis. 
 
 Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of 
 geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in 
 Keith's book.
 
 But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore 
 when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate 
 scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not 
 evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering.
 
 Alan
 -- 
 Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
 Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 
 Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
 
 -- 
 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] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Alan Robock]

Dear Ron,

All the discussion was about SRM geoengineering.  I support CDR if it 
can be done safely.


Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
  http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

On 4/23/14, 10:59 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:

Alan and list:

1.  This is to ask for a clarification on your sentence from below:
Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of 
geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal 
in Keith's book.


Do you support the ramp up of at least some forms of CDR - as I think 
urged by the authors of the WG3 report?


2.  I haven't the foggiest idea how Prof. Hamilton would respond - as 
(at least from the abstract), he doesn't seem to recognize that the 
CDR portion of geoengineering was considered part of mitigation. 
 Anyone read the whole BOS article to know if he makes any CDR 
distinction there?  That is - what is his view of the latest AR5 
report?   My belief is that his book sees CDR as benign.


3.   This is another example of a need for new nomenclature for the 
topics being discussed on this list.


Ron



On Apr 23, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote:



Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 
10.1177/0096340214531173


http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html

The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing 
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by 
reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC 
assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream 
of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy 
response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the 
United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions 
reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over 
geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project 
scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. 
Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is 
inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers 
highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, 
experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is 
unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate 
number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either 
worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the 
Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total 
mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is 
staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis.


Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of 
geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal 
in Keith's book.


But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at 
Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have 
collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear 
winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control 
the world with geoengineering.


Alan
--
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road  E-mail:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USAhttp://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock  
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54


--
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 
mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
mailto: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 

Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton

[Ronal W. Larson]

Ken, Alan, List:

Thanks for the lead on the Science  story.  I learned a little more.

Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion 
of five figures and considerable text.  It sure would be interesting to have a 
separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions.  Even better 
would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these 
changes.  Anyone already done this?

Ron


On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote:

 As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support 
 the following assertion, other than his own book:
 
 Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a 
 substitute for emissions reductions.
 
 I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world 
 controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an 
 article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists 
 when it comes to climate change:
 
 http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations
 
 
 
 ___
 Ken Caldeira
 
 Carnegie Institution for Science 
 Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  
 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
 
 Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu
 
 
 
 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
 wrote:
 Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 
 
 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html
 
 The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
 include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide 
 from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's 
 radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of 
 geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize 
 climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, 
 conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for 
 emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over 
 geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were 
 divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering 
 scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment 
 would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic 
 elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of 
 daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A 
 disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering 
 have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National 
 Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold 
 War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over 
 nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful 
 comeback in the face of climate crisis. 
 
 Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of 
 geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in 
 Keith's book.
 
 But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore 
 when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate 
 scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not 
 evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering.
 
 Alan
 -- 
 Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
 Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 
 Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
 
 -- 
 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, 

Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS

[Oliver Tickell]

Thanks - useful papers. I did not know about Olaf's paper looking at 
spreading olivine sand on dynamic areas of seabed. I prefer his approach 
of letting the movement of the sea do the grinding for you, rather than 
using 30% of the C gain to grind the olivine to a fine powder using 
fossil energy. But one way this approach could make sense is, when solar 
PV gets even cheaper than it is now, to use solar electricity to do the 
grinding so there is very little carbon debt. Also it is interesting to 
know that dispersal of 1um olivine powder by commercial shipping could 
provide an appropriate amount of carbon drawdown to offset current 
emissions. This something that environmentally responsible shipping 
companies should consider, at least on a scale to offset their own 
emissions.


Oliver.

On 21/08/2013 19:11, Rau, Greg wrote:
If one is interested in silicate addition to the ocean (both for 
direct chemical and indirect bio effects on C), then I refer you to 
these links and refs therein:

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014009/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_014009.pdf
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/551/2011/esdd-2-551-2011.pdf

Lots more silicate minerals around than just ash, and yes potential 
for positive (and negative) cation and anions effects on bio C, but 
lets find out.

