[geo] this relates to climate control /engineering as well, so..

[Andrew Revkin]

Hi all,

I think you'll find that this new Dot Earth post on the understated 
need for increased funding of innovation and basic R&D as part of a 
'green economy' renewal plan relates enough to the geo-engineering 
world to justify this headsup.

http://tinyurl.com/dotgreenjobs

Apologies if you feel it's too far afield. I do hope you'll have a 
read (the final note about Switzerland's outside impact in innovation 
is worthwhile).

Happy for comments on blog or via email.


-- 
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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...

[Andrew Revkin]

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] arctic engineering needs and sea-ice science

[Andrew Revkin]

hi all,


I consulted with a few sea-ice wizards on the exchanges here related 
to Arctic trends, and Jennifer Francis at Rutgers weighed in with the 
following thoughts. Note the importance of the boundary layer changes 
as well. There are many important factors besides albedo and ocean 
solar absorption.

Winter cloudiness etc important factor. But also note the importance 
of not over-interpreting short-term wiggles as trends. Much more on 
Dot Earth and in my earlier coverage of the sea-ice question. This 
post (shortcut) is a good starting point: 
http://tinyurl.com/dotIceTrends

Here's jennifer's comment (I sent her that sea-ice graph that was 
making the rounds here)>



Hi Andy --

The first figure you attached with the extrapolation from the 2007 
summer ice loss is very unrealistic, in my opinion. Both the observed 
record and model simulations of ice extent exhibit a great deal of 
interannual variability, and most sea ice researchers would expect 
this behavior to continue superimposed on a continuing downward 
trend. Some years the decline will be dramatic, as it was in 2007, 
and some years there will likely be a recovery, as random atmospheric 
patterns act on the ice cover. What's different now as opposed to 2 
decades ago is that the ice is now so thin that any unusual forcing 
-- be it a persistent wind pattern, cloud cover, heat transfer from 
lower latitudes -- will have a much bigger effect on the ice, as thin 
ice is more easily moved by wind and/or melted by increased heating. 
The small ice cover of recent years allows more solar energy to be 
absorbed by the open surface during summer, but exactly how that 
extra heat affects
  the system over the following months is still being worked out. Some 
recent research suggests that during falls after low-ice summers the 
lower atmosphere warms, the atmospheric boundary layer gets deeper, 
and low clouds increase, all of which tend to retard regrowth of sea 
ice in the fall and early winter. It also appears there's a 
large-scale influence on winter weather patterns over much of the 
northern hemisphere. The reason I'm telling you all this is that it 
appears there is no obvious mechanism for the ice to rebound 
significantly unless there is a multi-year period of 
colder-than-normal temperatures, but this is not likely as greenhouse 
gases continue to increase at rates even faster than the most 
pessimistic IPCC scenario.

Regarding water temperatures, the main effect is through the added 
absorption of solar energy in summer, which accelerates the melt 
during late summer. Warmer winter temperatures in the Atlantic sector 
also appear to be responsible for most of the retreat of the ice edge 
during winter in that region, but not on the Pacific side.

Maybe this is more info that you needed and much of it you already 
know, but it's not a simple explanation. Regarding the shipping text 
you sent, it looks like a bunch of hooey to me. 51 ships in the area 
will not have a perceptible effect on the clouds. The "good" low 
clouds they're talking about are already almost 100% emissive of 
infrared energy, and adding ship smoke to them is not going to matter.

Hope this helps -- Happy New Year!!   
Jennifer

~~
Jennifer Francis, Ph.D.
Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University 
Co-Director of the Rutgers Climate and Environmental Change Initiative
74 Magruder Rd, Highlands NJ 07732 USA -- Tel: (732) 708-1217, Fax: 
(732) 872-1586
fran...@imcs.rutgers.edu | http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/

At 9:14 AM -0700 12/29/08, wig...@ucar.edu wrote:
>Re Arctic ice, the issue is not just albedo, but also thermai
>inertia. The effective heat capacity of the exposed ocean is
>hugely greater than the ice.
>
>Tom.
>
>++
>
>

-- 
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] Black Pickle concept and the "Great Restoration"

[Andrew Revkin]

Jesse Ausubel discusses the "Black Pickle" concept for sequestering 
carbon in the sea at the tail end of this updated post:  
http://tinyurl.com/dotUrbanJungle
-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] Black Pickle concept and the "Great Restoration"

[Andrew Revkin]

All roads lead to Jesse Ausubel at Rockefeller University, who 
mentioned IIASA explored something related to this a long time ago. I 
did some googling but couldn't find more. I'll send a query to Jesse 
and see what turns up.

At 8:07 PM -0800 1/31/09, Ning Zeng wrote:
>Hello Andy:
>Thanks for the post!
>
>My colleague, oceanographer Jim carton and I wrote a rough draft last
>year on an idea  of sustainably harvesting wood from the Black Sea
>drainage basin including the Alps, rafting down the logs and sink to
>the bottom of the Sea. Tom Schelling mentioned to me of this 'pickled
>tree' idea, but we haven't been able to track down the references and
>exactly what was proposed decades ago. Do you have any lead on this?
>
>Hello Greg:
>On two issues you raised:
>1) methane generation in anoxic environment: apparently methanogenic
>bacteria don't like lignin. This is evidenced by the observation that
>wood hardly decays in landfills while other organic matter like food
>decomposes quickly. While paper in landfill also decomposes (though
>slowly), the cellulose in wood is hardly attacked because they are
>incorporated together with lignin. So there is reasonable chance for
>long-term sequestration of woody material.
>2) I was told fresh wood sinks by itself before it looses water. Or
>may be your are right it depends on what kind of trees? I'd love to
>have some references on this.
>
>Cheers!
>-Ning
>
>Ning Zeng
>Associate Professor, University of Maryland
>www.atmos.umd.edu/~zeng
>
>
>On Jan 30, 5:47 pm, Andrew Revkin  wrote:
>>  Jesse Ausubel discusses the "Black Pickle" concept for sequestering
>>  carbon in the sea at the tail end of this updated post: 
>> http://tinyurl.com/dotUrbanJungle
>>  --
>>  Andrew C. Revkin
>>  The New York Times / Environment
>>  620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
>>  Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
>>  Fax:  509-357-0965http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
>

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] runaway climate change

[Andrew Revkin]

Who on this list knows why the Arctic warming ~ 8,000 years ago 
(quite protracted and significantly warmer than today) did not lead 
to "runaway" warming?

  Presumably something kicked in the other direction?

I'm pursuing a clearer picture of lessons from the Holocene and the 
Eemian (the previous interglacial) related to feedbacks and whether 
there are, or are not, one-way doors in the climate system. Leads 
eagerly pursued. ..

Andy

At 5:29 PM +0530 2/2/09, Govindasamy bala wrote:
>Runaway feedback means running its course completely. It is feedback specific.
>
>A good example is the presumed water vapor feedback on Venus.
>Apparently, earth and venus started with similar amount of h2o.
>Because Venus started with much higher surface temperature, the 
>evolution of temperature and water vapor never intercepted the phase 
>line of vapor and liquid. The climate warmed until all the water got 
>evaporated. Basically, there was no sink for vapor which 
>precipitation. On earth, this is not going to happen because we got 
>the precipitation sink on earth...how lucky we are.
>
>But I guess we do have runaway ice-albedo feedback on earth. we 
>could get ice-free planet or snowball earth
>
>Cheers.
>Bala
>
>On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Eugene I. Gordon 
><euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>I guess it is not going to end.
>
>A runaway train meets only #2 and even that has to be qualified because the
>train eventually runs out of (fossil?) fuel or track. Certainly climate has
>run away a half dozen times in 540 million years but always hits a limit
>which seems to be 24C except when an asteroid hits. It eventually turns
>around after remaining at the limit temperature for many millions of years.
>We have been in a runaway mode for the last 18,000 years but with some
>superimposed small wiggles in temperature. Without geoengineering the
>temperature will certainly get to the 24 C limit.
>
>I think runaway is appropriate for the current situation even if there may
>be better suited terms.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>
>[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com]
> 
>On Behalf Of John Nissen
>Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:08 AM
>To: Tom Wigley; Andrew Lockley
>Cc: geoengineering; Prof John Shepherd; Tim Lenton; David Lawrence
>Subject: [geo] Re: runaway climate change
>
>
>
>Dear Tom,
>
>The concept of "runaway" has certain connotations:
>
>1.  Significant in resultant effect
>2.  Uncontrollable
>3.  Exponential initial behaviour - characteristised by acceleration of
>process 4.  No obvious limit 5.  Irreversible 6.  Rapid.
>
>These can all be applied to climate change:
>
>1.  "Significant" could be over 5 degrees global warming, sufficient for a
>mass extinction event.  Or it could be applied to several metres of sea
>level rise.
>2.  "Uncontrollable" could be where anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
>reduction would not have a significant effect on the rate of climate change.
>3.  Exponential behaviour could be caused by a "tipping" of some part of the
>climate system, such as Arctic sea ice or methane release, where there is
>strong positive feedback.
>4.  There would be no obvious final equilibrium temperature - mainly because
>of the difficulty of modelling positive feedback and its behaviour over
>time.
>5.  It would be extremely difficult or impossible to reverse processes such
>as methane release or Greenland ice sheet disintegration, although it is
>conceivable to halt these processes or even reverse their effects
>(presumably through geoengineering).
>6.  "Rapid" could be anything from one season to 3000 years, on a geological
>timescale.
>
>Therefore I think that "runaway" captures the semantics that we require for
>the climate change that would result from, for example, a massive methane
>release, triggered by Arctic sea ice disappearance.  Can you think of a
>better word to capture the six characteristics above, especially as
>applicable to climate change?
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Tom Wigley" <wig...@ucar.edu>
>To: "Andrew Lockley" 
><andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
>Cc: <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>; "geoengineering"
><geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
>"Prof John Shepherd"
><j...@noc.soton.ac.uk>; "Tim Lenton" 
><t.len...@uea.ac.uk>; "David Lawrence"
><dlaw...@ucar.edu>
>Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:43 AM
>Subject: Re: [geo] Re: runaway climate change
>
>
>>  Andrew,
>>
>>  Poor analogy. running does not equal running away.
>>
>>  More importantly, just because a term has been misused in the
>>  past does not mean we should perpetuate its misuse (or use).
>>  If the word is to be used at all (and

[geo] comment space finally open on holdren clarification post

[Andrew Revkin]

Just in case anyone wants to comment, an alert here that our comment 
function on Times blogs is back up and running after a huge 
tech-quake yesterday. Holdren post clarifying his stance following 
the AP storm is here: http://bit.ly/dotHoldren
-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] the sea-level news

[Andrew Revkin]

Thaat AFP story that made the rounds didn't bother discussing the 
results with any other experts in the field. For a more nuanced look 
at the evidence and conclusions, go here (blog post has link to news 
story):  http://bit.ly/dotSeaRise

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] Global Hum Report

[Andrew Revkin]

The GHF assertion that specific, or even estimated, death counts and 
costs can already be calculated is what has been strongly challenged 
(and not just by "usual suspects"). The report (authors indicated 
it's not a "study" really) didn't count earthquake deaths as 
climate-related. 

It tried (and by several accounts failed) to find an attribution 
scheme for deaths from human-caused climate change by comparing 
earthquake losses to weather-related losses. Kind of like comparing 
rates of highway accidents and bathtub-slipping accidents, in a way. 
Much more here (please read the comments, including from WHO folks 
trying to defend the finding): http://bit.ly/dotWarmDeath

The authors say the disaster issue is red herring because >90 percent 
of deaths occurring from background influence on diarrhea etc. But 
that analysis is also problematic, particularly in trying to 
distinguish whatever's happening through "normal" climate change vs. 
anthropogenic, I've been told.

Andy
-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] more on the merits and drawbacks to "2 degrees"

[Andrew Revkin]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/the-two-degree-solution/

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] more on Arpa-E rejection letters

[Andrew Revkin]

The tail end of this post discusses the Arpa-E rejection letters. 
I'll be posting an example on Monday.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/how-many-ds-in-obamas-energy-pledge/
-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] Is this what an energy revolution looks like?

[Andrew Revkin]

Here's an ARPA-E rejection letter.  98% of those pursuing energy 
breakthroughs rejected by DOE: http://bit.ly/EnergyRejection in first 
round...
-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] a mention of geo-engineering focus in story on next steps for IPCC

[Andrew Revkin]

http://bit.ly/nytIPCC
related Dot Earth post: http://bit.ly/dotIPCC
some interesting comments already in..
-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] Wanted - 'discourged' energy innovators

[Andrew Revkin]

please pass this around and post something if relevant!
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/seeking-discouraged-energy-questers/

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] whatever you think of orbiting solar...

[Andrew Revkin]

does anyone out there see heat harvesting from parking lots as 
"transformational?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/energy-frontiers-space-solar-hot-lots/
weigh in...


-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] we're engineering the arctic now

[Andrew Revkin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/humans-may-have-ended-long-arctic-chill/

we may be able to 'skip' the next ice age in fact.
would love your thoughts in the comments section.

