Andrew et. al., Ocean up-take should be our primary point of CO2 capture, which sets up a wealth of downstream critical commodities through proper utilization and sequestration. The technology needed for vast scale mid-oceanic farming of marine biomass is well developed yet the suite of technologies have simply never been assimilated for such a mission.
Concerning the statement of: *"**You'd have to keep sulphur emissions constant for this to happen, though"; *That technical ramp-down strategy is useful. Yet, sulfur/BC are a secondary issue(s) and not fundamentally dependant upon SAI for that balancing act. Concerning the statement of: *Choosing whether to maintain sulphur protection is one of the ways to 'get the camel's nose in the tent', as far as SRM acceptability goes."; *I assume you are using SRM as simply meaning SAI? As I'm sure you recall, the Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) *SRM* regimen has no primary/secondary connection to sulfur/BC. The MCB regimen is a highly predictable form od SRM, controllable on short wave deployment status and does not generate Polar Stratspheric Clouds (PSC) and thus trigger Clathrate Gun Hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis> (CGH) like effects etc. Yet, MCB, being primarily associated with the hydraulic loop, can thus trump SAIs claim to hydraulic cycle modulation superiority due to the far heavier cost per polar (in-)stability. In many ways, the SAI protocol seems to be a well designed regimen to increase PCS/CGH effects. By all accounts, the SAI protocol is directed at creating a physically '*equitable*' atmosphere which does insure increased vulnerability to PSC/CGH threats. The lack of delta-T in the atmospheric dynamics (a.k.a. an equitable atmosphere), does destabilize many aspects of the climate and creating an equitable atmosphere is the stated goal of the SAI strategy. An equitable atmosphere...*is*...the primary threat vector, *at this time*, presented by global warming....and SAI. As atmospheric moisture is a secondary issue, we need to look to the primary systemic issues (CO2 capture/utilization/sequestration) for central technical points upon which a (*bio*) geoengineering metastrategy <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metastrategy> can be built upon. Marine biomass production, on vast scale, with support from protocols such as MCB, biochar, olivine, AWL etc. represents a robust bio-geoengineering regimen which does not increase the PSC/CGH threat level and can help maintain a balanced (non-equitable atmospheric based) planetary climate. *John*, your statement of; *"**SRM-type geoengineering is the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway" *seems to ignore MCB and that SAI does not offer polar cooling! Also, the Arctic methane issue may be best served by use of the methane within cultivation systems as well as used for ice production. In brief, SAI will warm the polar regions simply due to the expected increase in PSC. Your AMEG group is actually supporting the warming of the polar regions through supporting SAI. Is that the AMEG group's actual intentions? *Doug*, thank you for the plots. I believe a great deal of attention needs to be paid to that type of data as such data may be seen as a strong indicator for net negative global emissions (per RCP 2.6 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways>). As can easily be deduces from the SAI protocol, it simply does...zero...in getting us to RCP 2.6. I was not able to find the Cao et al, 2011 paper. Can you send a link? *Parminder*, as biologists often remind use, nature often pivots upon the swing of a few percentages within critical relationships. The carbon capture, utilization and sequestration relationships in nature does offer important instructions for us in getting to RCP.2.6. within a "self-organizing, complex, adaptive system". The IPCC supported Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) path is seemingy the best fit with such a highly dynamic matrix. *In conclusion;* To quote Dr. Sallie Chisholm <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_W._Chisholm> on her views concerning geoengineering as it is most popularly defined (SAI?); "Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player in what ever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms that are evolving every second-a 'self-organizing, complex, adaptive system'. These types of systems have emergent properties that simply cannot be predicted. We all know this! Yet proponents of geoengineering research leave that out of the discussion.". *Bio-geoengineering*, through marine biomass production/biochar/olivine/bio-energy/MCB etc., does not neglect the above obvious reality, as so well put forth by Dr. Chisholm, as the bio-geoengineering suite of technologies are all flexible enough to keep pace with a self-organizing, adaptive and vastly complex planetary system(s).....*while also achieving RCP 2.6.* *Wh*ereas, SAI does profoundly neglect the emergent/evolutionary properties of nature and does so at a fundamentally critical level....sunlight!!! And, SAI does nothing towards assistance in our critical need to achieve the RCP 2.6 scenario. Thus, SAI, under its current deployment protocol, must be viewed at the policy, socioeconomic and environmental levels as being highly un- necessarily un-safe and the claim that SAI is "*The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is solar geoengineering*' is simply not supportable at the STEM/policy levels....on the face of it.. Best regards, Michael *Michael Hayes* *"How inadequate it is to term this planet "Earth", as it is evident that is should be called "Ocean". Arthur C. Clarke.* *"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. La Ciudadela* *The IMBECS Protocol Draft <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zMD-k9QLS9TfEGDpaQptGBqdtXa-1NCx5oNKvEjrL8Y/edit?usp=sharing>: A Marine Centric Biogeoengineering Thesis * *The Blue Biochar Initiative (BBI) website <http://voglerlake.wix.com/blue-biochar#!-metrics/c1xxk>* On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > In theory, I would have thought a rapid drop in CO2 emissions should cause > global temperatures to drop pretty quickly, as ocean uptake will remove a > lot of historical emissions. You'd have to keep sulphur emissions constant > for this to happen, though. > > Choosing whether to maintain sulphur protection is one of the ways to 'get > the camel's nose in the tent', as far as SRM acceptability goes. > > A > On 27 Apr 2015 00:12, "John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> I would like to defend Ken on this matter. SRM-type geoengineering is >> the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway. We >> are already cooling the planet with our SO2 emissions associated with >> coal-fired power stations, but not sufficiently to offset global warming >> from greenhouse gases. If SO2 emissions were stopped, e.g. because of an >> economic downturn in China, the planet would warm suddenly; whereas if they >> were put in the stratosphere they would could cool much more effectively >> and probably more safely. And if they were put in the stratosphere at mid >> to high latitude, they might save the Arctic sea ice - the highest priority >> at present. >> >> Cheers, John >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> I find Ken's statement of "*The only thing a politician can do to start >>> the planet cooling is solar geoengineering*." is un-supportable, on the >>> face of it, as there are a multitude of 'planet cooling' means and methods >>> available. And, the statement ignores roughly every thing that the IPCC >>> (WG3) supports on the mitigation side of the equation. >>> >>> We need to avoid being tethered to a cult of personality and focus upon >>> that which we can do....and do safely. The use of Stratospheric Aerosol >>> (sulfuric acid) Injection is not, under it's current protocol of >>> deployment, safe >>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/LJWQD4s2w_U/mVT1_zMxQiUJ>....And, >>> Ken knows this to be true. