[geo] Re: the science and technology of climate cooling ???

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:56:36 -0800

Dear Mike,
 
In your analogy Natural Ocean Bacterial Anaerobic Digestion (NOBAD, aka PODenergy) is a sailplane staying aloft indefinitely.  It stays aloft by simultaneously capturing carbon from air for easy reliable sequestration and producing energy in a form, pure biomethane, which already has substantial infrastructure.
 
It isn't the typical geoengineering, which must be maintained to avoid a crash even as it allows more acidic oceans.
 
It isnt the typical renewable energy production that cannot reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
 
It is exceptionally cheap to deploy, meaning it might be quick enough.  The economics questions are mostly in the biomass harvesting operations.
 
Mark E. Capron, PE
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org
 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [geo] Re: the science and technology of climate cooling ???
From: Mike MacCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, November 25, 2008 10:22 am
To: John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Schnare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
, Geoengineering
<Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, Bob Watson uea.ac.uk>,
Dr Tim Fox imeche.org>, randerson@guardian.co.uk>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dear John--

Although not nearly a perfect analogy, the situation we are in is a bit like society being asked to jump from the top floor of a skyscraper that is  burning amidst a city that is also burning—and society is being asked to jump relying on a parachute that has gone through only very limited testing. While it might seem the best thing to do, a safe landing depends not only on the effectiveness of the parachute, but also on the fire below being put out, or one will just be consumed a bit later than the situation now. Those reluctant to jump have an impression that the act of jumping with a parachute might be seen by those who are (or need to be) fighting the fire as reducing their urgency and dedication to putting out the fire, as the jumper now has a bit more time before being endangered. With this as the perception, critics of jumping  think it best if one not jump quite yet—let the fire get worse so it is really clear it must be put out. What is a bit troubling is that the effective way out of this dilemma might be to find a way to try to keep aloft indefinitely, a path that would require one to depart the skyscraper in a different sort of contraption—so one waits to figure out what that alternative might be, hoping there really is such a device as the fire coming up the skyscraper is clearly getting hotter and nearer.

Likening this situation to 9/11 and the World Trade Center, the only ones who made it out safely were those who made a mad dash down the stairs—so those advocating sharp emission reductions suggest that is the only way to go. Had there been parachutes on the roof, at what point would those with the parachutes have jumped—and might they have just come down in the great debris cloud or been able to figure out a path to safety amidst all the debris and other hazards? In my view, jumping early is just not generally in society’s nature—witness the decisions to rebuild New Orleans and Galveston, choices that seem unsustainable in the longer-term.

In seems to me that it will take agreement on a comprehensive, multi-part, long-term agreement to eliminate emissions among all nations to really generate some action, with geoengineering being a part of the effort for of order several decades. That way, the full set of implications and impacts and approaches is dealt with together—and geoengineering would be seen as a necessary component of the full effort rather than as a short-term ad hoc choice. I just think arguing for geoengineering alone (or nearly alone) will be a hard sell, except to those of us who agree with Hansen that we are already past the appropriate concentration threshold for dangerous change.

Mike M


On 11/25/08 12:20 PM, "John Nissen" http://email.secureserver.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dear David,

I proposed that we refer to "climate restoration" rather than "climate cooling", as I believe that should be our objective in using some of the proposed geoengineering techniques.  But you are concerned by side-effects.

The side-effects of the proposed climate restoration techniques, using stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening, are well researched because we can study the effects of volcanoes (like Pinatubo) and contrails from ships respectively.  It turns out that both techniques are relatively benign - and benefits (including the protection of both terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks, which threaten to decline due to global warming) vastly outweigh the negative side effects (such as a small amount of ozone depletion and acid rain in the case of sulphate aerosols).  Neither technique is life threatening.  Furthermore neither technique is expensive - we are talking of a few billion dollars per annum at most.  On the other hand, without geoengineering, the cost of adaptation to global warming, even just the global warming in the pipeline, is enormous - and millions of lives would be affected.

It seems that the media are determined to poke fun at geoengineering, but they are producing a lot of disinformation which distracts the policy makers from the task at hand, i.e. to save ourselves from getting caught in a spiral of global warming and sea level rise, which would most likely follow from loss of sea ice or massive methane release in the Arctic region.