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] Re: we're engineering the arctic now

[Andrew Revkin]

eats me.
>We've made some mistakes and they have cost us and other species.  But at
>least we are on the path to the 12 step recovery program by recognizing we
>have a problem.  Is the answer to alcoholism to shoot all the drunks?
>
>An even more extreme view shared by many, but voiced by few (for
>understandable reasons) is that humans are an invasive species that should
>be eliminated from the planet!  Moi kudzu?  Do I look like a zebra mussel to
>
>you?
>
>For this select crowd, I have come up with a suitable name.  Cutterites.
>After the character in the BBC TV series Primeval, Helen Cutter, who became
>such a misanthrope she went back in time and tried to eliminate all the
>early humans.  I'm sure Helen would not be in favor of continuing the
>interglacial either.  And what happened to her experiment in preventative
>extinction?  She was crushed by a dinosaur that followed her through one of
>her time portals.  Gotta watch out for that technology.  It'll get you when
>you least expect it.
>
>Alvia Gaskill
>Pro-Human Lobbyist
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Andrew Revkin" 
>To: 
>Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:40 PM
>Subject: [geo] we're engineering the arctic now
>
>
>>
>>  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html
>>
>http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/humans-may-have-ended-long-arct
>ic-chill/
>>
>>  we may be able to 'skip' the next ice age in fact.
>>  would love your thoughts in the comments section.
>>
>>  --
>>  Andrew C. Revkin
>>  The New York Times / Environment
>>  620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
>>  Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
>>  Fax:  509-357-0965
>>  http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
>>
>>  >
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] on monsoons and warming

[Andrew Revkin]

The work I've tracked on monsoon remains equivocal on overall 
rainfall. Interesting 2006 study showed no change in total precip 
last 50 years, but more coming in heavy downpours (familiar refrain).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/asia/01briefs-indiafloods.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5804/1442

So that probably means that any impact from sulfates etc would also 
be hard to gauge at this point.

Certainly there's other work showing that small-particle pollution 
(low altitude) can impede rainfall (both in Amazon and Asia). Stay 
tuned...  : )

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] Will Russia resist geo-eng efforts now?

[Andrew Revkin]

The big question remains, who gets to set the planet's (or even 
Arctic's) temperature.

Given this news, will Russia resist?


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/science/earth/11passage.html

comments welcome here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/asia-europe-voyage-via-arctic-nearly-done/

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] more on 2-degree confusion

[Andrew Revkin]

I explored the two-degree issue here a bit.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/the-two-degree-solution/

This also came up in my recent piece on next steps for the IPCC
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/science/earth/04clima.html
read some of the comments in the related post:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/can-climate-panel-have-climate-impact/


-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] enough geoengineering. we just have to engineer ourselves...

[Andrew Revkin]

For those, like me, who need a break amid the recent burst of news on 
climate front, please watch this video and report back if you don't 
chuckle: http://j.mp/dotBall


-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] vaclav smil's critique of CCS

[Andrew Revkin]

Just in case you missed, scroll forward (minutes/seconds indicated) 
to where V. Smil does his smackdown of CCS using simple math.
  http://j.mp/SmilWorld



-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] live blogging white house climate-energy forum

[Andrew Revkin]

listen in and weigh in, or examine the points already made.
so far no mention of direct air capture.
look at what Chu said about the Arpa-E funding versus potential.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/white-house-forum-on-clean-energy/


-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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] Need citations showing IPCC too conservative

[Andrew Revkin]

My strong impression is that Ken C. is spot on. As far as I've been 
told, in realms from Arctic methane to sea level to the monsoon, the 
rationale for action lies as much in what is NOT well understood as 
what is now locked down confidently.

As described here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29revkin.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/tipping-points-and-the-climate-challenge/

>I generally like Stefan Rahmstorf's work, but his Science paper
>estimating sea level rise from an instantaneous linear  correlation
>with surface temperature seems mighty non-mechanistic to me, and I
>question the predictive utility of such a correlation.
>
>http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf
>
>Isn't everyone supposed to be worried about the ice sheets and tipping
>points and so on because they are not well approximated by a linear
>system in the temperature range of concern?
>
>
>On Oct 28, 5:32 am, Bart Verheggen  wrote:
>>  Manu,
>>
>>  I don't think you can make a very strong case that almost all
>>  scientific findings supercede IPCC AR4 in terms of how bad things are.
>>  And even if you could, it wouldn't necessarily mean that climate
>>  sensitivity is larger than previousl thought; it is primarly
>>  constrained by paleo cliamte events and the responce to volcanic
>>  eruptions.
>>
>>  That said, a good paper comparing observations with predictions is
>>  Rahmstorf et al in Science (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/
>>  Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf and an 
>>updatehttp://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/update_science2007.html) 
>>They
>>  conclude that the temp increase in in about the correct ballpark
>>  (compared to TAR predictons), whereas SLR is occurring a bit faster
>>  than predicted in the TAR.
>>
>>  Bart
>>
>>  On 23 okt, 12:05, Manu Sharma  wrote:
>>
>>  > Members,
>>
>>  > I understand that almost all scientific findings since the release of IPCC
>>  > 4th assessment show their projections to be deeply conservative.
>>
>>  > My question is, if you had to list the top five or top ten such reports /
>>  > papers / studies or climate events (such as the record Arctic 
>>melt of 2007)
>>  > -- what would they be?
>>
>>  > Further, if one uses the above to make the case that Earth's climate
>>  > sensitivity is much more than IPCC assumes -- would that be scientifically
>>  > accurate?
>>
>>  > I require this information for a couple of 'Right to Information'
>>  > applications I'm filing under different government ministries in India. I
>>  > would be thankful for a response. Please write directly to me and I will
>>  > summarise for the list.
>>
>>  > Thanks.
>>
>>  > Manu Sharma
>>  > New Delhi, India
>>
>>  > PS: this request is somewhat outside the scope of discussions here but it
>>  > does speak about the urgency of the problem and therefore relates to the
>>  > need for geoengineering.
>

-- 
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http://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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much sooner)

[Andrew Revkin]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/new-light-shed-on-north-pole-ice-trends/

The bottom line, expressed here before, is that no one should expect to find
much broad meaning in short-term variability in Arctic sea ice — in one
direction or the other. If there is a death spiral, expect a lot of loop the
loopsalong
the way. Those most passionately pushing for and against action on
greenhouse gases have a tendency to jump to the National Snow and Ice Data
Center Web site to chart each wiggle.



On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:

> Folks,
>
> There has been a fair amount of discussion on this group that talks about
> imminent September sea ice loss in the Arctic.
>
> The attached paper indicates that around half of the normal September
> sea-ice should still be around in the 2020-2040 time frame.
>
> Boe, J., Hall, A., Qu, Z. Nature Geosci 2, 341-343 (2009).
>
> I am not saying that the situation in the Arctic is not dire, however, are
> the suggestions that September sea-ice in the Arctic is soon to be a thing
> of the past a bit overblown and without foundation?
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
*Please excuse typos; as you may be aware, I had a stroke 1
July
.*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax/voicemail: 509-357-0965
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.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.

Re: [geo] Re: September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much sooner)

[Andrew Revkin]

Why don't those of you dipping a (cold) toe in this arena enter the Sea Ice
Outlook comparison held each season by SEARCH?

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/guidelines

(I noticed that WattsUpWithThat did~ )

More on that effort from Dot
Earth


On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:19 AM, John Nissen wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I disagree with your estimation of 12 years and suggest 5 years is more
> likely and could even be optimistic, at least for September sea ice decline
> to below the 10% mark.
>
> The PIOMAS graph, updated to end June 2011 here [1], made me think that
> 2016 was the most likely date, fitting a curve rather a straight line
> because of positive feedback.  This is confirmed by Ron Larson from his
> analysis, see earlier in thread.  You have to work out what the y-axis
> anomaly represents.  When we get to -14 thousand km-3, which is a gnat's
> whisker below the line across the bottom of the graph, I estimate that we'd
> have less than 10% of ice volume left in September.  Unfortunately [1] does
> not give you the vital data as to what the total sea ice volume is that they
> are measuring anomaly against!  However, you can see that this year is
> almost as down on 2007 as 2007 was on the 1979-2010 average.  If we assume
> that September 2007 was 40% down on the 1979-2010 average (which was true
> for the area), the 2011 could be almost 80% down.  We only need to reach 90%
> down to have 10% sea ice volume left, that Ron talks about as being a
> critically low level.  That makes the 2016 date seem quite reasonable, if
> not optimistic!
>
> Peter Wadhams points out that the sea ice thickness is decreasing faster
> than the sea ice extent.  These trends are of course masked by much wind and
> weather variability from year to year, which affects ice flow, not just
> direct melting.  This explains why one can have had relatively little change
> in the minimum sea ice extent since September 2007, although the volume has
> been declining.
>
> 64 trillion dollar question*
>
> If geoengineering is to have a good chance to save the Arctic sea ice, then
> it needs to be deployed quickly, building up to maximum strength by summer
> 2013.  By then the Arctic annually-averaged radiative forcing of the "albedo
> flip" (as ice/snow reflection of sunlight turns to sea/land absorption of
> sunlight) may exceed 10 Watts per square metre [2].  Could a combination of
> SRM methods, with deployment ramped up as fast as possible, have a chance to
> exceed 10 W/m-2 of negative forcing in the Arctic by summer 2013, in order
> to halt Arctic warming and save the Arctic sea ice?
>
> Note that cloud brightening and other SRM methods could contribute to
> negative forcing by cooling the water flowing into the Arctic, especially
> the currents from the North Atlantic.  So cooling does not have to be
> directly of the Arctic itself.
>
> Cheers from Chiswick,
>
> John
>
> * P.S.  It's a 64 trillion dollar question if you consider that losing the
> sea ice could have repercussions affecting the total global GDP, which is
> around that value.
>
> [1]
> http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
>
> [2]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/geoengineering@googlegroups.com/msg00660.html
>
> [geo] Re: Geoengineering - cloud effects
>
> John Nissen
> Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:42:10 -0800
> ---
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM, David Appell wrote:
>
>> By my estimation of PIOMASS data, September sea-ice could be gone in
>> about 12 years:
>>
>> http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/arctic-ice-is-at-record-low.html
>>
>>
>> David
>> --
>> David Appell, independent science journalist
>> e: david.app...@gmail.com
>> w: http://www.davidappell.com
>> m: St. Helens, OR
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
*Please excuse typos; as you may be aware, I had a stroke 1
July
.*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax/voicemail: 509-357-0965
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 

Re: [geo] Ecology of the Arctic

[Andrew Revkin]

Dear Bill,

I think *change* is a more accurate word than damage.

Arctic fauna and flora, because of the tendency of the region to amplify ups
and downs of climate (whatever the forcing), are attuned to dramatic change,
as here:

Arctic Plants Have Adjusted to Climate Changes - http://nyti.ms/qilhKN

This section of our 2005 Big Melt series illustrates the shifts when a
region moves from sea-ice coverage to open water (in this case the northern
Bering Sea):

*http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/science/10arctic.html*

*Fisheries Head North*

Charlie Lean easily recalls when he realized that big changes were sweeping
the fish stocks along the northern shores of Alaska.

Just over 10 years ago, when Mr. Lean was the state's fisheries manager for
the northwest region, a call came in from the tiny Eskimo outpost of
Kivalina, on the Chukchi Sea 150 miles northeast of the Bering Strait. A
village elder was reporting "a massive fish kill" in the Wulik River, Mr.
Lean said. Everyone assumed it was from some toxic spill upriver at the
giant Red Dog zinc mine.

"I rounded up a plane and blasted off and flew up there," he said. "Flying
overhead I could see right away it was the end of a pink salmon run. They
were dying of natural causes as they always do once they spawn."

The elders had never seen a run of this salmon species. But they have shown
up every year since.

The colonization of new rivers by pink salmon is just one of many changes in
fish and crab stocks that appear linked to retreating sea ice and warming
waters in the Chukchi Sea and, farther south, the Bering Sea. The changes
are important because the Bering is rich with pollock, salmon, halibut and
crab, already yielding nearly half of America's seafood catch and a third of
Russia's.

Recent studies have projected that in a few decades there could be lucrative
fishing grounds in waters that were largely untouched throughout human
history.

In a 2002 report for the Navy on climate change and the Arctic Ocean, the
Arctic Research Commission, a panel appointed by the president, concluded
that species were moving north through the Bering Strait. "Climate warming
is likely to bring extensive fishing activity to the Arctic, particularly in
the Barents Sea and Beaufort-Chukchi region where commercial operations have
been minimal in the past," the report said. "In addition, Bering Sea fishing
opportunities will increase as sea ice cover begins later and ends sooner in
the year."

But problems could emerge, as well, as stocks shift from the waters of one
country to those of another. Snow crabs, for example, appear to be moving
away from Alaska, north and west toward Russia, as the sea ice retreats.
They depend on nutrients that sink to the bottom from algae growing under
the ice. The valuable fishery could eventually move entirely out of American
waters, some federal fisheries scientists said.

The fishing industry, a business where surviving one year to the next is the
main worry, has largely not taken notice of the changes, although American
crab boats are finding they have to steam farther and farther to haul in a
decent catch.

"If the crabs move over into the Russian zone," said Glenn Reed, the
president of the Pacific Seafood Processors Association in Seattle, "there's
not much to be done about that except hope they come back someday."
**

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Fulkerson, William  wrote:

>  Dear all:
> I admit to being ignorant, but I have not seen many papers on the
> ecological damage to the Arctic as sea ice disappears and the climate
> changes. This ecological damage issue seems to me to be a question of
> immense importance and immense ignorance or is it just me?  If ecological
> damage is likely to be extensive then that is an issue about which we can
> all rally.
> The best,
> Bill
> Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair
> Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
> University of Tennessee
> 311 Conference Center Bldg.
> Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
> wf...@utk.edu
> 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
> Home
> 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL
> 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771- 8306
>
>   --
> 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.
>



-- 
*Typo apology; as you may be aware, I had a (thankfully minor) stroke
1 July
.*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax/voicemail: 509-357-0965
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post

[geo] more clarity on the questions surrounding Arctic methane.