Greg

From: Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org 
mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org

Organization: Kyoto2
Reply-To: oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org 
mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org 
mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org

Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 7:59 AM
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean 
fertilization in MEPS


Thanks! My last sentence should have read And of course the other 
question is re the chemical composition of the silicate in the ash and 
its particle size as this will determine its quality as a source of 
silicic acid. So you understood.


the rate of weathering is proportionate to surface area so small 
particles are hugely more effective at releasing silicic acid than 
large ones. Olivine grain sizes of 0.1mm are proposed for terrestrial 
application and far smaller than this (~ micrometre scale) for marine 
use so that the particles can weather during their residence in the 
water column. The 'powdery' fraction of the ash will give the greatest 
silicic acid contribution.


It's hard for me to comment further without seeing the paper but it's 
good to know that these questions have been considered, Oliver.


On 21/08/2013 15:05, Chris Vivian wrote:

Oliver,
Bear in mind that the North East Pacific is a high-nutrient, 
low-chlorophyll (HNLC) area that is known to be limited by iron. The 
paper gives estimated sea water concentrations of silicate in the 
North East Pacific in the top 20 metre mixed layer in August 2008 
when the volcanic eruption occurred of 5,000-15,000 nM (nana molar) 
compared to an estimated 6-20 nM supply from the ash fallout over the 
fertilized area in the Gulf of Alaska.
Your second point was unclear but I assumed you were querying the 
release rate of the silicate from the ash. The ash used in the 
experiment was collected on a fishing boat during the eruption and 
stored dry in containers. The experiment only used the  2 mm size 
fraction. The release rate of silicate in the experiments was 170 
nmol silicate per gram of ash in the first hour and up to 585 nmol 
silicate per gram of ash after 20 hours.

Chris.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:12:19 AM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:


IMHO the significance of the silicic acid would depend on the
time of year. In the spring silicic acid is generally abundant so
adding more of it would make little difference. One it has all
been used up and diatoms are giving way to other phytoplankton a
boost of silicic acid would give rise to a second diatom bloom -
so it would be very significant. And of course the other question
is how effectively the chemical composition of the silicate in
the ash and its particle size as this will determine its quality
as a source of silicic acid.

Have the authors given any serious examination to such questions?
Oliver.

On 21/08/2013 09:55, Chris Vivian wrote:

Oliver,
ï¿1Ž2
I have seen the paper but cannot post a copy online. In the
paper the authors did measure the release of nitrate, nitrite,
ammonia, phosphate and silicate in leaching experiments and
concluded that the impact of these macronutrients released from
Kasatochi ash on primary productivity was probably
minimal.ï¿1Ž2They also suggested that the release of trace
metals other than iron could also have influenced phytoplankton
growth.

ï¿1Ž2

Chris.
ï¿1Ž2
On Monday, August 19, 2013 4:23:59 PM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:

I have not found an open source version of this paper yet,
but here

Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS

[Chris Vivian]

Oliver,
 
I have seen the paper but cannot post a copy online. In the paper the 
authors did measure the release of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphate and 
silicate in leaching experiments and concluded that the impact of these 
macronutrients released from Kasatochi ash on primary productivity was 
probably minimal. They also suggested that the release of trace metals 
other than iron could also have influenced phytoplankton growth.

 
Chris.
 
On Monday, August 19, 2013 4:23:59 PM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:

  I have not found an open source version of this paper yet, but here is a 
 related one.
 http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3715/2013/bg-10-3715-2013.pdf
 They do recognise that diatoms need silicic acid but do not seem to have 
 thought of volcanic ash as a source of silicic acid, only of iron.

 Re olivine application, it is worth noting that olivine is a mixture of Mg 
 silicate and Fe silicate. Some proportion, to be determined, of the iron in 
 olivine will become bioavailable as weathering progresses.

 Oliver.
 ===

 The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the eruption of
 Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model
 study
 A. Lindenthal1
 , B. Langmann1
 , J. Patsch ¨
 2
 , I. Lorkowski2
 , and M. Hort1
 1
 Institute of Geophysics, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 
 Germany
 2
 Institute of Oceanography, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 
 Germany
 Correspondence to: B. Langmann (baerbel@zmaw.de javascript:)
 Received: 29 June 2012 – Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 26 July 2012
 Revised: 18 April 2013 – Accepted: 8 May 2013 – Published: 5 June 2013




 On 19/08/2013 15:03, Oliver Tickell wrote:
  
 This is very odd. Based on the abstract only (article behind paywall) it 
 appears that they attribute the diatom bloom to iron fertilisation. Oddly 
 they have not considered the role of silicic acid from the dissolution of 
 Mg silicate species in the finely powdered volcanic ash. Silicic acid is 
 often the limiting nutrient for diatoms, as they use it to make their 
 silica shells. There is ample geological evidence of diatom (specifically) 
 blooms being associated with falls of volcanic ash.

