[geo] new wiki section
I've added a section to our wikipedia page on the current development of geoengineering as a discipline. Please can people take a look and either give me feedback or just brutally edit it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering#Development A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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] The Planes Truth
Since I'm the one who started everybody? off on the airplane idea, here are some thoughts about these analyses from AGU as described by Oliver Morton. First, the Overworld Stratosphere, the part where aerosol transport is controlled by the Brewer-Dobson circulation begins at around 53,000 ft. None of the subsonic heavy lift aircraft or refueling tankers can get that high. Near the poles, the Lowermost Stratosphere (LS) is at its lowest, around 30,000 ft at certain times of the year. Aerosols in this region of the atmosphere are governed by other processes, namely weather fronts and tropospheric folding (which is also associated with weather systems). The article and presumably the presentation blurred the distinction between them making it sound as if they were one and the same. Aerosol lifetimes in the Overworld are around a year and in the LS, a few weeks to months, although that has to be firmed up also. It is also uncertain what the lifetimes of Overworld aerosol would be if created closer to the Poles as the one year lifetime is based on tropical volcanic eruptions. Also, the KC-135 is based on a different design than the 707, but they do look very similar. I proposed the KC-135 and the F-15C because the planes exist today in significant numbers, are to be retired soon? and could be modified rather quickly for use. I also am on record as stating that they would only be considered a stopgap themselves, until something else could be found or built. I'm not sure what David Keith would consider to be a serious geoengineering scheme. I also didn't know that the millionaire thrill ride plane from Rutan Entertainment was going to be able to carry cargo. It is intended to carry the space plane underneath. It is also unclear when such a plane could or would be built in numbers sufficient to accomplish the mission. But there's always hope. I would predict that Rutan's design would look suspiciously like an F15, however as there are reasons why most of the large supersonic aircraft are very similar in appearance. Finally, White Knight Two has a designed service ceiling of 60,000 ft, about 5000-10,000 ft lower than the F-15C Eagle and has a projected payload lift capacity of about twice the Eagle, but a ceiling on that of 50,000 ft, making it problematic as a lift vehicle for stratospheric precursor gas. In an emergency, break glass, don't look in a catalog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight_Two http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2008/12/agu_geoengineering_costs.html AGU: Geoengineering costs How much would it cost to dim the sun a little with a dusty layer of aerosol particles in the stratosphere? The service comes for free if you can find an obliging volcano, like Mount Pinatubo, but they can hardly be relied on in the long term. Some schemes for doing it to order, though, could be pretty cheap, according to an analysis by Alan Robock and colleagues at Rutgers. In the 1990s a National Research Council panel in the US estimated the costs of delivering dusty particles ito the stratosphere from big guns like those on old battleships. The panel came up with a figure of $30 billion a year: a lot cheaper than most proposals for carbon cutting, but still a fair chunk of change. Robock looked at the costs of getting into the stratosphere by the more orthodox means of aircraft. Near the poles, where the bottom of the stratosphere comes closest to the ground, big aircraft like Air Force tankers can get high enough to inject aerosols. Robock calculated that getting a billion tonnes of sulphur up to the stratosphere would take just three flights a day by each plane in a nine or fifteen plane squadron (nine if you use KC-10s, which are basically LD11 TriStars, fifteen if you use KC-135s, derived form the original design of the Boeing 707; plane spotting interlude ends here). That represents a purchase price of a billion or so and operational costs of well under $100 million. If you want to take the sulphur higher, Robock says, think about F15-C Eagles (now we're talking...). With the smaller planes you need something more like a whole wing than a squadron -- 167 planes doing three flights a day. That's a purchase cost of about $6 billion, and an ops cost more like a billion a year. As David Keith of the University of Calgary points out, though, no serious geoengineering scheme would really do this. Among the many hurdles such a scheme might face, designing planes optimised to its needs rather than buying them off the peg (or at the Air Force surplus store) is a no-brainer. For an example of the sort of thing you might go for, Keith points to the White Knight Two, a jet which will be put to use hauling Virgin Galactic's SpaceShip 2 up into the stratosphere before disengaging so that the spacecraft's rockets can take it up into space. White Knight Two is a lot less noisy and environmentally obnoxious than an Eagle, g