[Andrew Revkin]

The researchers who've been out in the slushy waters off Siberia have
offered some clarity after a lot of media torquing.

December 27, 2011, *12:54 PM*Leaders of Arctic Methane Project Clarify
Climate 
Concerns
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

I’ve been in touch with Natalia
Shakhova
 and Igor Semiletov , the intrepid
Russian researchers, based at the International Arctic Research Center in
Fairbanks, Alaska, who for more than a decade have been leading an
important international project
 analyzing methane plumes rising from the
seabed
in
the shallow Arctic waters spreading north from eastern Siberian shores.
(Here’s video of
Shakhova
describing
the methane releases and their work.)

As I wrote 
recently,
“Given that methane, molecule for molecule, has at least 20 times the
heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide, it’s important to get a handle
on whether these are new releases, the first foretaste of some great
outburst from thawing sea-bed stores of the gas, or simply a longstanding
phenomenon newly observed.”

After their expedition this summer, Shakhova and Semiletov presented their
latest observations at the American Geophysical Union fall
meeting
in
San Francisco early this month, describing vastly larger methane releases
in the mid-outer continental shelf than they had seen before in shallower
water, leading to a fresh burst of
headlines
about
risks of runaway warming.

Shakhova and Semiletov, whose earlier analysis of methane in the
region
 was published in
Science last
year, had been unavailable for comment when I was preparing my piece, as
they had gone on vacation shortly after their presentation. When they were
back on the grid they got my e-mail inquiries and saw the post. Their
response clarifies their differences with other research groups and
emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating scientific findings
before rushing to conclusions, either alarming or reassuring. One clear
message, which I endorse, is the need to sustain the kind of fieldwork
they’re doing.

Whether the issue is tracking Arctic methane or American stream
flows,
there’s a vital need for sustained, consistent observations, but —
unfortunately — there’s a two-edged bias against such investments, given
the appeal of focusing on science’s frontiers and the tendency to target
monitoring programs — which are akin to bridge
maintenance
—
when looking to cut budgets. That’s all fine until the bridge groans and
buckles, of course.

Here is the contribution from Semiletov and Shakhova: Read
more…

*
*

*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.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] More scientists weigh in on Arctic methane and climate risk.

[Andrew Revkin]

December 28, 2011, *1:13 PM*More Views on Climate Risk and Arctic
Methane
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

In trying to clarify what’s known, unknown and learnable about the
possiblecontribution
to global warming from vast methane
deposits
beneath
Arctic seas, I reached out to a host of scientists working on this
question. I also received a lot of reader input, as you can see from the
comment threads in the string of
posts
on
this important issue. Here’s a roundup of some additional views from the
scientific community and one filmmaker focused on question:

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert , a climate
scientist at the University of Chicago and contributor to
Realclimate.org
 (and sometimes Dot
Earth),
sent this thought:

Regarding the methane time-bomb issue, I do understand the need to respond
to unwarranted predictions of catastrophe. I’ve made responses of this type
myself. For example I think that Jim Hansen is demonstrably wrong in his
assertion that a Venus-type runaway greenhouse is a virtual certainty if we
burn all the coal; he is right about almost everything and I greatly admire
him, but he is wrong about this.

Countering an assertion like that has the unfortunate consequence that some
people say, “Whew, ducked a bullet there,” and go on to think that the rest
of the consequences of global warming don’t look so bad in comparison with
turning into Venus, not remembering that a lot of those consequences can
still be very bad indeed.

But the clathrate release problem is in a rather different category from
the runaway greenhouse issue. It has to be seen as just one of the many
fast or slow carbon catastrophes possibly awaiting us, in a system we are
just groping to understand. The models of destabilization are largely based
on variants of diffusive heat transport, but the state of understanding of
slope avalanches and other more exotic release mechanisms is rather poor —
and even if it turns out that rapid methane degassing isn’t in the cards,
you still do have to worry about those several trillion metric tons of
near-surface carbon and how secure they are. It’s like worrying about the
state of security of Soviet nuclear warheads, but where you have no idea
what kind of terrorists there might be out there and what their
capabilities are — and on what time scales they operate.

Edward Brook , a climate
scientist and geochemist at Oregon State University, sent a comment as part
of a group e-mail exchange that included this relevant thought:

One problem with this discussion is that there is no definition of “time
bomb” so people get confused. It seems quite likely that continued global
warming will increase the emissions of methane from permafrost deposits and
marine hydrates. Some of that will get in to the atmosphere, though … some
will also be consumed in the water column and in soils. This “chronic”
source may increase over time, and affect climate, but for the reasons you
discussed it is likely to be slow, and not a catastrophic risk. Of course
it is still important. For a somewhat dated view of this topic, see
[link
].

Gary Houser, an environmental
writer
and
producer of a documentary that’s being made about Arctic
methane,
sent a rebuttal of my initial post in this string, “Methane Time Bomb in
Arctic Seas – Apocalypse Not.” Here’s an introductory riff and link to his
full piece:

As co-producer of an upcoming in-depth documentary on the methane
issue,
I am stunned at how Revkin has dismissed the concerns of those trying to
alert the world to the danger of a methane runaway feedback. It is one of
the scenarios most feared by climate scientists. Once triggered, an abrupt
downward spiral could ensue which humanity might be helpless to stop. When
the factors which could unleash a runaway are beginning to line up, it is a
time for humanity to take a pause fro

Re: [geo] New YouTube video: Kate Ricke on Nature Climate Change paper on cliamte sensitivity and effectiveness of SRM

[Andrew Revkin]

I concur with Andrew. Great to see Ken doing this.

It's both a responsibility AND opportunity, particularly given the
shrinking mainstream science media.

Two relevant pieces:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/filling-the-science-communication-gap/

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/the-changing-communication-climate/

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Peeps can subscribe to Ken's channel on this link
> http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology?feature=watch
>
> It would be great to see other researchers set up channels like this to
> explain their work using videos.  It's a good way of promoting our science
> for policymakers, general public, teachers and other scientists.  Maybe
> researchers with blogs, YouTube channels, twitter feeds and facebook pages
> can post them in a reply?
>
> If we want to put the science back into the public discourse, we have to
> reach out directly to the public into through social media.  I work
> professionally in this field, and it's amazing how much publicity you can
> get with little time or effort.  I helped a friend set up a youtube channel
> for a fairly obscure health topic, and she got ~10,000 views a year for her
> ~20 videos - and they were just interview style videos done with no special
> equipment.  If anyone wants some help or advice with this kind of thing,
> just get in touch.
>
> I can't stress how important it is for us to reach out.  We can't rely on
> Fox News to do it, and the public doesn't read Nature.
>
> A
>
>
> On 1 March 2012 19:34, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
>> Climate sensitivity and effectiveness of solar radiation management: Dr.
>> Katharine L. Rickehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvUUup0mMU4
>>
>> Katharine L. Ricke, Dan Rowlands, William J. Ingram, David W. Keith and
>> M. Granger Morgan.(2011). Effectiveness of stratospheric solar radiation
>> management as a function of climate sensitivity. Nature Climate Change, 2:
>> 92-96.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1328.html
>>
>> (paper attached)
>> ___
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>>
>> *YouTube:*
>> Climate change and the
>> transition from coal to low-carbon 
>> electricity
>> Crop yields in a geoengineered 
>> climate
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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.
>>
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.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] Re: Stoat strongly criticises AMEG

[Andrew Revkin]

I'm with Stoat, Ken Caldeira, David Keith, Alan Robock and others who see 
this "emergency" effort to rush cloud intervention in the Arctic on behalf 
of sea ice (and indirectly seabed methane) as undermining the case for a 
serious push on geo-engineering options, impacts and policy issues. You're 
getting headlines and the attention of factions in Parliament now, but just 
wait until the variability kicks the other way.

>
"Yelling fire on a hot 
planet"can 
have unanticipated consequences.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/UjkE-JJNII0J.
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] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

[Andrew Revkin]

h Pole expedition undertaken to monitor the vital signs of
the ocean beneath the drifting sea ice.

The pace of ice loss — both its extent and the amount of the older, thicker
ice that survives from summer to summer — has been faster than most models
predicted and clearly has, as a result, unnerved some polar researchers by
revealing how much is unknown about ice behavior in a warming climate.

Even with this year’s extreme loss, there’s still a wide range of
predictions among polar scientists of how soon the northernmost ocean will
be “ice free” in late summer. Peter Wadhams, a British oceanographer
who’s charted
ice conditions for many
years<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=wadhams+submarine+ice+arctic&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=>,
is an outlier in predicting 2015 or
so<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice>
(he
has joined an assortment of people calling for emergency geo-engineering
efforts<http://ameg.me/index.php/24-the-case-for-emergency-geo-engineering-to-save-the-arctic-from-collapse>to
chill the Arctic).

But most of the dozen or so ice scientists I’ve consulted of late (and
several dozen since 2000) remain closer in their views to Cecilia
Bitz<http://vimeo.com/15622850> of
the University of Washington, who recently agreed with my notion (as a
longtime, but lay, observer) that there’s “a 50-50 chance it will take a
few 
decades<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/a-bad-bet-on-arctic-sea-ice/>.”
(Keep in mind that almost all Arctic sea ice researchers add a big caveat
when talking of an “ice-free Arctic Ocean,” noting that a big region of
thick floes north and west of Greenland will almost surely persist in
summers through this century, which is one reason some
scientists<http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_the_arctic_ocean_melts_a_refuge_plan_for_the_polar_bear/2355/>
have
proposed targeting polar bear conservation
efforts<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/pondering-a-polar-predator-in-retreat/>
 there.)

It’s clear to a range of scientists that the enormous loss of old, thick
ice carried on currents from the Arctic out past Greenland into the
Atlantic Ocean in recent years is a major factor that has led to sharp
summer melting. (With the ocean cloaked mainly in relatively thin floes,
formed over a single winter, the chances rise each summer of a big melt-off
under the 24-hour sun and influxes of warmer seawater.) The forces driving
that ice exodus are complicated, as you’ll hear from the scientists
contributing below.

This animated, three-dimensional graph, created by an amateur Arctic
watcher, Andy Lee Robinson, using data from the Piomas model of scientists
at the University of Washington, gives an incredibly interesting view of
how the reduction in overall ice volume has proceeded:

I asked Robinson, who is an engineer, graphics and programming expert and
musician, to explain the steps and sources behind the graph. Click here for my
Slideshare posting of his detailed
reply<http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/explainer-animated-3d-arctic-ice-volume-graph>
.

While you wait for the exchange with ice researchers, I encourage you to
explore the developing string of posts by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who
led one of several research
groups<http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/closer-look-at-arctic-sea-ice-melt-and-extreme-weather-15013>
recently
reporting links between summer ice loss and severe winter weather in
temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere (her relevant paper is
here<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.full.pdf>).
Her first post explored this question:“How should we interpret the record
low minimum sea ice
extent?”<http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/16/reflections-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-part-i/>
Her
second asked: “Whence an ‘ice free’ Arctic? Does an ‘ice free’ Arctic
matter?”<http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/17/reflections-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-part-ii/>

Also, you can start by exploring an illustrated view of the array of
factors – from sea-bottom topography to warm water – that may be in play in
the changing Arctic Ocean provided by James Morison <http://j.mp/dotmorison> of
the University of Washington. Morison has been studying Arctic sea ice and
waters for decades and runs an annual expedition to the North Pole to drop
instruments through the ice into the ocean below (the one I got to go on in
2003 <http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20030513_NORTH/>). He
stresses this is informed speculation at this point, putting him in good
company considering the many ideas in circulation and the persistent
uncertainties in the system.

*An Arctic Expert’s View of the Great Ice Melt of
2012<http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/an-arctic-experts-view-of-the-great-ice-melt-of-2012>
 *from *Andrew Revkin <http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin>*

*4:37 p.m. | Postscript |* The scope of what’

Re: [geo] Haida Salmon Restoration Project - Legal and Commercial issues

[Andrew Revkin]

For the record I agree (particularly on basis that they see this as Haida
waters, that evidence from eruption plumes points to salmon benefit.