 Is anyone able to post the actual article? Oliver.

 On 17/08/2013 17:13, Wil Burns wrote:
  
 FYI. wil

 MEPS - Vol. 488 - Table of 
 contentshttp://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/ 
 *Mar Ecol Prog Ser (Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599)*
 Copyright © 2013 Inter-Research. Published August 15


 *Olgun N, Duggen S, Langmann B, Hort M, Waythomas CF, Hoffmann L, Croot P 
 *
 Geochemical evidence of oceanic iron fertilization by the Kasatochi 
 volcanic eruption in 2008 and the potential impacts on Pacific sockeye 
 salmon
 MEPS 488:81-88 http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/p81-88/ | Full 
 text in pdf formathttp://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2013/488/m488p081.pdf

 -- 
 Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
 Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program 
 Johns Hopkins University
 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
 Room 104J
 Washington, DC  20036
 202.663.5976 (Office phone)
 650.281.9126 (Mobile)
 wbu...@jhu.edu javascript:

 http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html
  
 SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348

  
 Skype ID: Wil.Burns

 Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog: 
 http://www.teachingclimatelaw.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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 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] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS

[Oliver Tickell]

IMHO the significance of the silicic acid would depend on the time of 
year. In the spring silicic acid is generally abundant so adding more of 
it would make little difference. One it has all been used up and diatoms 
are giving way to other phytoplankton a boost of silicic acid would give 
rise to a second diatom bloom - so it would be very significant. And of 
course the other question is how effectively the chemical composition of 
the silicate in the ash and its particle size as this will determine its 
quality as a source of silicic acid.


Have the authors given any serious examination to such questions? Oliver.

On 21/08/2013 09:55, Chris Vivian wrote:

Oliver,
I have seen the paper but cannot post a copy online. In the paper the 
authors did measure the release of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, 
phosphate and silicate in leaching experiments and concluded that the 
impact of these macronutrients released from Kasatochi ash on primary 
productivity was probably minimal. They also suggested that the 
release of trace metals other than iron could also have influenced 
phytoplankton growth.


Chris.

On Monday, August 19, 2013 4:23:59 PM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:

I have not found an open source version of this paper yet, but
here is a related one.
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3715/2013/bg-10-3715-2013.pdf
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3715/2013/bg-10-3715-2013.pdf
They do recognise that diatoms need silicic acid but do not seem
to have thought of volcanic ash as a source of silicic acid, only
of iron.

Re olivine application, it is worth noting that olivine is a
mixture of Mg silicate and Fe silicate. Some proportion, to be
determined, of the iron in olivine will become bioavailable as
weathering progresses.

Oliver.
===

The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the
eruption of
Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model
study
A. Lindenthal1
, B. Langmann1
, J. Patsch ¨
2
, I. Lorkowski2
, and M. Hort1
1
Institute of Geophysics, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
2
Institute of Oceanography, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
Correspondence to: B. Langmann (baerbel@zmaw.de javascript:)
Received: 29 June 2012 – Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 26
July 2012
Revised: 18 April 2013 – Accepted: 8 May 2013 – Published: 5 June 2013




On 19/08/2013 15:03, Oliver Tickell wrote:

This is very odd. Based on the abstract only (article behind
paywall) it appears that they attribute the diatom bloom to iron
fertilisation. Oddly they have not considered the role of silicic
acid from the dissolution of Mg silicate species in the finely
powdered volcanic ash. Silicic acid is often the limiting
nutrient for diatoms, as they use it to make their silica shells.
There is ample geological evidence of diatom (specifically)
blooms being associated with falls of volcanic ash.

Is anyone able to post the actual article? Oliver.