[geo] Mathematically Challenged Solution
Sam Carana covered this gem at his group and blog. For business school guys, they don't seem too up to date on math, but then look at what happened in 2008. An area of 60K Km2 wouldn't even offset one year's worth of GHG forcing and $280 billion is not inexpensive. They also make no distinction between heat (IR) and solar radiation. Avix Inc. makes LED video displays for billboards. As for me, I'm going to be publishing all my papers from now on in the International Journal of Global Environmental Issues. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081222114546.htm Fix For Global Warming? Scientists Propose Covering Deserts With Reflective Sheeting ScienceDaily (Dec. 23, 2008) — A radical plan to curb global warming and so reverse the climate change caused by our rampant burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution would involve covering parts of the world's deserts with reflective sheeting, according to researchers writing in the International Journal of Global Environmental Issues. Engineers Takayuki Toyama of company Avix Inc in Kanagawa, Japan, and Alan Stainer of Middlesex University Business School, London, UK, complain that there have been very few innovative remedies discussed to combat the phenomenon of global warming caused by human activities, despite the widespread debate of the last few decades. They now suggest that uncompromising proposals are now needed if we are to avert ecological disaster. Finding a way to 'stop', or at least minimise, global warming and to even cool the Earth can be achieved by focusing on the primary heat balance between the amount heat produced by human activities and the loss of heat to outer space. They emphasise that efforts to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are not likely to work soon enough. Pessimism that minimising carbon dioxide will no longer solve the problem seems to be spreading among environmental specialists," they say. As such, a lateral-thinking approach that acknowledges the fact that the heat created by human activities does not even amount to 1/10,000th of the heat that the earth receives from the sun. Toyama and Stainer suggest that heat reflecting sheets could be used to cover arid areas and not only reflect the sun's heat back into space by increasing the Earth's overall reflectivity, or albedo, but also to act as an anti-desertification measure. The technology would have relatively minimal cost and lead to positive results quickly. They add that the same approach might also be used to cover areas of the oceans to increase the Earth's total heat reflectivity. The team's calculations suggest that covering an area of a little more than 60,000 square kilometres with reflective sheet, at a cost of some $280 billion, would be adequate to offset the heat balance and lead to a net cooling without any need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, they caution that it would be necessary to control the area covered very carefully to prevent overcooling and to continue with efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Journal reference: 1.. Toyama et al. Cosmic Heat Emission concept to 'stop' global warming. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 2009; 9 (1/2): 151 DOI: 10.1504/IJGENVI.2009.022093 http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1223-desert.html Mirrors in the desert may fight global warming mongabay.com December, 23, 2008 Heat-reflecting sheets in arid regions could cool climate by increasing Earth's reflectivity or albedo, argue scientists writing in the International Journal of Global Environmental Issues. Takayuki Toyama of Avix Inc in Kanagawa, Japan, and Alan Stainer of Middlesex University Business School in London say that blanketing 60,000 square kilometers of desert with reflective sheeting would "be adequate to offset the heat balance and lead to a net cooling without any need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide" according to a statement from Inderscience, publisher of the journal. The cost would be $280 billion. The geoengineering scheme would not address other issues associated with the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere including ocean acidification and air pollution, but the authors claim it might help counter desertification. The effort might also impact local weather. "Cosmic Heat Emission concept to 'stop' global warming" in Int. J. Global Environmental Issues, 2009, 9, 151-168 http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2008/12/heat-reflecting-sheets.html http://groups.google.com/group/geo-engineering/browse_thread/thread/89da63d8ebef3242 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
[geo] Re: stepping back to remember what it's all about...