On Monday, October 22, 2012, Bhaskar M V  wrote:
> Haida Salmon Restoration Project
> Legal issues -
>
> The media advisory released by Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation's law
firm -
>
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1055481/media-advisory-the-haida-salmon-restoration-corporation-october-19th-media-availability-on-salmon-enhancement-project
>
> MEDIA ADVISORY - The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation - October 19th
media availability on salmon enhancement project
>
> VANCOUVER, Oct. 18, 2012 /CNW/ - The Haida Salmon Restoration
Corporation, founded and majority owned by the Old Massett Village Council
of Haida Gwaii is engaged in on-going ocean research and environmental
studies approximately 200 nautical miles west of Haida Gwaii. This work is
lawful, on-going, self-funded and in compliance with the Law of the Sea
Convention and Canada's Ocean Act.
>
> The purpose of this salmon-enhancement pilot research project, also
called ocean restoration or ocean micronutrient replenishment, is to study
conditions of the Haida Ocean, with particular attention to the collapse of
ocean plankton blooms that traditionally provide nutrients to salmon and
other marine life. The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation is studying and
developing methods that may be useful in restoring the growth of
phytoplankton and thereby sustain and enhance the production of all marine
life and create a sustainable economy for Old Massett.
>
> Chief Councillor Ken Rea of the Old Massett Village Council will outline
the project and how the village initiated and founded the company to
proceed with the project.
> Mr. John Disney, the president of Haida Salmon Research Corporation will
be available along with legal counsel James L. Straith whose firm completed
a comprehensive international and domestic legal status review and legal
position paper prior to the work done at sea.
>
> Where:  Vancouver Aquarium
>   845 Avison Way in Stanley Park
>   Media Registration at Aquaquest Reception (white trailer) between
9-9:20 a.m.
> When:  Friday October 19, 2012
> Time:   9:30 AM
>
> SOURCE: Haida Salmon Restoration Corp.
>
> For further information:
>
> Jay Straith or K. Joseph Spears at  604-921-1122 or e-mail at
k...@oceanlawcanada.com
>
> Straith Litigation, 6438 Bay Street, West Vancouver British Columbia
Canada V6W 2H1.
>
> ---
>
> So they are clear that their actions are legal and it appears that Russ
George was only an adviser and not a beneficiary.
>
> Commercial Issues
>
> Living Oceans Society releases new evidence Re: Old Masset Iron
Fertilization Scheme
>
>
http://livingoceans.org/sites/default/files/media/uploads/Iron%20fertilization.pdf
>
> Northern Savings Credit Union's letter dated February 28th, 2011 to Old
Masset Village Council
>
> "Clearly the credit as structured really represents a loan being made on
a fully secured basis with Term Deposits as collateral and as such one
might argue that you are clearly borrowing your own money."
>
> Thus it appears that the Haida nation people were funding the project
with their own money and conducted it in their own waters or at least close
to their island to restore their fishing.
>
> They should be applauded and not condemned.
>
> regards
>
> Bhaskar
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.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] apologies for wrong piece clipped

[Andrew Revkin]

Not sure what happened there. Here's latest reply to the Hamilton rejection
of a 'good' path in a turbulent time - from Michael Tobis and Curt Stager:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/two-climate-researchers-weigh-the-notion-of-a-good-path-in-the-anthropocene
Two Climate Analysts Weigh the Notion of a ‘Good’ Path in the Anthropocene
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
 JUNE 22, 2014
9:50 AM 20 Comments
[image: A 2013 art installation at Edge Hill University near Liverpool,
England, by Robyn Woolston included this mock sign, "Welcome to the
Fabulous Anthropocene Era" (enlarge). The Anthropocene is a name some
scientists have proposed for this era in which humans have become a
dominant influence on the environment.]Robyn WoolstonA 2013 art installation
 at
Edge Hill University near Liverpool, England, by Robyn Woolston
 included this mock sign, “Welcome to the
Fabulous Anthropocene Era” (enlarge
).
The Anthropocene is a name some scientists have proposed for this era in
which humans have become a dominant influence on the environment.

I’m just catching up with reactions from two climate and sustainability
analysts (Michael Tobis and Curt Stager) to my recent talk charting a
“good” path through the age of us
, the Anthropocene,
and Clive
Hamilton’s blunt critique

.

Stager — a hybrid of climate scientist, ecologist and author
 (and musician
) — posted a comment that is
worth elevating here as a “Your Dot ” contribution:

Ethicist Clive Hamilton’s premise that seeing anything but catastrophe in
an Anthropocene future is “un-scientific” is itself unscientific – a value
judgment, not a statement of fact. As a climate scientist, I see many
changes coming that worry me, but I also try not to confuse my feelings
about them with the full complexity of reality, and I do see some rays of
hope amid the storm.

Science demands that we consider more than what most grabs our attention,
and as with past global changes one’s loss is another’s gain; this makes
rigorous ethical analysis more difficult than the science itself. As Arctic
sea ice species wane, southern taxa are re-colonizing waters their
ancestors knew in past warm periods, and as parts of Bangladesh submerge
Greenlanders find new opportunities. Hamilton’s response is understandable,
but he seems to forget what “scientific” means.

Judging from reactions to my book, “Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of
Life on Earth ,” it is often strict
scientific views of such changes that most upset people who, as Andy
suggests, appear to hope for the worst. Our responses to global change
reflect who we are, what we know (or think we know), and our emotional
wiring.

But in this turbulent dawn of the Anthropocene when our thoughts and
actions trigger massive, long-lasting changes for better and for worse,
recognizing what is or is not “science” is crucial to understanding what is
happening and thus — by my own ethical lights — a responsibility, too.

Michael Tobis
,
who is often a critic of my thinking on climate change science, creditably
took the time to watch my talk and offered a constructive reaction on his
Planet 3.0 blog .
Here’s an excerpt:

[T]he argument is whether it is permissible to juxtapose the words “good”
and “anthropocene.” But “good” is such a vague word that objecting to it
seems to me a very weak posture. Indeed, in his Dot Earth piece he mentions
that he is using “good” in an ethical sense, not in a sense of outcomes. He
says:

*I was invited to give the opening talk, which I called “Paths to a ‘Good’
Anthropocene” — with quotation marks around the adjective “good” to stress
that values determine choices.*

Not only do I entirely agree that we can have an ethically “good” future, I
also believe that we can have an actually “good” future in terms of
dignity, sustainability and joy. Some say it is automatic, and we should
just eschew meddling with the corporate economy which will inevitably
deliver left to its devices. I don’t believe that for a minute. A good
outcome will require a lot of work and a fair amount of courage. But if I
thought it was out of reach, I’d go all doomer and hide in a cave.

What motivates me to keep going is the following by Bruce Sterling:

*Our capacities are tremendous. Eventually, it is within our technical
ability to create factories that

[geo] With some studies published, a fresh assessment of the Haida iron/salmon project

[Andrew Revkin]

L 18 7:55 AMJul 18 7:55 am Comment

A Fresh Look at Iron, Plankton, Carbon, Salmon and Ocean Engineering

By ANDREW C. REVKIN


   -
   -
   -

Video of the 2012 Haida iron fertilization effort

Two years ago this month, an edge-pushing environmental entrepreneur
 and a company formed by
a Native Canadian village set off a wave of international protest by dispersing
a pink slurry of 100 tons of iron-rich dust

over
one of the 60-mile-wide ocean eddies

that
routinely drift across the salmon feeding grounds of the Gulf of Alaska.

Their goal, in the face of steep declines in Pacific salmon catches
,
was to trigger a plankton population explosion with the infusion of iron, a
vital nutrient that’s lacking in those waters. Volcanic eruptions
 had been
shown to do the same thing. Why not humans?

The plankton bloom, in theory, would nourish millions of juvenile fish that
circulate in the Gulf before returning to the coast to spawn.

Along with a boosted catch, a second hoped-for payoff was the sale of
carbon credits on international markets aimed at offsetting greenhouse gas
pollution by financing projects that absorb heat-trapping carbon dioxide —
typically by planting trees but in this case through spurring plankton
growth. More than $2 million was invested in the project through the tribal
company, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation
.

The protests

mainly
came from groups and scientists critical of geo-engineering, large-scale
efforts to harness or control the shared environment to serve human needs —
particularly if the efforts were private. They asserted the project
violated international ocean-dumping rules and a moratorium on ocean
fertilization.

Russ George, the iron-dust entrepreneur (who is now in a legal fight with
some of his former partners
),
has defended the effort as stewardship, not pollution.

Don’t count on a quick resolution of either the litigation or any
prosecution arising from a long-running investigation by Canada’s
environment agency
,
which has asserted in court that the project violated Canadian law.

But now that independent scientists have appraised the 2012 iron pulse, and
millions of young salmon that were at sea that summer are heading up
streams, and into nets, it’s at least possible to begin assessing outcomes
and lessons from this freelance effort at treating the open sea like a
farmer’s field — and a carbon safe-deposit box.  READ MORE…


-- 
*_*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger , The New York Times
Senior Fellow , Pace U.
Academy for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin  Skype: Andrew.Revkin
Music: "A Very Fine Line " CD

-- 
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.

[geo] Exclusive interview with Russia's leading permafrost expert, fresh from Siberian "hole"

[Andrew Revkin]

Marina Leibman says some fascinating things about the durability of
permafrost in the face of surface warming, including some negative
feedbacks that further insulate it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5fK3TT2GAQ&feature=youtu.be



-- 
*_*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger , The New York Times
Senior Fellow , Pace U.
Academy for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin  Skype: Andrew.Revkin
Music: "A Very Fine Line " CD

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] Re: Why Greenland’s melting could be the biggest climate disaster of all

[Andrew Revkin]

There's also fresh input from Richard A. (and Waleed Abdalati) on Greenland
and sea level in this new dot earth post:

Eyes Turn to Antarctica as Study Shows Greenland's Ice Has Endured Warmer
Climates http://nyti.ms/Yq7uhA

I turned to Richard
Alley,
who’s become a vital touchstone for me on such research, for some insights.
Here’s his comment, followed by my closing thoughts:

I have three immediate responses: Satisfaction in the great success of the
collaboration, concern that this slightly increases worries about future
sea-level rise from human-caused warming, but technical questions that may
leave us more-or-less where we were before on the biggest picture.

Taken in turn:

Having watched colleagues go to the immense effort of learning what
information is desired by policymakers and other citizens, assemble the
logistical and scientific abilities to supply that information, and
actually do it over a lot of years, and knowing just how many of their
kids’ soccer games and recitals some of the scientist-parents missed, I
have to smile when the team succeeds so well.

As to the big picture, there is strong evidence from the history of sea
level on coasts from the Eemian that both Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets shrank notably, contributing to a globally averaged sea-level rise
of very roughly 20 feet. This occurred primarily in response to a
rearrangement of where sunshine reached the planet and when during the
year, with more summer sunshine in the north but very little total change.
And, some uncertainty has remained on the exact balance between Greenland
and Antarctic contributions. The new paper suggests that the contribution
from Greenland was on the low end of the prior estimates, but has little
effect on the estimated total sea-level change, which points to a larger
Antarctic source than the previous best estimate.

In my opinion (and I believe the opinions of many colleagues), we have
greater understanding of Greenland’s ice than Antarctica’s, and we have
greater confidence that Greenland will be “well-behaved” — we will more
easily project changes in Greenland’s ice, with greater confidence that
changes begun now will take centuries or longer to be mostly completed.

By shifting more of the sea-level rise into the less-understood ice, and
thus into the ice with greater chance of doing something rapidly, I believe
the new paper at least slightly increases the concerns for coastal
planners, even if the chance of a rapid change from Antarctic ice remains
small.

As to the technical parts, as described in many sources, we have lots of
paleothermometers for the central Greenland ice cores over the last 100,000
years, providing multiple validation and high confidence that temperatures
have been estimated accurately. The very changes in the ice sheet that are
of greatest interest here also make the effort quite difficult. The melting
of the Eemian interferes with gas-based paleothermometry, and with the
total-gas technique that provides constraints on changes in surface
elevation.

A U.S. government CCSP report on Arctic paleoclimates a few years ago (to
which I contributed)
[link]
estimated changes in temperature and ice volume for this interval. The new
estimates overlap with the older ones. Were I working on that report now, I
would recommend expanding the uncertainties a little to include the new
results. However, considering that ice shrinkage on Greenland has a
feedback effect (exposing rocks allows more sun to be absorbed, causing
more warming), considering the evidence of Eemian warmth from marine
records around Greenland, considering climate model runs for that time,
considering other studies of Greenland, and recalling the notable
uncertainties associated with untangling the changes in total gas and in
the ice sheet itself, I suspect that the estimates in that CCSP report will
stand up pretty well, with the new work primarily confirming the prior
understanding of climate changes and ice-sheet and sea-level response in
the Eemian.

If anyone is thinking that this paper means we can crank up the temperature
without worrying about sea level, they should seriously re-think. Overall,
a great and successful scientific effort leaves us with the knowledge that
warming does tend to melt ice, and that contributes to sea-level rise.

In a followup note to him, I said:

Beautifully articulated. but I do think [the new work] closes the case that
Greenland, despite all of its drama (moulins, for
example)
— drama that focused my attention for a few years too — is a sideshow in
the sea level question.

That’s not how it’s b

Re: [geo] Re: Why Greenland's melting could be the biggest climate disaster of all

[Andrew Revkin]

A sideshow to sea-level questions on policy-relevant time scales. (2100-ish
at best)..

You're talking geological scale here.

Tad Pfeffer's 2008 analysis of worst-case discharge rate still a keystone
to clear thinking on this.