However, if it is a scientific advisor to the government who denigrates geoengineering [1] [2], then I am concerned that they may not be giving good advice to policy makers, which would be a breach of duty and moral obligation.

I challenge anyone to come up with a strong argument why we should not deploy geoengineering, when this appears the only way to guard against the risks of Arctic sea ice disappearance and massive methane release, either of which could happen in the next few years.  

Surely geoengineering has to be top priority for government, although it should be done in conjunction with mitigation efforts.

Kind regards,

John

John Nissen
Chiswick, London W4

[1]  You mention David Hawkins.  He wrote last November in testimony to a Senate committee:
http://docs.nrdc.org/globalWarming/files/glo_07111301a.pdf

"Scholars and economists have only begun a serious assessment of the costs of inaction but it is clear from their work that it is climate disruption, not climate protection programs, which will wreck the economy."
 
We are proposing geoengineering as a crucially urgent part of a climate protection program to include mitigation - so Hawkins should be behind us.  Perhaps "climate protection" would be an even better term than "climate restoration".

[2]  See evidence given to the IUS parliamentary committee, where a low carbon economy is given immediate priority over geoengineering by the scientific adviser, Professor Bob Watson:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/uc1202-i/uc120202.htm

"If we go to some of the other areas [of geoengineering], on paper there are potential offsets [undesirable side-effects], whether it is tropospherical or stratospherical aerosols, but I would argue the number one priority at the moment is to actually implement a low carbon economy in both the production and use of energy and that would be the number one priority."
 
 

----- Original Message -----
 
From: David  Schnare mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
 
To: http://email.secureserver.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Cc: http://email.secureserver.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://email.secureserver.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:20  PM
 
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: the science and  technology of climate cooling ???
 

 
Brian, John and Ken:
 
 
 
David Hawkins is reading this and thinking about how to make fun of your  terms so as to minimize their impact and turn them into something that will  make you look like a crazed individual.  I believe you can leap past his  purposeful sarcasm if you get a thought-piece paper out (general press, not  scientific press) discussing these terms and holding them up to public  examination, and if you make a special email to the reporters on this list  (there are atleast two) asking them to do a little piece on how to view  geoengineering from a public policy perspective.
 
 
 
Either way, your terms don't address the known and unknown potential  adverse effects associated with the various means of cooling the planet.   That will be the point of attack, as it has been for some time now.   
 
 
 
Overall, while I use metaphore and analogy all the time, when it comes to  cooling the planet, I like to use simple words (like cooling) and sound nerdy  and scientific.  Thus, I use "solar radiation management (SRM)" and then  explain how it prevents warming.  Or I use "cloud whitening" and show a  picture of contrails, explaining how natural it already is.  When others  bring up the potential adverse consequences, I address them directly  (precipitation changes, ozone layer, acid rain) and indicate the community has  looked into these things and others as well and has found no adverse impact as  bad as relying exclusively on high cost carbon emissions reductions.
 
 
 
fwiw
 
 
 
d schnare


 
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:50 AM, John Nissen http://email.secureserver.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

 
Hi Ken,

 
 
Finding the right terminology is important in  persuading people that what you are doing is sensible.

 
 
"Cooling" and "refrigeration" could bring fears  of overdoing the geoengineering, e.g. accidentally triggering an Ice Age (as  some journalists worry!).

 
 
I prefer the term "climate  stabilisation".  We may need to cool the Arctic well below its current  temperature in order for the sea ice to reform, but for non-polar  regions (i.e. most of the rest of the world), our initial aim should be  to halt global warming - no more, no less.  Basically the idea is to  stop things getting worse.

 
 
But an even better term might be  "climate restoration", as we'd like to stop droughts rather than prolong  them, restore the Arctic to a former condition, reverse the spread of  deserts, etc.  Thus, if possible, we could produce regional effects on  climate for the benefit of those regions that have been already adversely  affected by global warming.  BTW, this is where marine cloud  brightening could prove invaluable.

 
 
Politically, I think "restoration" has the  better connotations and sounds more valuable.  And it leaves open the  door to negotiate how far the restoration and to what original state/date  (e.g. 80% towards pre-industrial).

 
 
Cheers,

 

John

 
 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to