The 26 reasons (and 5 benefits) are in:
Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, /Issues Env.
Sci. Tech./ (special issue "Geoengineering of the Climate System"),
*38*, 162-185.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockStratAerosolGeo.pdf
See Table 2, p. 181. And it is specific not to just SRM, but
stratospheric aerosol SRM.
Alan Robock
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: [email protected]
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 11/10/2014 3:16 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Alan cc List adding Professor Fleming
1. Interesting news release; thanks. Could you give a cite for
your expanded-to-26 list? I found reference to a ppt on your website,
which I could download but not open.
2. Although called a "Geoengineering" list, your 20-list is only for
SRM. It would be very helpful to know if you or anyone has a similar
list for CDR.
3. For those who have not seen Professor Robock's list of 20, it is
available at
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2012Q1/111/20Reasons.pdf
4. Professor Fleming (being cc'd) had this to say below about
biochar in the article:
/"Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by
burning it in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil
enrichment. //"The problem with that one is the scale," Fleming says.
"The topsoil of the world is not large enough to capture all the
carbon of industry."/
5. Minor objections to the first sentence ("/burning/" and
"/burying/"), but I hope he or others could provide cites for "/not
large enough/". For one, a large amount (100 Gt??) of the removed
carbon can appear as future additional above-ground biomass (now about
500 Gt C). But also there are numerous citations of anthropogenic
removal of perhaps 400 Gt C of soil carbon - that need return. In
addition, the 60 Gt C per year in flux is not obviously incapable of
adding another 10% or so. Finally there is a similar increased carbon
flux potential to biochar from ocean resources - and if some
inadvertently returns as char, it is probably even more recalcitrant
there.
6. I of course agree with his main thrust here - we need to stop, not
capture, "/all the capture of industry." /But the two actions can/must
be concurrent.
Ron
Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by
burning it in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil
enrichment.
"
Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by
burning it in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil
enrichment.
"The problem with that one is the scale," Fleming says. "The topsoil
of the world is not large enough to capture all the carbon of industry."
Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by
burning it in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil
enrichment.
"The problem with that one is the scale," Fleming says. "The topsoil
of the world is not large enough to capture all the carbon of industry."
On Nov 10, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2014/11/09/many_experts_say_technology_cant_fix_climate_change.html
Many experts say technology can't fix climate change
There are several geoengineering schemes for fixing climate
change, but so far none seems a sure bet.
*By:* Joseph Hall <http://www.thestar.com/authors.hall_joe.html> News
reporter, Published on Sun Nov 09 2014
As scientific proposals go, these might well be labelled pie in the sky.
Indeed, most of the atmosphere-altering techniques that have been
suggested to combat carbon-induced global warming are more science
fantasy than workable fixes, many climate experts say.
"I call them Rube Goldberg <http://www.rubegoldberg.com/>ideas," says
James Rodger Fleming, a meteorological historian at Maine's Colby
College, referring to the cartoonist who created designs for
gratuitously complex contraptions.
"I think it's a tragic comedy because these people are sincere, but
they're kind of deluded to think that there could be a simple, cheap,
technical fix for climate change," adds Fleming, author of the 2010
book /Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate
Control./
Yet the idea that geoengineering --- the use of technology to alter
planet-wide systems --- could curb global warming has persisted in a
world that seems incapable of addressing the root, carbon-spewing
causes of the problem.
And it emerged again earlier this month with a brief mention in a
United Nations report on the scope and imminent perils of a rapidly
warming world.
That Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report
<http://www.ipcc.ch/>, which seemed to despair of an
emissions-lowering solution being achieved --- laid out in broad
terms the types of technical fixes currently being studied to help
mitigate climate catastrophe.
First among these proposed geoengineering solutions is solar
radiation management, or SRM, which would involve millions of tons of
sulphur dioxide (SO2) being pumped into the stratosphere every year
to create sun-blocking clouds high above the Earth's surface.
Anyone Canadian who remembers the unusually frigid summer of 1992,
caused by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines
a year earlier, grasps the cooling effects that tons of stratospheric
SO2 can have on the planet.
And because such natural occurrences show the temperature-lowering
potential of the rotten-smelling substance, seeding the stratosphere
with it has gained the most currency among the geoengineering crowd.
One method put forward for getting the rotten-smelling stuff into the
stratosphere could well have been conceived by warped cartoonist
Goldberg.
"You could make a tower up into the stratosphere, with a hose along
the side" says Alan Robock, a top meteorologist at New Jersey's
Rutgers University who has long studied SRM concepts.