On 17/08/2013 17:13, Wil Burns wrote:

FYI. wil


MEPS - Vol. 488 - Table of contents
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/

*Mar Ecol Prog Ser (Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599)*
Copyright © 2013 Inter-Research. Published August 15


*Olgun N, Duggen S, Langmann B, Hort M, Waythomas CF, Hoffmann
L, Croot P *
Geochemical evidence of oceanic iron fertilization by the
Kasatochi volcanic eruption in 2008 and the potential impacts on
Pacific sockeye salmon
MEPS 488:81-88
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/p81-88/ | Full text
in pdf format
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2013/488/m488p081.pdf


-- 
Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director

Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program
Johns Hopkins University
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Room 104J
Washington, DC  20036
202.663.5976 (Office phone)
650.281.9126 (Mobile)
wbu...@jhu.edu javascript:

http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html

http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html

SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348


Skype ID: Wil.Burns

Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog:
http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org
http://www.teachingclimatelaw.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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com
javascript:.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
javascript:.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering

Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS

[Chris Vivian]

Oliver,
 
Bear in mind that the North East Pacific is a high-nutrient, 
low-chlorophyll (HNLC) area that is known to be limited by iron. The paper 
gives estimated sea water concentrations of silicate in the North East 
Pacific in the top 20 metre mixed layer in August 2008 when the volcanic 
eruption occurred of 5,000-15,000 nM (nana molar) compared to an estimated 
6-20 nM supply from the ash fallout over the fertilized area in the Gulf of 
Alaska.
 
Your second point was unclear but I assumed you were querying the release 
rate of the silicate from the ash. The ash used in the experiment was 
collected on a fishing boat during the eruption and stored dry in 
containers. The experiment only used the  2 mm size fraction. The release 
rate of silicate in the experiments was 170 nmol silicate per gram of ash 
in the first hour and up to 585 nmol silicate per gram of ash after 20 
hours. 
 
Chris.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:12:19 AM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:

  
 IMHO the significance of the silicic acid would depend on the time of 
 year. In the spring silicic acid is generally abundant so adding more of it 
 would make little difference. One it has all been used up and diatoms are 
 giving way to other phytoplankton a boost of silicic acid would give rise 
 to a second diatom bloom - so it would be very significant. And of course 
 the other question is how effectively the chemical composition of the 
 silicate in the ash and its particle size as this will determine its 
 quality as a source of silicic acid. 

 Have the authors given any serious examination to such questions? Oliver.

 On 21/08/2013 09:55, Chris Vivian wrote:
  
  Oliver,
 �
 I have seen the paper but cannot post a copy online. In the paper the 
 authors did measure the release of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphate and 
 silicate in leaching experiments and concluded that the impact of these 
 macronutrients released from Kasatochi ash on primary productivity was 
 probably minimal.�They also suggested that the release of trace metals 
 other than iron could also have influenced phytoplankton growth.

 �
 Chris.
 �
 On Monday, August 19, 2013 4:23:59 PM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:

  I have not found an open source version of this paper yet, but here is 
 a related one.
 http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3715/2013/bg-10-3715-2013.pdf
 They do recognise that diatoms need silicic acid but do not seem to have 
 thought of volcanic ash as a source of silicic acid, only of iron.

 Re olivine application, it is worth noting that olivine is a mixture of 
 Mg silicate and Fe silicate. Some proportion, to be determined, of the iron 
 in olivine will become bioavailable as weathering progresses.

 Oliver.
 ===

 The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the eruption of
 Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model
 study
 A. Lindenthal1
 , B. Langmann1
 , J. Patsch �
 2
 , I. Lorkowski2
 , and M. Hort1
 1
 Institute of Geophysics, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 
 Germany
 2
 Institute of Oceanography, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 
 Germany
 Correspondence to: B. Langmann (baerbel@zmaw.de)
 Received: 29 June 2012 � Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 26 July 
 2012
 Revised: 18 April 2013 � Accepted: 8 May 2013 � Published: 5 June 2013




 On 19/08/2013 15:03, Oliver Tickell wrote:
  
 This is very odd. Based on the abstract only (article behind paywall) it 
 appears that they attribute the diatom bloom to iron fertilisation. Oddly 
 they have not considered the role of silicic acid from the dissolution of 
 Mg silicate species in the finely powdered volcanic ash. Silicic acid is 
 often the limiting nutrient for diatoms, as they use it to make their 
 silica shells. There is ample geological evidence of diatom (specifically) 
 blooms being associated with falls of volcanic ash.