Dear all, The Earth is very impressive - and we are priveleged to live on it, at a time when it provides us a benign environment, partly of our own making. This is personally how I see it... Although the Earth appears as a stable system, it has been through various crises, with five mass extinction events because of marked changes to the environment, eventually leading to a series of ice ages and us. During these ice ages, the temperature has been oscillating wildly between limits. The upper limit seems to have been controlled by the Arctic sea ice, acting as a thermostat - when it was getting hotter globally, an increasing proportion of sea ice would give way to water, the whole Arctic region would heat, but then meltwater would flow into the NorthWest Atlantic and turn off the Gulf Stream to cool the Arctic region and allow the sea ice to reform to cool the region. We have remained at near this upper limit of temperature oscillation for at least 8000 years. If mankind had not cut down forests, ten thousand years ago, and initiated some global warming, we would almost certainly be in an ice age now. Instead we are into the Anthropocene, where climate is to some extent controlled by our own behaviour. In the past century we have injected a huge pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere. This threatens to melt the Arctic sea ice completely, which has never happened between previous ice ages. Thus we are about to destroy the thermostat for the global climate, letting the temperature climb through the roof, and creating the 6th great mass extinction event. Mankind has survived many glaciations - some say it is how we have involved our intellegence. We now have to apply our intellegence to get out of the new situation we find ourselves in. Let us hope that this intellegence will prevail to find a way in 2009 to save the Arctic sea ice. Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year, John - Original Message - From: "Andrew Revkin" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:14 PM Subject: [geo] stepping back to remember what it's all about... > > Dear all, > > I thought you'd appreciate my holiday post on Dot Earth -- > http://tinyurl.com/dotEarthrise -- which affords a fresh look at that > remarkable view a few lucky astronauts have gotten of Earth rising > over the sterile horizon of the Moon. If you haven't seen the > Japanese VIDEO version of Earthrise (and Earthset) -- shot last year > from Kaguya satellite -- you really owe it to yourself to click. > > Make sure to click on "watch in high quality" on YouTube for the best > 'view.' > > I added the voices of the Apollo 8 astronauts and music by one of my > Uncle Wade bandmates. > > Would love comments, thoughts from you on the blog. > > Best wishes for 2009 and well beyond. > > Andy > -- > Andrew C. Revkin > The New York Times / Science > 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 > Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 > Fax: 509-357-0965 > www.nytimes.com/revkin > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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] stepping back to remember what it's all about...
Dear all, I thought you'd appreciate my holiday post on Dot Earth -- http://tinyurl.com/dotEarthrise -- which affords a fresh look at that remarkable view a few lucky astronauts have gotten of Earth rising over the sterile horizon of the Moon. If you haven't seen the Japanese VIDEO version of Earthrise (and Earthset) -- shot last year from Kaguya satellite -- you really owe it to yourself to click. Make sure to click on "watch in high quality" on YouTube for the best 'view.' I added the voices of the Apollo 8 astronauts and music by one of my Uncle Wade bandmates. Would love comments, thoughts from you on the blog. Best wishes for 2009 and well beyond. Andy -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Science 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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] DVD Alert!