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote:

> “Greenland . . . is a sideshow in the sea level question.”
>
> ** **
>
> I see nothing in the Dahl-Jensen article that could possible justify such
> a sweeping and dismissive claim. Alley himself says: “We have high
> confidence that warming will shrink Greenland, by enough to matter a lot to
> coastal planners.”
>
> ** **
>
> Thomas Homer-Dixon
>
> University of Waterloo
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Jan 28, 2013 5:12 PM, "Andrew Revkin"  wrote:
>
> There's also fresh input from Richard A. (and Waleed Abdalati) on
> Greenland and sea level in this new dot earth post: 
>
> ** **
>
> Eyes Turn to Antarctica as Study Shows Greenland's Ice Has Endured Warmer
> Climates http://nyti.ms/Yq7uhA
>
> ** **
>
> I turned to Richard 
> Alley<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/richard-alleys-orbital-and-climate-dance/>,
> who’s become a vital touchstone for me on such research, for some insights.
> Here’s his comment, followed by my closing thoughts:
>
> I have three immediate responses: Satisfaction in the great success of the
> collaboration, concern that this slightly increases worries about future
> sea-level rise from human-caused warming, but technical questions that may
> leave us more-or-less where we were before on the biggest picture.
>
> Taken in turn:
>
> Having watched colleagues go to the immense effort of learning what
> information is desired by policymakers and other citizens, assemble the
> logistical and scientific abilities to supply that information, and
> actually do it over a lot of years, and knowing just how many of their
> kids’ soccer games and recitals some of the scientist-parents missed, I
> have to smile when the team succeeds so well.
>
> As to the big picture, there is strong evidence from the history of sea
> level on coasts from the Eemian that both Greenland and Antarctic ice
> sheets shrank notably, contributing to a globally averaged sea-level rise
> of very roughly 20 feet. This occurred primarily in response to a
> rearrangement of where sunshine reached the planet and when during the
> year, with more summer sunshine in the north but very little total change.
> And, some uncertainty has remained on the exact balance between Greenland
> and Antarctic contributions. The new paper suggests that the contribution
> from Greenland was on the low end of the prior estimates, but has little
> effect on the estimated total sea-level change, which points to a larger
> Antarctic source than the previous best estimate.
>
> In my opinion (and I believe the opinions of many colleagues), we have
> greater understanding of Greenland’s ice than Antarctica’s, and we have
> greater confidence that Greenland will be “well-behaved” — we will more
> easily project changes in Greenland’s ice, with greater confidence that
> changes begun now will take centuries or longer to be mostly completed.***
> *
>
> By shifting more of the sea-level rise into the less-understood ice, and
> thus into the ice with greater chance of doing something rapidly, I believe
> the new paper at least slightly increases the concerns for coastal
> planners, even if the chance of a rapid change from Antarctic ice remains
> small.
>
> As to the technical parts, as described in many sources, we have lots of
> paleothermometers for the central Greenland ice cores over the last 100,000
> years, providing multiple validation and high confidence that temperatures
> have been estimated accurately. The very changes in the ice sheet that are
> of greatest interest here also make the effort quite difficult. The melting
> of the Eemian interferes with gas-based paleothermometry, and with the
> total-gas technique that provides constraints on changes in surface
> elevation.
>
> A U.S. government CCSP report on Arctic paleoclimates a few years ago (to
> which I contributed) 
> [link<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/eyes-turn-to-antarctica-as-study-shows-greenlands-ice-has-endured-warmer-climates/%3Ehttp:/www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/final-report/default.htm>]
> estimated changes in temperature and ice volume for this interval. The new
> estimates overlap with the older ones. Were I working on that report now, I
> would recommend expanding the uncertainties a little to include the new
> results. However, considering that ice shrinkage 

Re: [geo] Re: Why Greenland's melting could be the biggest climate disaster of all

[Andrew Revkin]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not endorsing that the probable Greenland
contribution to sea level doesn't matter to policy.

I'm just stating a fact related to how humans - as individuals *and* groups
- have responded to risks that require big changes in the status
quo. Thomas, I'd be eager to see any data you have showing otherwise.



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote:

>  Hi Andy—Your agreement with the dismissive statement on Greenland seems
> terribly short-sighted. Over the coming decade (if not already), we’ll be
> setting a course for Greenland that will lead to much higher sea level in
> the future (and the contributions from Greenland and Antarctica will end up
> being far more than from thermal expansion and melting glaciers). A key
> issue at present among politicians is the impacts we are imposing on future
> generations (national debt, etc.)--well, dealing with Greenland melting is
> quite the predicament we would be posing to future generations (so the
> children and grandchildren of today’s politicians).
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On 1/28/13 9:56 AM, "Andy Revkin"  wrote:
>
> A sideshow to sea-level questions on policy-relevant time scales.
> (2100-ish at best)..
>
> You're talking geological scale here.
>
> Tad Pfeffer's 2008 analysis of worst-case discharge rate still a keystone
> to clear thinking on this.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Homer-Dixon 
> wrote:
>
> “Greenland . . . is a sideshow in the sea level question.”
>
> I see nothing in the Dahl-Jensen article that could possible justify such
> a sweeping and dismissive claim. Alley himself says: “We have high
> confidence that warming will shrink Greenland, by enough to matter a lot to
> coastal planners.”
>
> Thomas Homer-Dixon
> University of Waterloo
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 28, 2013 5:12 PM, "Andrew Revkin"  wrote:
> There's also fresh input from Richard A. (and Waleed Abdalati) on
> Greenland and sea level in this new dot earth post:
>
>
>
> Eyes Turn to Antarctica as Study Shows Greenland's Ice Has Endured Warmer
> Climates http://nyti.ms/Yq7uhA
>
>
>
> I turned to Richard Alley <
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/richard-alleys-orbital-and-climate-dance/>
> , who’s become a vital touchstone for me on such research, for some
> insights. Here’s his comment, followed by my closing thoughts:
>
> I have three immediate responses: Satisfaction in the great success of the
> collaboration, concern that this slightly increases worries about future
> sea-level rise from human-caused warming, but technical questions that may
> leave us more-or-less where we were before on the biggest picture.
> Taken in turn:
> Having watched colleagues go to the immense effort of learning what
> information is desired by policymakers and other citizens, assemble the
> logistical and scientific abilities to supply that information, and
> actually do it over a lot of years, and knowing just how many of their
> kids’ soccer games and recitals some of the scientist-parents missed, I
> have to smile when the team succeeds so well.
> As to the big picture, there is strong evidence from the history of sea
> level on coasts from the Eemian that both Greenland and Antarctic ice
> sheets shrank notably, contributing to a globally averaged sea-level rise
> of very roughly 20 feet. This occurred primarily in response to a
> rearrangement of where sunshine reached the planet and when during the
> year, with more summer sunshine in the north but very little total change.
> And, some uncertainty has remained on the exact balance between Greenland
> and Antarctic contributions. The new paper suggests that the contribution
> from Greenland was on the low end of the prior estimates, but has little
> effect on the estimated total sea-level change, which points to a larger
> Antarctic source than the previous best estimate.
> In my opinion (and I believe the opinions of many colleagues), we have
> greater understanding of Greenland’s ice than Antarctica’s, and we have
> greater confidence that Greenland will be “well-behaved” — we will more
> easily project changes in Greenland’s ice, with greater confidence that
> changes begun now will take centuries or longer to be mostly completed.
> By shifting more of the sea-level rise into the less-understood ice, and
> thus into the ice with greater chance of doing something rapidly, I believe
> the new paper at least slightly increases the concerns for coastal
> planners, even if the chance of a rapid change from Antarctic ice remains
> small.
> As to the technical parts, as described in many sources, we have lots of
> paleothermometers for the central Greenland 

Re: [geo] What kind of observing system do we need in place to take maximal advantage of the next big volcano?

[Andrew Revkin]

great question. i'd like to post a variant on dot earth from you if you'd
be okay with that. just another sentence or two on why volcanoes are
important natural experiments, perhaps a line on how recent work has found
that more modest volcanoes seem to have more impact (?), then the callout?


On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> With respect to learning more about potential consequences of solar
> geoengineering, what kinds of observing systems do we need in place to
> take maximal advantage of the next big volcano?
>
> What would we want to have in space (and why)?
>
> What would we want to have in airplanes (and why)?
>
> What would we want on the ground (and why)?
>
> How would these assets be utilized when there is no big volcano?
>
> Are there any high-quality reports or studies that address this issue?
>
> -
>
>
> --
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
> *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.*
> *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html*
>
> Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snant...@carnegiescience.edu
>
>
>
>  --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>



-- 
*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Dan Kahan of Yale on Alan's question about geo-eng studies

[Andrew Revkin]

Dan sent this when I sent out a query to some social scientists on Alan's
geo-eng-group question (not sure if it was directly posted as well)

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural
Experiment 



We conducted a two-nation study (United States, *n* = 1500; England, *n* =
1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The *cultural
cognition thesis* posits that individuals make extensive reliance on
cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural
cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive
*two-channel* science
communication strategy that combines information content (“Channel 1”) with
cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment
of information across diverse communities. In the study, scientific
information content on climate change was held constant while the cultural
meaning of that information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with
the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential
contribution of *geoengineering* as a supplement to restriction of CO2
emissions
helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of climate-change
science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from competing models of
science communication, that exposure to information on geoengineering would
provoke discounting of climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this
hypothesis, we found that subjects exposed to information about
geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than
those assigned to a control condition.



-- 
*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging than climate change deniers - Salon.com

[Andrew Revkin]

All the points Andrew made below about geo-engineering were made in recent
years about adaptation (some called it immoral to even talk of adaptation).

The reality, of course, is that the epic, multi-generational path from a
fossil-fueled civilization to whatever comes next is implicitly an
all-of-the above task. John Holdren has distilled it pretty well with
"mitigation, adaptation, suffering" and that still works if you include
research on geo-engineering under "mitigation" (in other words, mitigating
warming along with emissions).


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> Naomi Klein is wrong.
>
> I do not see any substantial subset of people researching geoengineering
> who see it as a way to avoid doing the hard work of reducing emissions.
>
> For most, researching  'geoengineering' is an expression of despair at the
> fact that others are unwilling to do the hard work of reducing emissions.
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Poster's note : short extract below discussing geoengineering. Full
>> interview is very good. It basically describes why I left the green
>> movement - they're all out of ideas and they have no solutions left. I
>> don't agree with her conclusions, however - especially on geoengineering.
>>
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/
>>
>> You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of
>> disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?
>>
>> I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid doing
>> the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of it. I
>> think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change becomes
>> impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to geoengineering. The
>> appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten our worldview. It
>> leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is an escape hatch. So
>> all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter ourselves for our
>> power, will just be scaled up.
>>
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] A Case for Climate Engineering

[Andrew Revkin]

we need to do a chat for dot earth when you have time (google+ hangout?). i
have book and started to go through it. will take til next week to get it
done given flow of other stuff.


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, David Keith  wrote:

> My book *A Case for Climate Engineering* is published this week.
>
>
>
> For some details, reviews and recent press see:
> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/book/. The book is available from
> Amazon and other retailers.
>
>
>
> Clive Hamilton and I had a debate in Cambridge last night and will do a
> second one at Columbia University in New York tonight that will be covered
> on C-SPAN’s book TV. We did a version for NPR that will run on their Living
> on Earth  show.
>
>
>
> David
>
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
*_*
*
*
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Rutgers SLR Experts Survey 11-22-2013

[Andrew Revkin]

I'd like to see the methodology scrutinized by an independent analyst
specializing in expert elicitations (this may have been done, but none of
the authors seem to be from that discipline).

To winnow from 500 researchers publishing 6 papers in the last five years
to 90 who returned estimates could potentially torque the results toward
scientists with a position to stake?

I'll ask Granger Morgan et al to have a look.




On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM, French, Bruce wrote:

> FYI- SLR survey results from Rutgers:
>
> *Sea Level Experts Concerned About ‘High-End’ Scenarios*
>
> “A survey of nearly 100 experts on sea level rise reveals that scientists
> think there is a good chance the global average sea level rise can be
> limited to less than 3.3 feet by 2100…”
>
>
>
>
> http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-experts-concerned-about-high-end-scenarios-16767
>
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
*_*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger , The New York Times
Senior Fellow , Pace U.
Academy for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin  Skype: Andrew.Revkin
Music: "A Very Fine Line " CD

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Colbert isn't the only humorist exploring geo-engineering

[Andrew Revkin]

If you haven't seen the 2008 video at bottom of this post, have a look:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/engineering-the-climate-colberts-all-chocolate-dinner/
HUMOR  December 13,
2013, 10:13 am 
Comment
Engineering the Climate – Colbert’s ‘All-Chocolate Dinner’By ANDREW C.
REVKIN 

*The Colbert Report*
Get More: Colbert Report Full
Episodes
,Video Archive 



I’ve been meaning to post this since
Tuesday,
but better late than never. I encourage you, as a tonic for anything that
ails, to watch Stephen Colbert’s
conversation
 with David Keith , the
Harvard professor of applied physics and public policy, on his book, “A
Case for Climate Engineering .”

The discussion is all aimed at humor, of course, with Colbert reacting to
Keith’s argument for blunting global warming with sun-blocking sulfate
aerosols
this
way:

So we owe acid rain an apology, is what you’re saying.

And to drive the point home further, he adds:

This is the all-chocolate dinner. I get to have my CO2 and I get to spray
sulfuric acid all over the Earth.

But behind the laughs, they end up circling to serious issues, including
the question I’ve explored here several times: Who gets to set Earth’s
thermostat?

Highly paid comedians aren’t alone in touching on engineering the climate
in a lighthearted way. In case you missed it, here’s a student-shot video
explaining geo-engineering, which I first highlighted in my 2008 post “Fun
With Mirrors and Dust – a Climate
Fix?”
:

   -


-- 
*_*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth blogger , The New York Times
Senior Fellow , Pace U.
Academy for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin  Skype: Andrew.Revkin
Music: "A Very Fine Line " CD

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Negative emissions for climate change stabilization & the role of CO2 geological storage

[Andrew Revkin]

Here's a piece with a coda proposing who should help finance "negative
emissions" RD&D:


http://nyti.ms/1Omq9F2
As Documents Show Wider Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 Climate Impacts, a
“Take it Back” Proposal
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
 DECEMBER 22,
2015 8:17 PM December 22, 2015 8:17 pm 3 Comments

   - Email
   - Share
   - Tweet
   - Save
   - More

Photo
[image: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco";>Documents
published by InsideClimate News show that oil companies and the
American Petroleum Institute (API) were gauging carbon dioxide's climate
impacts decades ago.]
Documents published

by
InsideClimate News show that oil companies and the American Petroleum
Institute (API) were gauging carbon dioxide's climate impacts decades ago.
CreditInsideClimate News

Updated, 8:38 p.m. | There are new revelations from the continuing
InsideClimate News investigation of what the oil industry knew about the
potential climate impacts of carbon dioxide from fuel burning even as it
sought delays in related national and international policies.