 Is anyone able to post the actual article? Oliver.

 On 17/08/2013 17:13, Wil Burns wrote:
  
 FYI. wil

 MEPS - Vol. 488 - Table of 
 contentshttp://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/ 
 *Mar Ecol Prog Ser (Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599)*
 Copyright � 2013 Inter-Research. Published August 15


 *Olgun N, Duggen S, Langmann B, Hort M, Waythomas CF, Hoffmann L, Croot 
 P *
 Geochemical evidence of oceanic iron fertilization by the Kasatochi 
 volcanic eruption in 2008 and the potential impacts on Pacific sockeye 
 salmon
 MEPS 488:81-88 http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/p81-88/ | Full 
 text in pdf formathttp://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2013/488/m488p081.pdf

 -- 
 Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
 Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program 
 Johns Hopkins University
 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
 Room 104J
 Washington, DC� 20036
 202.663.5976 (Office phone)
 650.281.9126 (Mobile)
 wbu...@jhu.edu

 http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html
  
 SSRN site (selected 

Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS

[Oliver Tickell]

Thanks! My last sentence should have read And of course the other 
question is re the chemical composition of the silicate in the ash and 
its particle size as this will determine its quality as a source of 
silicic acid. So you understood.


the rate of weathering is proportionate to surface area so small 
particles are hugely more effective at releasing silicic acid than large 
ones. Olivine grain sizes of 0.1mm are proposed for terrestrial 
application and far smaller than this (~ micrometre scale) for marine 
use so that the particles can weather during their residence in the 
water column. The 'powdery' fraction of the ash will give the greatest 
silicic acid contribution.


It's hard for me to comment further without seeing the paper but it's 
good to know that these questions have been considered, Oliver.


On 21/08/2013 15:05, Chris Vivian wrote:

Oliver,
Bear in mind that the North East Pacific is a high-nutrient, 
low-chlorophyll (HNLC) area that is known to be limited by iron. The 
paper gives estimated sea water concentrations of silicate in the 
North East Pacific in the top 20 metre mixed layer in August 2008 when 
the volcanic eruption occurred of 5,000-15,000 nM (nana molar) 
compared to an estimated 6-20 nM supply from the ash fallout over the 
fertilized area in the Gulf of Alaska.
Your second point was unclear but I assumed you were querying the 
release rate of the silicate from the ash. The ash used in the 
experiment was collected on a fishing boat during the eruption and 
stored dry in containers. The experiment only used the  2 mm size 
fraction. The release rate of silicate in the experiments was 170 nmol 
silicate per gram of ash in the first hour and up to 585 nmol silicate 
per gram of ash after 20 hours.

Chris.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:12:19 AM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:


IMHO the significance of the silicic acid would depend on the time
of year. In the spring silicic acid is generally abundant so
adding more of it would make little difference. One it has all
been used up and diatoms are giving way to other phytoplankton a
boost of silicic acid would give rise to a second diatom bloom -
so it would be very significant. And of course the other question
is how effectively the chemical composition of the silicate in the
ash and its particle size as this will determine its quality as a
source of silicic acid.

Have the authors given any serious examination to such questions?
Oliver.

On 21/08/2013 09:55, Chris Vivian wrote:

Oliver,
�
I have seen the paper but cannot post a copy online. In the paper
the authors did measure the release of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia,
phosphate and silicate in leaching experiments and concluded that
the impact of these macronutrients released from Kasatochi ash on
primary productivity was probably minimal.�They also suggested
that the release of trace metals other than iron could also have
influenced phytoplankton growth.

�

Chris.
�
On Monday, August 19, 2013 4:23:59 PM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote:

I have not found an open source version of this paper yet,
but here is a related one.
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3715/2013/bg-10-3715-2013.pdf 
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3715/2013/bg-10-3715-2013.pdf
They do recognise that diatoms need silicic acid but do not
seem to have thought of volcanic ash as a source of silicic
acid, only of iron.

Re olivine application, it is worth noting that olivine is a
mixture of Mg silicate and Fe silicate. Some proportion, to
be determined, of the iron in olivine will become
bioavailable as weathering progresses.