Discovery Project Earth, all episodes re-airing today on the Science Channel right now. In case you forgot, an 8-part series examining 7 different geoengineering technologies. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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] Re: ranking the ideas
Sam offers an interesting, if somewhat simplistic set of criteria. Simple can be very powerful, so don't take that as a negative critique. I do note, I see nothing on cost-effectiveness, nor any comparison on a per ton of carbon offset concept, both of which would be necessary for most policy analysts. As for the British effort, I was referring to the Royal Society study now underway and due out in about 6 months. d. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Thanks to Sam for pulling together this matrix of evaluation criteria. > Is anyone knowledgeable/brave/foolish enough to have a go at ranking > the ideas against these criteria? I don't have the knowledge or the > credibility. > > A > > 2008/12/24 Sam Carana : > > Here are some points on which I have evaluated a number of > geo-engineering > > projects. I encourage others to suggest additions and changes. > > > > === > > SCIENCE > > === > > - EXISTING STUDIES - Are relevant studies available? Has there been any > > peer-review? > > - FURTHER STUDY - What further studies and modeling are required? > > - EFFECTIVENESS - How effective will the proposal be in reducing global > > warming? > > - TIMESCALE - How long will it take to see results? > > - CONCERNS - What are possible climate risks, side-effects, dangers? > > > > === > > ENGINEERING > > === > > - METHODS - How can it be done? Have specific methods been proposed? > > - TECHNICAL PROBLEMS - Could the project run into technical problems? > > - TECHNOLOGIES - Does the project require development of new > technologies? > > - TESTING - Has any testing been done? At what scale? > > > > == > > ECONOMICS > > == > > - COST - Are there estimates as to what (each of the various stages of) > > implementations would cost? > > - FINANCING - How could the project be financed? Is there any backing for > > the project? > > - RESOURCES - Will there be access to the various resources needed to > make > > it work? > > - IMPACT - What will be the economic impact? Who will profit from the > > project? > > > > === > > POLITICS > > === > > - APPROVAL - What kind of approvals are needed to go ahead? > > - SUBSIDIES - Are subsidies required for impact studies, feasibility > studies > > or for specific parts of the project? > > - POLICY - How does the project fit in with specific policies, e.g. > offset > > policies, emissions trading or feebates? > > - LEGAL - Does it require new laws or amendment of existing laws? Can > legal > > challenges be expected? > > - DIPLOMACY - Would the project require international negotiations > between > > nations? > > - ADMINISTRATION - From where will the project be administered? > > > > === > > SOCIAL & MEDICAL > > === > > - SUPPORT - Is there public support for, concern about or resistance > against > > the project? > > - CONSULTATION - Who will benefit, who could be harmed? Has the public > been > > consulted? > > - CONTROL - What level of policing, supervision and security is needed? > What > > monitoring is needed? > > - MEDICAL - Would the project pose safety and health concerns? > > - CULTURAL - Does the project offend some people in some way? > > > > > > ENVIRONMENT > > > > - IMPACT STUDY - Has an environmental impact assessment been done? Are > > further studies required? > > - MAINTENANCE - Is any monitoring, maintenance or restoration required, > to > > prevent environmental damage? > > > > These points could give some indication as to how hard it will be to > > implement with a proposed project. Projects could be scored on each point > by > > asking whether this point will raise any difficulties for the respective > > project. A high score would indicate that there can be expected to be > little > > or no difficulty on this point for the project, while a low score would > > indicate that the project can be expected to have difficulty on this > point. > > > > Each point could be given a specific weighting, resulting in overall > score > > for each of the projects. The higher the overall score, the more the > project > > should be of interest to members of this group. A high overall score > should > > indicate that there is sufficient confidence that the project is safe, > > effective, feasible, viable, etc, with little or no concern, risk or > danger > > that things could go wrong or that a proposal could cause damage or harm > in > > some way. > > > > Importantly however, this should not be seen as a race where only one > winner > > is selected. It is prudent to encourage diversity in approach and to > > continue to study multiple ideas and suggestions in parallel. > > > > > > Cheers! > > Sam Carana > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Andrew Lockley < > andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Here's the reference I used for soot. > >> http://www.californiaskywatch.com/documents/htmldocs/geoengineering.htm > >> > >> I am pretty sure that soo
[geo] Re: patenting ideas
Anyone with a geoengineering idea that seems potentially viable and commecially valuable and who wishes to get funded by someone who has commercial interest should not be discussing those ideas in this forum. They are essentially published here and therefore anyone (first to file) can get a patent worldwide but for the U.S. where first to invent is the 'inventor'. In any case if you you do have an idea write it up in a bound notebook with numbered pages, initial each page, sign and date at the end and get it witnessed. That is the means to prove first to invent. You can file a USPTO provisional patent to get the process started for a nominal fee. If you have no commercial interest but think the idea has commercial value find someone who does; like the organization you are affiliated with for example, and establish some plan to seek funding. If you have any questions feel free. I do not need to know details. -gene -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: Geoengineering Subject: [geo] patenting ideas I am interested to know if people think we should look to patent geoengineering ideas? Without a patent, it may be very hard to attract R&D funding. I know there's a patent on Fake Plastic Trees, but I don't know of any other patents for geoeng technology. A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