The headline and deck on today’s story neatly summarize the news:

Exxon’s oil industry peers knew about climate dangers in the 1970s, too.
Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included
scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and
Shell.

Below you can read my proposal for what the industry might do to make the
best use of its deep knowledge of carbon dioxide and climate change, along
with its scientific and technical capacity.

Here’s a snippet from Neela Banerjee’s article, but please read the rest at
the link below:

The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation’s largest oil
companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between
1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was
aware of its possible impact on the world’s climate far earlier than
previously known.

The group’s members included senior scientists and engineers from nearly
every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, including Exxon,
Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, and Sohio, according to
internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News and interviews with the
task force’s former director. [*Read the rest
*
.]

My thoughts on the series’ earlier findings are here

.

All of this bolsters a notion I first floated awhile ago on Twitter
, related to a 1978
proposal by an Exxon scientist, Harold N. Weinberg:

In a memo to superiors, revealed in InsideClimate’s earlier reporting
,
Weinberg wrote: “What would be more appropriate than for the world’s
leading energy company and leading oil company [to] take the lead in trying
to define whether a long-term CO2 problem really exists and, if so, what
counter measures would be appropriate.”

The proposal was not embraced, needless to say.

While others pursue investigations

that
may or may not bear fruit (but will surely enrich several generations of
lawyers), I have an idea for something that could start now.

I suggest that Exxon, and perhaps the fossil fuel industry more generally,
might help propel a vigorous new burst of research in ways to take back the
CO2 added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion at a scale that would
matter to the climate system. (Those of us who benefitted from decades of
cheap fossil fuels can do our part by supporting boosted federal
investments in clean-energy science

 and technology development — and, yes, deployment

.)

After all, the putative trajectories for avoiding dangerous climate change
 that
were the centerpiece of discussions and pledges in the Paris climate treaty
talks all rely on as-yet-untested massive atmospheric CO2 removal

[geo] Fwd: UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science

[Andrew Revkin]

Rain seeding competition.
-- Forwarded message --
From: UAEREP Media 
Date: Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:12 AM
Subject: RE: UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science
T

The UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science is celebrating its
first anniversary and will be announcing the winners of the first cycle on
19 January, 2016 in Abu Dhabi, during the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week.



Up to 5 winning proposals from around the world will be awarded a total of
US$ 5 million over a three-year period to conduct research in topics
related to rain enhancement science—more commonly known as cloud seeding.



Further to e-mail below, would you be interested in covering the ceremony
or the winners of the first cycle and their projects?



For more information about the Program, please visit our website at
http://www.uaerep.ae.



Looking forward to hearing from you soon; thank you and best regards,



*Joon-hyung Park*
associate consultant

*APCO** Worldwide*
Office Park Building
Block B, Floor 1
Dubai Internet City
PO BOX 500746
Dubai, UAE

(t) +971.4.433.4232
(m) +971.55.128.0558
(f) +971.4.368.8001
*jp...@apcoworldwide.com *
@apcoworldwide 
*ae.linkedin.com/in/parkjoonhyung
*

A majority woman-owned business







**



I hope this e-mail finds you well. My name is Joon-hyung Park from APCO
Worldwide and I work with the UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement
Science as a strategic communications and stakeholder engagement partner.



I am writing to you to draw your attention to an important milestone that
the Program is celebrating during the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week. We are
inviting researchers from around the world to Abu Dhabi to celebrate the
winners of US$5 million grant from this international scientific initiative
led by UAE. For this, we would like very much to receive your help in
spreading the word about the Program and the event through Pace University
and/or New York Times.



*About UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science (UAEREP):*

The UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science is a global research
program launched by the UAE’s Ministry of the Presidential Affairs and
managed by the UAE’s National Center for Meteorology and Seismology
(NCMS).  Every year, the program offers a total of US$ 5 million grant to
be shared among up to 5 winning proposals. The grant covers a period of 3
years of research for the winning proposals. The program aims to encourage
scientific research in areas that will enhance rain fall in arid and
semi-arid regions around the world.



Since inauguration, the Program attracted 78 preproposals representing 325
collaborating scientists from 34 countries. The results were truly global
in context and geographical spread. The Program has kick-started renewed
scientific enquiry in the field of rain enhancement at a global scale.



On 19 January, 2016, the Program will be announcing the awardees of the
first cycle of the Program who will share the US$5 million grant during the
award ceremony in Abu Dhabi. We are preparing to distribute a press release
announcing the winners with the details of their cutting-edge research
proposals, and the winning teams will be available for interview
opportunities after the announcement.



In addition, upon honoring the winners, we will be opening the registration
for the 2016 cycle at our website at http://www.uaerep.ae, and we hope to
continue the great success of the first cycle into the future, and our
story appearing on your publication will help greatly to this regards.



If you would be interested in covering the award ceremony and the winners
of the Program, please contact me to take this conversation forward.



For more information about the Program, please refer to the attached media
brief document, or please visit our website at http://www.uaerep.ae.



Looking forward to hearing from you soon; thank you and best regards,



*Joon-hyung Park*
associate consultant

*APCO** Worldwide*
Office Park Building
Block B, Floor 1
Dubai Internet City
PO BOX 500746
Dubai, UAE

(t) +971.4.433.4232
(m) +971.55.128.0558
(f) +971.4.368.8001
jp...@apcoworldwide.com
@apcoworldwide 
ae.linkedin.com/in/parkjoonhyung 

A majority woman-owned business


--

CONFIDENTIALITY

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or
work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission
is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender and delete all copies.



-- 
*_*

ANDREW C. REVKIN
Dot Earth 

Re: [geo] Scientists Focused on Geoengineering Challenge the Inevitability of Multi-Millennial Global Warming

[Andrew Revkin]

Finally put up something on Dot Earth drawing attention to the Medium.com
conversation on geo-eng.


T 18 5:32 PM Oct 18 5:32 pm Comment

Can Humans Go From Unintended Global Warming to Climate By Design?

By ANDREW C. REVKIN


   - Email
   - Share
   - Tweet

Photo

Credit

Geoengineering

is
in the wind more and more these days,particularly the use of sun-blocking
aerosols

as
a cheap, temporary counterweight to greenhouse-gas-driven global warming.

In pondering the plausibility or desirability of such a tool, it might be
useful to start with a thought experiment:

1) Suppose humans are not heating the climate and oceans through the
buildup of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. (This is only a thought experiment.
)

2) Presume our capacity to understand Earth systems and devise
sophisticated technologies continues to build. (Keep in mind this isn’t a
given if budget priorities don’t shift

.)

3) Consider the cost, in lives and money, exacted by today’s climatic
extremes, let alone those worsened by warming. Many such costs can be
reduced by developing suitable crops and water systems or
building resilient communities. But not all. Then, on a very long time
scale, consider the prospect of an inevitable new ice age

.

Sifting these notions, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there will
almost certainly come a moment when humans will start*designing* our
climate and not simply perpetually adapt to its vagaries.

On a small scale, there’s already weather modification, from the Midwest

 to China .
Researchers are even examining ways

 to stifle hurricanes
.
In the long run, you can be sure that humanity will do everything it can to
avert an ice age
,
given the challenge of sustaining civilization with advancing miles-high
ice sheets. (Revisit Thornton Wilder’s “Skin of Our Teeth
” for a surreal view of this challenge

.)

So far, humanity’s main climate intervention, through emissions of vast
amounts of greenhouse gases, has been an unintended consequence of pursuing
the most convenient energy choice — fossil fuels.

Efforts to curb that pulse of gases haven’t amounted to much, even
with the Paris
Agreement

 taking legal force on Nov. 4

.

With all of this in mind, it could be argued that the momentum driving
global warming is simply speeding the journey toward an inevitable juncture
when we will start engineering the climate.

We’ve been terrible at managing emissions. Can we shift from unintended
global warming to managing climate by design?

Welcome to the geoengineering debate.

I encourage anyone interested in climate change science and policy to read
on for the rich discussion of geoengineering that follows, involving some
of the analysts and scientists most involved in examining next steps. They
include Oliver Morton

of
The Economist, Raymond Pierrehumbert
 of Oxford
University, and Gernot Wagner and David Keith
 of Har

Re: [geo] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?

[Andrew Revkin]

But he also (in mostly-ignored statements) pledged to sustain federal R&D
and move away from fossil fuels>

Prospects for the Environment, and Environmentalism, Under President Trump
http://nyti.ms/2eDpzlU

Prospects for the Environment, and Environmentalism, Under President Trump
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
 NOVEMBER 9,
2016 1:09 PM November 9, 2016 1:09 pm 1

   - Email
   - Share
   - Tweet
   - Save
   - More

Photo
[image: Donald Trump’s name is a prominent feature at the Trump Golf Links
municipal course in the Bronx.]
Donald Trump’s name is a prominent feature at the Trump Golf Links
municipal course in the Bronx.Credit Santiago Mejia/The New York Times

Various Postscripts | President Donald J. Trump

.

Get used to the sound of that, my environment-oriented friends.

Is this end times for environmental progress or, more specifically, climate
progress?

No.

The bad news about climate change is, in a way, the good news:

The main forces determining emission levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide
will be just as much out of President Trump’s hands as they were out of
President Obama’s. The decline in the United States has mainly been due to
market forces shifting electricity generation from coal to abundant and
cheaper natural gas ,
along with environmental regulations built around the traditional basket of
pollutants that even conservatives agreed were worth restricting
.
(Efficiency and gas-mileage standards and other factors help, too, of
course.)

At the same time, the unrelenting *rise* in greenhouse-gas emissions in
developing countries is propelled by an unbending reality identified way
back in 2005

by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when he said, “The blunt truth about the
politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its
economy in order to meet this challenge.”

At the same time, as well, other fundamental forces will continue to drive
polluted China

 and smog-choked India
 to
move away from unfettered coal combustion as a path to progress. An
expanding middle class is already demanding cleaner air and sustainable
transportation choices — just as similar forces enabled pollution cleanups
in the United States in the last century.

That’s why the Paris Agreement on climate change
 will continue to
register progress on emissions and investments in clean energy or climate
resilience, but only within the limits of what nations already consider
achievable (as others will be explaining in detail because the first
post-Paris round of negotiations

is
under way right now in Marrakech).

Long ago, Jesse Ausubel, a veteran Rockefeller University analyst of global
resource and environmental trends, asserted that, “in general, politicians
are pulling on disconnected levers
” at the
intersection of energy and environmental policy.
View image on Twitter

[image: View image on Twitter]


 Follow 
Andy Revkin
✔@Revkin 

In climate arena, politicians mostly pull on "disconnected levers" (Ausubel
@RockefellerUniv ) http://
nyti.ms/1uKqly1  
7:33 AM - 16 Dec 2014 
 · New York, USA, United States


   -
   
   -
55 Retweets
   
   -
11 like 

As I wrote in 2014
,
that doesn’t mean environmental agendas by politicians are useless, and
environmentalism remains vital as a result. But what approach is most
workable, particularly under a Trump administration with Congress in
Republican control?

It it end times for 20th-centu

[geo] NASA's role in gauging environmental change

[Andrew Revkin]

This seems highly relevant to GEO-ENG discussion because it explores
arguments that NASA is not the right agency to do Earth science.

I couldn't fit it in, but studies of Mount Pinatubo cooling were largely
NASA and important in refining climate models (and relevant here).

https://www.propublica.org/article/will-trump-scrap-nasas-climate-research-mission

Here's an excerpt:

Trump’s most visible advisor on space policy has been Bob Walker, a
former House
Science committee chairman
<https://www.aip.org/fyi/1995/house-science-committee-chairman-robert-walker>who
is now a space-policy lobbyist <http://wexlerwalker.com/our-team/>pressing
to move “Earth-centric
<http://spacenews.com/trump-advisor-sees-pence-playing-a-major-role-in-space-policy/>”
and “heavily politicized
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research>”
climate science out of NASA altogether. And Christopher Shank, who was
chosen by Trump to lead the transition at NASA, is a seasoned strategist
who has expressed strong skepticism
<http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-denier-nasa-transition-20938> about
the severity of global warming.

Should Trump come to take a dim view of NASA’s research on climate change,
he’s likely to have no shortage of support in Congress. The last few years
have seen intensifying moves against the Obama administration’s investments
in climate science in hearings led by the Texas Republicans Sen. Ted Cruz
<http://spacenews.com/senators-bolden-clash-over-the-core-mission-of-nasa/> and
Rep. Lamar S. Smith, whose views on NASA and climate parallel those of
Walker — built around the notion that NASA needs to focus on outer space,
not back on Earth.

As Smith put it in 2015, “There are 13 other agencies involved in climate
change research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration."

NASA’s Earth Science division, if less well known to the public, has
regularly seen its budget fluctuate with turnover in the White House. Under
Ronald Reagan, there were substantial investments
<http://spacenews.com/senators-bolden-clash-over-the-core-mission-of-nasa/> in
what was then called the Earth Observing System. George H.W. Bush, building
on a 1987 report by astronaut Sally Ride, funded a program that came to be
known as the “Mission to Planet Earth
<https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/earthSciences.html>.”