Oliver.
===

The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the
eruption of
Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model
study
A. Lindenthal1
, B. Langmann1
, J. Patsch �
2
, I. Lorkowski2
, and M. Hort1
1
Institute of Geophysics, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
2
Institute of Oceanography, KlimaCampus, University of
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Correspondence to: B. Langmann (baerbel@zmaw.de)
Received: 29 June 2012 � Published in Biogeosciences
Discuss.: 26 July 2012
Revised: 18 April 2013 � Accepted: 8 May 2013 �
Published: 5 June 2013




On 19/08/2013 15:03, Oliver Tickell wrote:

This is very odd. Based on the abstract only (article behind
paywall) it appears that they attribute the diatom bloom to
iron fertilisation. Oddly they have not considered the role
of silicic acid from the dissolution of Mg silicate species
in the finely powdered volcanic ash. Silicic acid is often
the limiting nutrient for diatoms, as 

Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS

[Oliver Tickell]

This is very odd. Based on the abstract only (article behind paywall) it 
appears that they attribute the diatom bloom to iron fertilisation. 
Oddly they have not considered the role of silicic acid from the 
dissolution of Mg silicate species in the finely powdered volcanic ash. 
Silicic acid is often the limiting nutrient for diatoms, as they use it 
to make their silica shells. There is ample geological evidence of 
diatom (specifically) blooms being associated with falls of volcanic ash.


Is anyone able to post the actual article? Oliver.

On 17/08/2013 17:13, Wil Burns wrote:

FYI. wil


MEPS - Vol. 488 - Table of contents
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/

*Mar Ecol Prog Ser (Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599)*
Copyright © 2013 Inter-Research. Published August 15


*Olgun N, Duggen S, Langmann B, Hort M, Waythomas CF, Hoffmann L, 
Croot P *
Geochemical evidence of oceanic iron fertilization by the Kasatochi 
volcanic eruption in 2008 and the potential impacts on Pacific sockeye 
salmon
MEPS 488:81-88 http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/p81-88/ | 
Full text in pdf format 
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2013/488/m488p081.pdf



--
Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program
Johns Hopkins University
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Room 104J
Washington, DC  20036
202.663.5976 (Office phone)
650.281.9126 (Mobile)
wbu...@jhu.edu mailto:wbu...@jhu.edu
http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html 


SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348


Skype ID: Wil.Burns

Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog: 
http://www.teachingclimatelaw.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 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] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS

[Oliver Tickell]

I have not found an open source version of this paper yet, but here is a 
related one.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3715/2013/bg-10-3715-2013.pdf
They do recognise that diatoms need silicic acid but do not seem to have 
thought of volcanic ash as a source of silicic acid, only of iron.


Re olivine application, it is worth noting that olivine is a mixture of 
Mg silicate and Fe silicate. Some proportion, to be determined, of the 
iron in olivine will become bioavailable as weathering progresses.


Oliver.
===

The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the eruption of
Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model
study
A. Lindenthal1
, B. Langmann1
, J. Patsch ¨
2
, I. Lorkowski2
, and M. Hort1
1
Institute of Geophysics, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 
Germany

2
Institute of Oceanography, KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, 
Germany

Correspondence to: B. Langmann (baerbel.langm...@zmaw.de)
Received: 29 June 2012 -- Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 26 July 2012
Revised: 18 April 2013 -- Accepted: 8 May 2013 -- Published: 5 June 2013




On 19/08/2013 15:03, Oliver Tickell wrote:
This is very odd. Based on the abstract only (article behind paywall) 
it appears that they attribute the diatom bloom to iron fertilisation. 
Oddly they have not considered the role of silicic acid from the 
dissolution of Mg silicate species in the finely powdered volcanic 
ash. Silicic acid is often the limiting nutrient for diatoms, as they 
use it to make their silica shells. There is ample geological evidence 
of diatom (specifically) blooms being associated with falls of 
volcanic ash.


Is anyone able to post the actual article? Oliver.

