Re: [geo] List of current Geoengineering?

'Motoko' via geoengineering Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:41:13 -0800

Here a to be updated list of media responses on Cuck Long et al.'s paper.
http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/press-review-media-responses-to-charles-long-on-unintentional-geoengineering.html


Best
Nils

Am 26.12.2015 um 19:46 schrieb Hawkins, Dave:

Calling prevention of desulfurization an example of geo-engineering seems excessively 
broad.  That would mean "geo-engineering" includes any policy respecting 
emissions adopted with the intent to influence forcing due to emissions.  And that would 
include policies to reduce GHG emissions.
As others have observed, the best course may be to stop trying to come up with a 
definition of a broad "geo-engineering" concept and instead focus on the 
subsidiary actions, as the National Research Council has done.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 26, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Lockley 
<andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:


For clarity, it's *preventing* the desulfurization of marine fuels that would 
be geoengineering. There's a strong case for cleaning them up, as they're very 
polluting and kill many people near ports.

A

On 26 Dec 2015 14:14, "NORTHCOTT Michael" 
<m.northc...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
If desulfurizing marine fuels is geoengineering then any activity instigated to 
contribute to mitigation of anthropogenic climate change becomes geoengineering 
(rendering the term almost meaningless) including becoming a vegetarian 
(because of the significant climate impacts of meat rearing) or cycling instead 
of driving.

Climate change mitigation refers to a range of behaviours and practices that 
infinitesimally, tiny fraction by tiny fraction, reduce unintentional human 
interference with the climate system.

Geoengineering is intentional redesign of the climate system to reduce the 
climatic consequences of ongoing  human atmospheric pollution.

I am reading Oliver Morton's The Planet Remade (Christmas gift). It is very 
well written and he gets the distinction between engineering the atmosphere  
intentionally and reducing atmospheric pollution which has unintended (and 
unforeseen) consequences.

Michael Northcott
University of Edinburgh

On 26 Dec 2015, at 12:56, Andrew Lockley 
<andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Alan,

I actually feel this is a legitimate line of discussion for the GE
group.  Let's look, for example, at the issue of marine bunker fuels.
They're currently being desulfurized, and this will have climate
impacts.

I think it's legitimate to describe this as 'geoengineering' - to the
extent that radiative forcing issue has *any* potential effect on the
outcome of political or scientific debate on desulfurization.

Whilst it's perfectly legitimate that you hold a differing view, I
think it's very important that we allow people with a range of
opinions to debate on the group.  As such, (as a general point) it's
perhaps best if any concerns about discussion content are addressed
impersonally (or directly to the moderators), as otherwise that could
deter people joining in discussions.

Thanks

A

On 20 December 2015 at 15:29, Alan Robock 
<rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
None of those are geoengineering. Geoengineering is deliberate. That is its
definition.

There is no such thing as accidental geoengineering. Certainly we do those
things, but please discuss them elsewhere.

Alan Robock

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences
Rutgers University
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ  08901

rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
Sent from my iPhone. +1-732-881-1610<tel:%2B1-732-881-1610>

On Dec 20, 2015, at 3:44 AM, 
em...@lewis-brown.net<mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net> wrote:

Hi

This made me wonder, do we have a list of current geo-engineering of the
climate? It might include for eg:1) a wide range of ways we release of ghg
to air (including water, all the ones under unfccc and those not)
2) Release of black carbon, eg from LUC,
3) Inputs of soil and sewage carbon to sea,
4) Inputs of CO2 to ocean by air,
5) Changes o albedo through ice, snow and forect cover change,
6) Contrails and other particulates that cause global dimming
7) Changes to the capacity of carbon sinks (via warming) eg menthane and
ocean,
8) Changes in clouds through chnagin temperature affecting how much moisture
the air can hold?
Others?

Happy for people to correct and contribute others,
I think it might make an interesting (mag or news, rather than science
publication?) article if anyone is interested in working with me on it.

Thanks, Emily.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
________________________________
From: Brian Cady <briancady...@gmail.com<mailto:briancady...@gmail.com>>
Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:36:46 -0800 (PST)
To: 
geoengineering<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
ReplyTo: briancady...@gmail.com<mailto:briancady...@gmail.com>
Subject: [geo] Re: "Accidental" Geoengineering?

1) Wouldn't our fossil carbon release into air classify as 'accidental'
geoengineering? Couldn't one then argue that, since we're already doing
geoengineering 'accidentally' or unintentionally, cleaning up that mess with
intentional geoengineering is not committing an act that is of a different
moral type, since we now know our culpability? Isn't it no longer truly an
'accident' when we know beforehand that changing the climate is an
inevitable consequence of our fossil fuel use, industrial agriculture,and
etc.?

2) I think it would be easy to be mislead by the quote from the  the linked
article:
"...Prof Martin Wild, from of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in
Zurich, ... commented on the work.

Plants preferred diffuse light, he explained: "If you have a canopy
structure, the direct light is absorbed by the uppermost leaves. Everything
below is shaded and so misses out on that energy. But diffuse light can
travel deeper into the canopy and can be absorbed by the plants lower down.
So in that sense, if you have more diffuse light those lower plants will
profit"

a) I agree plants 'prefer' (grow faster under) diffuse light. I think this
is due to direct light exposing some leaf parts to 'too much' sunlight,
leading to photorespiration, while leaving other leaf parts in shadow, in
sub-optimal levels of light.
b) I concede that direct light is absorbed by uppermost leaves but so is
diffuse light coming from the sky.
c) I expect Prof. Wild speaks of diffuse light that is diffusing from the
upper leaves, not from the sky.
d) This upper-canopy-source is the reason that the diffuse light Prof. Wild
speaks of "can travel deeper into the canopy..."
e) The light diffusing from the sky has no special ability to bypass the
upper canopy; just like direct sunlight, it will be stopped (or maybe
diffused) by the first leaf it hits.

Hope that helps,

Brian

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 12:16:10 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35109198

""If you look up the definition of geoengineering, it includes large-scale
manipulation of parts of the climate system or the environment, and I
believe this ice haze from jet traffic does satisfy that requirement," he
(Chuck Long, NOAA) told reporters."

--
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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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


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

Re: [geo] List of current Geoengineering?

Reply via email to