George W. Bush reversed course, and reduced resources
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/04/27/nasa.budget/> for the program
(his administration was eventually exposed for trying to suppress NASA
research on global warming
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/nasa-chief-backs-agency-openness.html>).
Most recently, though, the division’s budget was greatly restored by Barack
Obama. A core argument of Walker and congressional critics of NASA earth
science, that budgets have ballooned and reduced resources for other NASA
science programs, has no basis, said Arthur Charo, who has tracked NASA
science budgets for the Standing Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space <http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_066587> of
the nongovernmental National Academy of Sciences.

He said a careful look at programs, adjusting for inflation, shows no
evidence of such a pattern. “There is a mythology that Earth Science has
undergone dramatic growth and that this growth has occurred at the expense
of other divisions in the Science Mission Directorate,” he said. “Both
assertions are false.”

An important chart of relative spending on Earth/Space science came in too
late to get in the story but makes some points that appear to contradict
Bob Walker's assertions, bolstering Arthur Charo's point in the piece. It's
here:

https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/808300867980066817


-- 
*ANDREW C. REVKIN,* *ProPublica Senior Reporter
<https://www.propublica.org/site/author/andrew_revkin> (*climate and
related issues) | Read my 2,810 Dot Earth posts
<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/>, my essay making sense of the
#Anthropocene <http://j.mp/revkinanthropocene>, my reflection on 30 years
of climate learning <http://j.mp/revkin30yearsclimate>.

*Mobile: 914-441-5556, Twitter: @revkin
<http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music <http://j.mp/revkinmusic>*


[image: --]

Andrew Revkin
[image: https://]about.me/revkin
<https://about.me/revkin?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=chrome_ext>

-- 
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.

[geo] the political context on clarifying social cost of carbon

[Andrew Revkin]

Seeing the helpful discussion emerge on the new National Academies report
on ways to improve the "social cost of carbon" estimates, thought you'd
appreciate my piece on the political context, which is essential to
consider given that key aspects of the final determination of such metrics
is implicitly a function of values/politics/ethics more than data. Some
excellent input from Myles Allen and Gernot Wagner...

Here's the link and an excerpt (several links to relevant papers are at the
bottom as well):


https://www.propublica.org/article/will-trumps-climate-team-accept-any-social-cost-of-carbon

President-elect Donald Trump and members of his proposed cabinet and
transition team have taken aim at many of President Obama’s climate and
clean-energy policies, programs and legacies — from the Paris Agreement to
the Clean Power Plan.

But there’s probably no more consequential and contentious a target for the
incoming administration than an arcane metric called the “social cost of
carbon.”

This value is the government’s best estimate of how much society gains over
the long haul by cutting each ton of the heat-trapping carbon-dioxide
emissions scientists have linked to global warming.

Currently set at $36 per ton of carbon dioxide
, the metric is
produced using a complex, and contentious, set of models estimating a host
of future costs to society related to rising temperatures and seas, then
using a longstanding economic tool, a discount rate, to gauge how much it
is worth today to limit those harms generations hence. (For context, the
United States emitted about 5.1 billion tons of CO2 in 2015
, out of a
global total of 36 billion.)

The contention arises because the social cost of carbon underpins
justifications for policies dealing with everything from power plants to
car mileage to refrigerator efficiency. The carbon valuation has already
helped shape 79 regulations .

The strongest sign of a coming challenge to the social cost calculation
came in a post-election memorandum

from
Thomas Pyle, who was then president of the industry-funded American Energy
Alliance and Institute for Energy Research and who now leads the Trump
transition team for the Department of Energy. In the memo, he predicted
policies resulting in “ending the use of the social cost of carbon in
federal rule makings.”

Outright elimination of such a calculation is highly unlikely, according to
interviews with a range of experts. The practice of estimating the economic
costs and benefits of most government regulations began under an executive
order of President Ronald Reagan

in
1981. It has continued ever since. Climate-related regulations are no
different. Several court rulings have affirmed the process
.

But the Trump administration’s aim of lowering the operative “number,”
possibly by a lot, is almost assured. In 2013, an economist from Pyle’s
energy institute testified

in
a Senate hearing that under a proper calculation, the social cost of carbon
“would probably be close to zero, or possibly even negative.”

A deep cut would be both dangerous and unjustified, given the basics of
both climate science and economics, said Gernot Wagner, a Harvard economist
focused on climate risk and policy. In a phone interview on Tuesday, he
said the interagency working group assembled by the White House in 2009 to
create the social cost measurement was “a damn impressive exercise at
assembling a lot of firepower and done in a way that was about as
apolitical as things can go in Washington.”

The result, he said, is, if anything, far too conservative. “What worries
me most, frankly, is that the current social cost is basically being
portrayed as the upper limit,” he said.

In fact, he and several other climate-focused economists said in interviews
that the science, including persistent uncertainty on how fast temperatures
and seas will rise, should result in a higher carbon cost and even more
aggressive steps at limiting warming.

At the same time, he and other analysts agreed that there are issues with
the way calculations have been done so far, reflected in a flood of comments

received
by the Office of Management and Budget in 2015.

A fresh independent assessment of ways to improve the 

Re: [geo] Nordhaus: Devastating global warming is inevitable

[Andrew Revkin]

The most important thing about Nordhaus's paper and conclusions, which
I focused
on in a recent Trump piece
,
is that he once held fast to the same assumptions Mann's hanging on to.
He's demonstrated a capacity to follow the data.

Greg's point at the end is key. Still no evidence that climate change will
have the kinds of motivational dimensions that drove the response to Nazi
Germany and Pearl Harbor.

Some of my exploration of the full scope of the climate challenge in my Issues
in Science & Technology essay  early last
year are relevant.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deadly-global-
> warming-is-inevitable-due-to-inaction-feasible-rhetoric-
> climate-change-fight-paris-a752.html
>
>
> Nordhaus - “The international target for climate change with a limit of 2C
> appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies.
>
> “And this is the case even with very stringent and unrealistically
> ambitious abatement strategies.
>
> “This is so because of the inertia of the climate system, of rapid
> projected economic growth in the near term, and of revisions in several
> elements of the model.
>
> “A target of 2.5C is technically feasible but would require extreme
> virtually universal global policy measures.”
>
> On the other hand,
>
> Michael Man - “I think it is an overstatement to say (as Nordhaus does in
> the abstract) that ‘it will be extremely difficult to achieve the 2C target
> of international agreements even if ambitious policies are introduced in
> the near term’.
>
> “The Paris Agreement has put us on a pathway that can get us there given a
> ratcheting up of the commitments already made by the nations of the word.
>
> “Physics isn't an obstacle, only willpower is, at this point. I'm wary of
> economists’ assumptions about our willpower to take dramatic actions when
> necessary.
>
> “A similar argument to Nordhaus might have been used to argue we couldn't
> possibly mount the mobilisation necessary to win World War II. But we did.
>
> “We've risen to the challenge before, and we can do so here.”
>
> GR -  We could, but climate change seems a way more abstract threat to
> most humans relative to the immediate military threats that were then posed
> by Germany and Japan. Can humans trust scientific predictions and then act
> to protect future generations rather than just focussing on more immediate
> concerns?
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
*ANDREW C. REVKIN*
*ProPublica Senior Reporter
 (*climate and
related issues)
*Mobile: 914-441-5556, @revkin , Facebook
, Music *

-- 
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] Open-Access Review paper: Gas Hydrate Breakdown Unlikely to Cause Massive Greenhouse Gas Release

[Andrew Revkin]

But isn't the prime question - at least the one driving most discussions of
"emergency" actions up north - catastrophic release?

Pretty clear this review damps down that concern, along with the papers
last year pointing to post-2010 methane concentration rise being mainly
tropical/biogenic.

e.g.>
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/why-atmospheric-methane-surging-hint-its-not-fracking



On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Hawkins, Dave  wrote:

> Th bigger risk for it reaching the atmosphere would be from producing it
> commercially.  Congress has directed our DOE to come up with a plan to do
> exactly that.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Ken Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
> https://www.usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-
> cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/full
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/pdf
>
> [image: Reviews of Geophysics]
> 
>
> Review Article The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates
> Carolyn D. Ruppel, John D. Kessler
> Abstract
>
> Gas hydrate, a frozen, naturally-occurring, and highly-concentrated form
> of methane, sequesters significant carbon in the global system and is
> stable only over a range of low-temperature and moderate-pressure
> conditions. Gas hydrate is widespread in the sediments of marine
> continental margins and permafrost areas, locations where ocean and
> atmospheric warming may perturb the hydrate stability field and lead to
> release of the sequestered methane into the overlying sediments and soils.
> Methane and methane-derived carbon that escape from sediments and soils and
> reach the atmosphere could exacerbate greenhouse warming. The synergy
> between warming climate and gas hydrate dissociation feeds a popular
> perception that global warming could drive catastrophic methane releases
> from the contemporary gas hydrate reservoir. Appropriate evaluation of the
> two sides of the climate-methane hydrate synergy requires assessing direct
> and indirect observational data related to gas hydrate dissociation
> phenomena and numerical models that track the interaction of gas
> hydrates/methane with the ocean and/or atmosphere. Methane hydrate is
> likely undergoing dissociation now on global upper continental slopes and
> on continental shelves that ring the Arctic Ocean. Many factors—the depth
> of the gas hydrates in sediments, strong sediment and water column sinks,
> and the inability of bubbles emitted at the seafloor to deliver methane to
> the sea-air interface in most cases—mitigate the impact of gas hydrate
> dissociation on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations though. There is
> no conclusive proof that hydrate-derived methane is reaching the atmosphere
> now, but more observational data and improved numerical models will better
> characterize the climate-hydrate synergy in the future.
>
> Ken Caldeira
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama St
> Stanford CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 <(650)%20704-7212>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> 
>
> Assistant, with access to incoming emails: Jess Barker
> jbar...@carnegiescience.edu
>
> --
> 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.
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
*ANDREW C. REVKIN*
*ProPublica Senior Reporter
 (*climate and
related issues)
*Mobile: 914-441-5556 (Can be encrypted if Signal
 app on your end, too)*
*@revkin , Facebook
, Music *

-- 
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.c

Re: [geo] Help: What do we know and what don't we know about solar geoengineering?

[Andrew Revkin]

Only thing I'd add to Klaus's nice summary is this:

We don't know of a model for decision-making on a global intervention on
any other issue yet that can apply neatly to this kind of action.

- CFC/ozone diplomacy was about mitigating something, not adding something.

- Nuclear test ban same.

So the question isn't just "who decides." It's also who decides how to
decide.

- Andy



[image: --]

Andrew Revkin
[image: https://]about.me/revkin
<https://about.me/revkin?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=chrome_ext>


On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Ken Caldeira <
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> This Sunday evening, I am supposed to help kick off a discussion about
> what we know and what we don't know about solar geoengineering.
>
> https://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=17348
>
> It would be helpful if some people on this group could attempt to answer
> these questions:
>
> *1. What are the most important things we know about solar geoengineering?*
>
> *2. What are the most important things we don't know about solar
> geoengineering?*
>
> I would appreciate it if you could put your answers in the form of bullet
> points and not write essays. It would also help if you could cite a key
> relevant paper or two.
>
> Thanks,
> Ken
>
>
> *Ken Caldeira*
> *Carnegie Institution for Science*
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama St
> Stanford CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 <(650)%20704-7212>
> http://CarnegieEnergyInnovation.org
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab>
>
> Assistant, with access to incoming emails: Jess Barker
> jbar...@carnegiescience.edu
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
*ANDREW C. REVKIN*
*ProPublica Senior Reporter
<https://www.propublica.org/site/author/andrew_revkin> (*climate etc.)
*Mobile: 914-441-5556 **@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music <http://j.mp/revkinmusic>*

-- 
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: [CDR] Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Andrew Revkin]

On Peter's wise input, one other thought.

In ecosystems, there's some evidence that a lack of true "organization" -
meaning coordination, consistency - appears to be a source of resilience.
As Thomas Elmqvist captured as "response diversity"

in a remarkable 2003 paper. I cited it a couple of times in the context of
intense deep divisions over climate change solutions (sift to Elmqvist
mention here

).

Applied to human systems, the notion would be that our variegated responses
to environmental stresses - both at individual (
http://culturalcognition.net ) and societal levels (the difference
between China's
climate/energy planning and ours and Europe's etc.
)
- are adaptive in the best evolutionary sense. (There's only been one peer
reviewed paper
assessing
the social-resilience equivalent so far.)

The result looks disorderly and is full of tensions, but it's totally human
and got us through our mess.. so far..  The alternative - coordinated
planetary 'management' - feels necessary but seems implicitly un-human.


Of course we are entering what feels like uncharted terrain given how much
our environmental potency is outstripping our capacity to understand its
implications on time scales we're not set up to consider fully.. But that's
also the human way, it seems. .