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Micahel >>> >>> >>> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32334528 >>>> >>>> By Simon Redfern >>>> Science writer >>>> 16 April 2015 >>>> From the section Science & Environment >>>> >>>> Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in >>>> "different" climate change, rather than its elimination, new results >>>> suggest. >>>> Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a >>>> major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. >>>> These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate >>>> change. >>>> But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land >>>> environments are hotly debated. >>>> They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in >>>> Vienna. >>>> Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic >>>> eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the >>>> rock record. >>>> With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General >>>> Assembly have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of >>>> pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect >>>> sunlight back into space and cool the planet. >>>> Planetary sunshade >>>> Two hundred years ago this month, the huge volcano Mount Tambora >>>> erupted in Indonesia, throwing tonnes of gas and ash into the stratosphere. >>>> Maybe as much as 100 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide aerosols spread >>>> as a blanket around the globe, acting like a planetary sunshade. >>>> Global temperatures plummeted, and across America and Europe 1816 >>>> became known as the year without a summer. >>>> Such global cooling processes, but managed in a geoengineering >>>> solution, have been touted by some as a possible mechanism to extricate the >>>> planet from its path towards a warmer future. >>>> Solar radiation management would use stratospheric sulphate aerosols to >>>> dim the Sun. Using a variety of climate models, Ken Caldeira, from the >>>> Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, has investigated >>>> the likely consequences of such geoengineering on agriculture across the >>>> globe. >>>> Mount Pinatubo >>>> Mount Pinatubo pumped 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide high into >>>> the sky above the Philippines >>>> His research shows that while dimming could rapidly decrease global >>>> temperatures, high CO2 levels would be expected to persist, and it is the >>>> balance between temperature, CO2, and sunlight that affects plant growth >>>> and agriculture. >>>> Exploring the regional effects, he finds that a stratospherically >>>> dimmed world would show increased plant productivity in the tropics, but >>>> lessened plant growth across the northerly latitudes of America, Europe and >>>> Asia. >>>> It is easy to see how there might be geopolitical shifts associated >>>> with changes in regional food production across the globe. >>>> "It's probably the poor tropics that stand to benefit and the rich >>>> north that stands to lose," said Prof Caldeira. >>>> But what if geoengineered sulphate aerosols were, nonetheless, deployed >>>> and then a large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo in the Philippines took >>>> place? Three such eruptions occurred in the last century so the scenario >>>> seems likely. >>>> Bad timing >>>> Hannele Korhonen, of the Finnish Meteorological Institute, suggests >>>> that the climate impacts could be quite unexpected. >>>> Her results indicate increased temperatures in the Southern Ocean and >>>> in northerly latitudes, as well as the mid-Pacific, but cooling in African >>>> and Asian mid-latitudes. >>>> Regional weather patterns would still change, as they did after Tambora >>>> in 1816, with similar widely felt disruption. >>>> "Deploying solar radiation management methods would lead to a >>>> completely new climate state with enhanced greenhouse effect and reduced >>>> solar radiation," said Korhonen, adding: "There are great uncertainties, >>>> related especially to the regional climate impacts of solar radiation >>>> management." >>>> Commenting on the results, Helene Muri, of the University of Oslo, >>>> said: "These modelling experiments have highlighted the new risks >>>> associated with solar radiation management. The safest option is, of >>>> course, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and aim for a more sustainable >>>> way of living and managing the planet." >>>> It is not at all obvious what the other consequences of global >>>> geoengineering approaches might be. For example, Patrick Applegate from >>>> Pennsylvania State University, reported that solar radiation management may >>>> yet fail to prevent sea-level rise from melting ice sheets, which respond >>>> on much longer time scales than the temperature effects of solar shielding. >>>> Aside from being ineffective in stemming sea-level rise, solar >>>> radiation management - according to results from Jerry Tjiputra at Bergen >>>> University - would lead to increased ocean acidification in the North >>>> Atlantic. >>>> These results also suggest that climate engineering could not offer a >>>> long-term solution, with the world eventually being in the same place, by >>>> 2200, as it would reach without any geoengineering interventions. >>>> Asked whether he believed solar radiation management would be deployed, >>>> Prof Caldeira responded: "A lot has to do with how bad climate change will >>>> end up being. Humans are quite adaptable as a species. >>>> "On the other hand, projections for summers in the tropics suggest >>>> almost every summer will be hotter than the hottest summer yet on record, >>>> associated with crop failures. There is the possibility that there would be >>>> widespread crop failures in the tropics in the summer. >>>> "The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is >>>> solar geoengineering. If a catastrophic outcome does occur, the pressure to >>>> deploy a scheme could be overwhelming. >>>> "Research into this is an act of desperation on the part of scientists. >>>> People see the greenhouse gas concentrations increase and are looking for >>>> other ways to reduce environmental risk." >>>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> > -- 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.