On 17/08/2013 17:13, Wil Burns wrote:

FYI. wil


MEPS - Vol. 488 - Table of contents
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/

*Mar Ecol Prog Ser (Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599)*
Copyright © 2013 Inter-Research. Published August 15


*Olgun N, Duggen S, Langmann B, Hort M, Waythomas CF, Hoffmann L, 
Croot P *
Geochemical evidence of oceanic iron fertilization by the Kasatochi 
volcanic eruption in 2008 and the potential impacts on Pacific 
sockeye salmon
MEPS 488:81-88 http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v488/p81-88/ | 
Full text in pdf format 
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2013/488/m488p081.pdf



--
Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program
Johns Hopkins University
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Room 104J
Washington, DC  20036
202.663.5976 (Office phone)
650.281.9126 (Mobile)
wbu...@jhu.edu mailto:wbu...@jhu.edu
http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html 


SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348


Skype ID: Wil.Burns

Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog: 
http://www.teachingclimatelaw.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 group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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

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


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

Re: [geo] new article at Huffpost

[Robert Tulip]

Nathan, thanks for your excellent article.  
 
Reading it against discussion of the misconceived arguments about moral 
hazard of geoengineering is useful.  The Arctic is an alarm bell for the 
global climate.  Allowing ice melt without urgent response presents massive 
risk of dangerous feedback loops with potentially catastrophic impact.  Rather 
than allowing any complacency about CO2e increase, agreement to implement 
Arctic SRM could shock the world into a recognition that CO2 emissions are 
pushing us into a real global security emergency.
 
SRM might be compared to an emergency tourniquet applied to a bleeding limb.  A 
tourniquet helps to minimise the trauma of massive injury by slowing blood 
loss, while in no way replacing curative measures.   SRM can provide breathing 
space to stabilise climate, while developing the slower responses of carbon 
dioxide removal through design and deployment of global technological systems.  
SRM without CDR is like a tourniquet without antibiotics.
 
Robert Tulip  


 From: nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com
To: nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com 
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 6:41 AM
Subject: [geo] new article at Huffpost
  

Hi, all - my newest piece at Huffington Post just came out.this is part 1 
of a 2 part piece.best, Nathan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/arctic-climate-change_b_1911550.html
 
 
Saving the Arctic Ice: Greenpeace, Greenwashing and Geoengineering (#1)
www.huffingtonpost.com
That's right: the volume of arctic sea ice this September minimum was  -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

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

Re: [geo] New Article on Aerosols and South Asian Monsoons in Science

[John Gorman]

I am surprised that this post didn't get any replies. It seemed rather 
important to me because reduction in the Indian monsoon has always been one of 
the arguments against stratospheric aerosol. (Together with damage to the ozone 
layer) My answer has always been that the Indian monsoon has already reduced 
considerably over the last 30 years probably due to some aspect of global 
warming

The paper was quite difficult for a non climate scientist but the conclusion 
seems to be that global warming alone would probably increase the Indian 
monsoon but that industrial smog over Asia (aka tropospheric aerosol) disturbs 
the North-South circulation between the northern and southern hemispheres 
leading to a reduction.

An early solution to the industrial smog problem in Asia is probably as 
unlikely as an early reduction in CO2 emissions. So maybe global stratospheric 
aerosol plans should start by offering a solution to the problem of the Indian 
monsoon reduction as well as giving an overall reduction in global warming. 
Maybe the same climate models that produced this conclusion could be used to 
produce a suitable geoengineering plan.

Regards

John Gorman

  - Original Message - 
  From: Wil Burns 
  To: geoengineering 
  Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:50 AM
  Subject: [geo] New Article on Aerosols and South Asian Monsoons in Science


  Anthropogenic Aerosols and the Weakening of the South Asian Summer Monsoon, 
Massimo A. Bollasina et al. 
  Changes in monsoon rainfall are caused by human-produced aerosols slowing the 
tropical atmospheric circulation. 
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/334/6055/502

  
===
 
  Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
  Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program 
  Johns Hopkins University
  1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
  Room 104J
  Washington, DC  20036
  202.663.5976 (Office phone)
  650.281.9126 (Mobile)
  wbu...@jhu.edu
  
http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html
 
  SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348

   
  Skype ID: Wil.Burns

  Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog: http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org



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

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

Re: REGIONAL GEOENG POSSIBILITIES: [geo] New Article on Aerosols and South Asian Monsoons in Science

[Alan Robock]

Dear All,

It is too early to speculate on whether cloud seeding over a small area 
of the ocean could reverse this trend.  The summer monsoon is a very 
broad-scale circulation, and this would need some GCM simulations to 
check, but I would guess there are not nearly enough regions with low 
clouds to seed to have any impact on the summer monsoon. In summer it is 
more cloudy over land than ocean because of the monsoon.  How can you 
find enough clouds over the ocean to seed, even if albedo enhancement 
might work?  And this has the same termination problem as other SRM 
suggestions.