The trouble is that any stratosphere-reaching tower built in the
tropics, where the SO2 would have to be injected for proper global
dispersal, would need to be at least 18 kilometres high.
Other stratospheric seeding suggestions include filling balloons with
the cheap and readily available gas --- it's routinely extracted from
petroleum products --- and popping them when they get up there.
But Robock says "the most obvious way to go" would be to fly
airplanes up and then spray SO2 into the stratosphere.
Once up there, the sulphur dioxide particles would react with water
molecules and form thin clouds of sulphuric acid droplets that could
encircle the Earth and reflect heating sunlight back into space.
Placing the cloud in the stratosphere is a must as the droplets last
about a year there while they fall within a week in the lower
troposphere.
Still, the clouds, which would rain sulphuric acid back down on the
Earth's polar regions, would require frequent replenishment, with
about 5 million tons of SO2 being needed each year to maintain their
reflective capacity, Robock says.
Due to uncertainties about the droplet sizes that would be produced
by SO2 cloud-seeding, no one is certain how much cooling the
technique would create.
"We don't know how thick a cloud we could actually make and how much
cooling there would be," Robock says.
Though he's devoted much of his career to studying sun-blocking
proposals, Robock is in no way convinced of their merits.
"I have a list of 26 reasons why I think this might be a bad idea,"
he says.
Chief among these is that the cooling produced by SRM would be uneven
around the globe, with the greatest temperature drops being seen in
the tropics.
"And so if you wanted to stop the ice sheets from melting . . . you'd
have to overcool the tropics."
The scheme would also produce droughts in heavily populated areas of
the world such as the Indian subcontinent, he says.
"Another thing on my list is unexpected consequences. I mean, we
don't know what the risks would be. We only know about one planet in
the entire universe that sustains intelligent life. Do we want to
risk this one planet on this technological fix?"
Though SRM thinking still centres on sulfates as the best
cloud-seeding compounds, some are now looking at manufactured
nanoparticles to send into the stratosphere, meteorological historian
Fleming says.
"There's some talk about designer particles . . . but I don't know of
any production stream, and that would make it much more expensive."
The second major proposed geoengineering strategy to combat global
warming is based on carbon dioxide (CO2) removal.
This could take place either at large sources of CO2 such as power
plants or from the air itself, where even at today's climate-
threatening levels, it exists in low concentrations of about 400
parts per million.
Know variously as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) or carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS), there are several strategies being discussed.
All the plans, however, would likely entail huge costs, the use of
dangerous chemicals and uncertain storage prospects, Fleming says.
"There are chemical means that would use some very alkaline, harsh
chemicals."
He notes that there are also thermodynamic means --- kind of the way
they make dry ice and they just suck it out and condense it (into a
liquid or solid)."
But thermodynamic removal and compression techniques, Fleming says,
are prohibitively expensive and require the use of large amounts of
carbon-producing energy.
This is largely due to the increased weight carbon acquires by
combining with oxygen during the burning process.
A ton of coal, for example, produces more than three tons of carbon
dioxide because of the added oxygen load, Fleming says.
"To make it really effective you'd have to have about a 30-per-cent
increase in world energy use. But it would have to come from
renewable (sources), which are not in the offing right now."
Other removal plans would employ membrane filters that are permeable
to all the air's component molecules except carbon.
"This seems viable on a small scale, but the question is, as in all
these projects: how do you make it a very large and very viable and
economically feasible?" Fleming says.
Most plans would see the captured CO2 turned back into a burnable
fuel by removing the oxygen component, or have it condensed into a
liquid form and pumped into underground caverns or ocean trenches.
But the fuel idea would also requite massive energy inputs to crack
the molecule into its two elements, and the storage scheme would
likely produce leakage.
Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by
burning it in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil
enrichment.
"The problem with that one is the scale," Fleming says. "The topsoil
of the world is not large enough to capture all the carbon of industry."
Climate altering schemes go back to at least 1841, when pioneering
U.S. meteorologist James Pollard Espy
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/James_Pollard_Espy.aspx> published
a rather ruinous proposal.
"He observed that oftentimes it rained after giant fires," Fleming
says. "So he thought, well, maybe we can stimulate artificial rains
by lighting the Appalachian forests all the way down the east coast
of the U.S. and then the westerly winds would bring the rains across
the eastern seaboard."
--
Alan Robock
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:[email protected]
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