What this /Science /article does is to reinforce our previous result 
that stratospheric aerosols will reduce summer precip over Asia.  
Aerosols, in the troposphere or stratosphere, cool the land more than 
the ocean, thus reducing the temperature contrast that drives the monsoon.



Alan

[On sabbatical for current academic year.  The best way to contact me
is by email, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, or at 732-881-1610 (cell).]

Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock


On 12/10/2011 8:32 AM, John Latham wrote:

Hello Ken et al,

To elaborate slightly on Ken's points, we are examining (via modelling)
  two other regional geoengineering possibilities to which Marine Cloud
Brightening might be applicable. Both involve the cooling of oceanic
surface waters in critical regions. One is the protection of coral
reefs, and the other the weakening of hurricanes [by cooling the
waters in which they spawn and develop].Our highly provisional first
results look encouraging.

The Seitz microbubble technique for albedo enhancement might also be
applicable to these issues.

All Best,John.lat...@ucar.edu



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 Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 3:36 PM
To: gorm...@waitrose.com
Cc: williamcgbu...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] New Article on Aerosols and South Asian Monsoons in Science

I agree that this paper is interesting and relevant.

It suggests to me that it possible that tropospheric aerosols (or possibly 
cloud whitening or even ocean pumps) over the Indian ocean might increase 
rainfall over Asia.

Not only is this of scientific interest, but if regional climate modification 
are possible and are expected to produce results that people like, then this it 
would be easier for me to imagine coming to a regional rather than global 
decision to engage in a deployment (although there would of course be some 
distal effects).

___
Ken Caldeira

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



On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM, John 
Gormangorm...@waitrose.commailto:gorm...@waitrose.com  wrote:

I am surprised that this post didn't get any replies. It seemed rather 
important to me because reduction in the Indian monsoon has always been one of 
the arguments against stratospheric aerosol. (Together with damage to the ozone 
layer) My answer has always been that the Indian monsoon has already reduced 
considerably over the last 30 years probably due to some aspect of global 
warming

The paper was quite difficult for a non climate scientist but the conclusion 
seems to be that global warming alone would probably increase the Indian 
monsoon but that industrial smog over Asia (aka tropospheric aerosol) disturbs 
the North-South circulation between the northern and southern hemispheres 
leading to a reduction.

An early solution to the industrial smog problem in Asia is probably as 
unlikely as an early reduction in CO2 emissions. So maybe global stratospheric 
aerosol plans should start by offering a solution to the problem of the Indian 
monsoon reduction as well as giving an overall reduction in global warming. 
Maybe the same climate models that produced this conclusion could be used to 
produce a suitable geoengineering plan.

Regards

John Gorman

- Original Message -
From: Wil Burnsmailto:williamcgbu...@gmail.com
To: geoengineeringmailto:geoengineering

[geo] New Article on Aerosols and South Asian Monsoons in Science

[Wil Burns]

Anthropogenic Aerosols and the Weakening of the South Asian Summer Monsoon,
Massimo A. Bollasina et al.
Changes in monsoon rainfall are caused by human-produced aerosols slowing
the tropical atmospheric circulation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/334/6055/502

===

Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program
Johns Hopkins University
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Room 104J
Washington, DC  20036
202.663.5976 (Office phone)
650.281.9126 (Mobile)
wbu...@jhu.edu
http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html
SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348


Skype ID: Wil.Burns

Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog: http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org

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

[geo] New Article on Biochar

[Wil Burns]

My apologies if this new biochar piece was already brought to the attention
of the group. wil

https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/40/2/468
-- 
Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief
Journal of International Wildlife Law  Policy
2875 Shasta Road
Berkeley, CA 94708 USA
Ph:   650.281.9126 skype:6502819126?call
Fax: 510.779.5361 skype:5107795361?call
ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13880292.asp
SSRN site: http://ssrn.com/author=240348
Skype ID: Wil.Burns

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