On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Charles Greene  wrote:

> Thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking comments Peter about
> the evolution of human organizations.
>
> On Jan 21, 2018, at 1:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger <
> peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For what it is worth here is my 2 cts
>
> History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other
> living systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased
> social organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer
> groups, villages
> cities , city states , nation states ) . This occurred because it made us
> more fit - face the cahllenges of the time.   The climate change issue is
> amongst other things a recognition of the global impact of our collective
> impacts and that no nation state can provide on their own a solution to the
> challenges we face. Thus there will be over time an inevitable
> globalization of our human systems. Looking back a previous organizations
> with disdain rather than part of our evolutionary history makes no logical
> sense but ignoring the need to change and that change will provide a better
> future is equally misguided .
>
> In my view human knowledge will provide technology to address the
> challenges we face and we will reorganize ourselves over time to be able to
> implement them effectively just as we have in the past reorgnized ourselves
> to address the challenges we faced.
> My view is that this evolutionary path is inevitable because it will make
> us more fit but what is not inevitable , as is the casse in the rest of
> nature , is how much destruction will occur before we change . That in my
> opinion in the challenge to all of us and I truly hope we are up to it.
>
> Finally to be clear whether that global organziation evolves into large
> global  bureaucracies or that stage is a transient organiztion giving way
> to a technology enabled cloud connected bottom up organizations is yet to
> be determined.
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've
>> encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and
>> it's not motivated by publication incentives.
>>
>> There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of
>> various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely
>> everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red
>> through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.
>>
>> Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in
>> institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public
>> services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life
>> experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the
>> vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as
>> inefficient, bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
>>> abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic
>>> realm of “I need to publish”, and eve

Re: [geo] My CNN geoengineering question to Sen. Cory Booker

[Andrew Revkin]

 personal
> honorarium. We hope this event will provide a valuable public service by
> increasing public knowledge on key climate change issues and also bringing
> together scientists from all perspectives to facilitate greater future
> cooperation and scientific advancement.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Frank Lasée
>
> President
>
> The Heartland Institute
>
>
>
> *EMAIL SENT BY:*
>
> Jim Lakely
>
> Director of Communications
>
> The Heartland Institute
>
> 3939 North Wilke Road
>
> Arlington Heights, IL 60004
>
> o: 312-377-4000
>
> f: 312-277-4122
>
> c: 312-731-9364
>
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/d18c8eaf-fd05-2fbe-8de8-fb90b6ac745f%40envsci.rutgers.edu
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/d18c8eaf-fd05-2fbe-8de8-fb90b6ac745f%40envsci.rutgers.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
*ANDREW REVKIN*
*Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability*
*The Earth Institute, Columbia University*

*+1 914.441.5556 phone/whatsapp, @revkin Twitter*
*@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music
<http://j.mp/revkinmusic>, Books
<https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Revkin/e/B001IXNSRK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390325965&sr=1-2-ent>*

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtaq_t9o_0%3Dz4kU2rFXAGCtZ4cqgqOh-rMDp2ZAMscO92g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”

[Andrew Revkin]

If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way toward
spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this Rosenthal,
Linsley, Oppo work:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner  wrote:

> If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will
> stop soon.  If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess
> Greenhouse gases, then this excess temperature will be with us a long
> time.  Solomon et al claimed it is 1000 years.
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: * on behalf of E Durbrow <
> durb...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"durb...@gmail.com" 
> *Date: *Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:09 PM
> *To: *"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
> *Subject: *[geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
>
>
>
> Alan Robock wrote: "Certainly if we stop burning fossil fuels, global
> warming will not stop immediately, but it will stop soon. “
>
>
>
> As a layperson, my understanding is that even if fossil fuels burning
> stops tomorrow, warming and acidification will continue for decades rather
> than years. This is because of 2 centuries of greenhouse gas build-up (and
> greenhouse contributions from agriculture).
>
>
>
> Would some kind soul tell me that I’m wrong here?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAFxkD2qeQ%2BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_geoengineering_CAFxkD2qeQ-252BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-2D8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw-2540mail.gmail.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=283VuYyS0Fv76OSFAT5br_V5oo3ALL3bD_tuP2IH0d0&s=JbtWshirTPWzP32RWMjN8dIXKtEyHwnQU7kzaIzFI88&e=>
> .
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3A79B8CB-E38D-422D-957A-F1A4D5527854%40exchange.asu.edu
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3A79B8CB-E38D-422D-957A-F1A4D5527854%40exchange.asu.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
*ANDREW REVKIN*
*Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability*
*The Earth Institute, Columbia University*

*+1 914.441.5556 phone/whatsapp, @revkin Twitter*
*@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music
<http://j.mp/revkinmusic>, Books
<https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Revkin/e/B001IXNSRK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390325965&sr=1-2-ent>*

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BakwtZCs8_OUOKdQV694nXYQJrdcNjSMRweRXhRXahyt37ktA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Al Gore: climate engineering research reckless and wack-a-doodle

[Andrew Revkin]

Yes, keep in mind it took Al Gore nearly 20 years to accept that climate
*adaptation* was not a "form of laziness" (as he wrote in 1992) and has to
be pursued as vigorously as CO2 mitigation.
Wrote on this in Nat Geo: http://j.mp/adaptationrises

Not surprised it will take longer for him to be more nuanced on SRM - at
least on examining it carefully.


On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:03 PM E Durbrow  wrote:

> So there is a TED interview with Al Gore. His response (rant?) on climate
> engineering (he seems to mean SRM but also marine climate interventions)
> begins at minute 27. But do keep listening to the interview for the next
> 10min. The interview, Chris Anderson, pushes back and tries to see if Gore
> has a more nuanced view on climate engineering. He doesn’t. Note: he
> doesn't approve of even research.
>
>
> https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change/transcript
>
> Me: The interviewer seems to me more rational about climate intervention
> than his interviewee. He calls for an adult conversation after Gore's rant.
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/14cbe067-e266-4e6a-ba89-94d2a44f1530o%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/14cbe067-e266-4e6a-ba89-94d2a44f1530o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
*ANDREW REVKIN*
*Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability*
*The Earth Institute, Columbia University*
*Sustain What webcast* <http://j.mp/sustainwhatlive>
*+1 914.441.5556 phone, @revkin Twitter*
*@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music
<http://j.mp/revkinmusic>, Books
<https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Revkin/e/B001IXNSRK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390325965&sr=1-2-ent>*

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BakwtYTyL%3D9mxPW0KPKB%2BY%2BY3ZfXR72q43u89M6L4PnaE%2BwJw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Senior scholars?

[Andrew Revkin]

e from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/033601d80f3d%241ef64f70%245ce2ee50%24%40yahoo.com.au
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/033601d80f3d%241ef64f70%245ce2ee50%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6E6F2258-A936-41AD-841E-CFAE3A03C2D7%40sbcglobal.net
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6E6F2258-A936-41AD-841E-CFAE3A03C2D7%40sbcglobal.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
*ANDREW REVKIN*
*Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability*
*Columbia University Climate School*
*Sustain What newsletter <http://revkin.bulletin.com>*
*Sustain What webcast* <http://j.mp/sustainwhatlive>
*+1 914.441.5556 phone, @revkin Twitter*
*@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music
<http://j.mp/revkinmusic>, Books
<https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Revkin/e/B001IXNSRK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390325965&sr=1-2-ent>*

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtb8K9G1OfyVMvABhDqMxQWC31kcqd0iKaidpxF84Gm4Yg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] IPCC AR6 WG2 - Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

[Andrew Revkin]

Oddly there's a section on SRM in the summary for policymakers - I would
have assumed that would belog in the Working Group 3 report Here's my
take:

https://revkin.bulletin.com/un-climate-panel-says-nations-must-boost-resilience-even-as-they-cut-heating-gases

Geoengineering - The report includes a short critique of climate
engineering, specifically proposals that would artificially add aerosols to
the atmosphere to reflect some sunlight back to space, offsetting some
warming. There's been a rising tide of opposition to "solar radiation
management," most notably a recent call by hundreds of scientists for an
international "non-use agreement."
<https://l.bulletin.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.solargeoeng.org%2F&h=AT1xjPZlAkGoq9GQT3v6kRdWkQ4a6JCnV0-NaLyq_DMSLfSEPaaO6fvEPD0avQ0gqBqLZH7P6NjavnblL4TpE2BuZcoHx_bdCfkFawrMaC7Dd1PcmYPL-Sa0skR55SD_jIlrKvUCaA>

I'm not sure why this form of geoengineering made it into the adaptation
report. Blocking sunlight is a form of warming mitigation and any
assessment really belongs in next month's report on policies for slowing
warming. Here are points the adaptation-report authors describe as having
high confidence:

Solar radiation modification approaches, if they were to be implemented,
introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which
are not well understood. Solar radiation modification approaches have
potential to offset warming and ameliorate some climate hazards, but
substantial residual climate change or overcompensating change would occur
at regional scales and seasonal timescales. Large uncertainties and
knowledge gaps are associated with the potential of solar radiation
modification approaches to reduce climate change risks. Solar radiation
modification would not stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations from increasing
or reduce resulting ocean acidification under continued anthropogenic
emissions.

For what it's worth, I predict a non-use agreement on solar radiation
management will never happen. But if it did it would indirectly chill
important research on aerosols' climate impacts in the atmosphere, just as
a push to stop rogue iron-seeding tests in the ocean killed support for
more careful scientific research on the matter. A decade was lost, although new
efforts are planned
<https://www.science.org/content/article/draw-down-carbon-and-cool-planet-ocean-fertilization-gets-another-look>
.

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:28 AM Renaud de RICHTER <
renaud.derich...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
> The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
> assesses the impacts of climate change, looking at ecosystems,
> biodiversity, and human communities at global and regional levels. It also
> reviews vulnerabilities and the capacities and limits of the natural world
> and human societies to adapt to climate change.
> Full report (about 3700 pages)
> https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
>
> Technical summary (about 100 p)
>
> https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf
>
> Summary for Policymakers (about 40 p)
> https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn982odrbvYsxqhvZjzHySfouEa1wbu6DyuyV3jXwLeW7nw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn982odrbvYsxqhvZjzHySfouEa1wbu6DyuyV3jXwLeW7nw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>


-- 
*ANDREW REVKIN*
*Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability*
*Columbia University Climate School*
*Sustain What newsletter <http://revkin.bulletin.com>*
*Sustain What webcast* <http://j.mp/sustainwhatlive>
*+1 914.441.5556 phone, @revkin Twitter*
*@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music
<http://j.mp/revkinmusic>, Books
<https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Revkin/e/B001IXNSRK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390325965&sr=1-2-ent>*

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2Bakwtb%3DnU0YmYcBJ%3DLcg%2B6thjDby7_1WweCuqCADHb-sfKE9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: As Western Pressure Builds, Putin's Nuclear Threat is Easy to Overplay or Write Off, But Can't be Ig...

[Andrew Revkin]

Dear all,

I've got Alan Robock, Brian Toon, Paul and Anne Ehrlich coming on my
Sustain What webcast tomorrow - *March 3 - at 1pm Eastern* to talk about
the new nuclear war threat in the context of nuclear winter science. *Putin’s
Nuclear Threat – Global Implications and Options*
https://www.earth.columbia.edu/videos/view/putin-s-nuclear-threat-global-implications-and-options

Here's the related story:



Thirty-seven years after I first wrote about the global threat of a
"nuclear winter" triggered by a nuclear war, I can't believe I have to
revisit this. But such is the nature of these times.

Sustain What
<https://www.facebook.com/bulletin_community_platforms/notif/link/?ndid=Y0YMTY0NjI2NTI4NjY1MjkwMDp6OGNldXdwZm9iOW1peHFvZ3lkb2V4djJ2a2l4OWJweWh6YzJ4eHBrdDFwYTViMGV3eEBkZXZudWxsLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbToxMzA4MQ&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Frevkin.bulletin.com%2F%3Fsource%3Demail¬if_type=voices_publish&link_type=cta_to_publication&source=email>

*I would love your help expanding the Sustain What community, particularly
to students and educators. Here's **the page to send around
<http://j.mp/revkinbulletin>**.* (My dispatches will always be free so
those who need information the most can get it.)


As Western Pressure Builds, Putin's Nuclear Threat is Easy to Overplay or
Write Off, But Can't be Ignored
<https://www.facebook.com/bulletin_community_platforms/notif/link/?ndid=Y0YMTY0NjI2NTI4NjY1MjkwMDp6OGNldXdwZm9iOW1peHFvZ3lkb2V4djJ2a2l4OWJweWh6YzJ4eHBrdDFwYTViMGV3eEBkZXZudWxsLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbToxMzA4MQ&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Frevkin.bulletin.com%2Fthe-putin-nuclear-threat-cant-be-ignored%2F%3Fsource%3Demail¬if_type=voices_publish&link_type=cta_to_article&source=email>

Thirty-seven years after I first wrote about the global threat of a
"nuclear winter" triggered by a nuclear war, I can't believe I have to
revisit this. But such is the nature of these times.


Andrew Revkin
Mar 02


*Please **SUBSCRIBE <https://revkin.bulletin.com/subscribe>* to receive my
posts by email (content always free so no one is left out). Spread word to
friends by sending an email here
.
Join my live Sustain What session Thursday May 3, 1 p.m. U.S. E.T.: *Putin’s
Nuclear Threat – Global Implications and Options
<https://www.earth.columbia.edu/videos/view/putin-s-nuclear-threat-global-implications-and-options>*

Students in Brooklyn in a "take cover" drill in 1962 (Library of Congress)

I want to hear from you, especially those, like me, who grew up when
elementary school kids streamed into basements as six bells rang (at least
that's the bell count I vaguely recall, distinct from fire drills). And I'd
like to hear from those who've grown up facing pandemics and recessions and
Capitol insurrections but not the prospect of nuclear war.

What is your sense of this moment as the world rises in opposition to
Vladimir Putin's relentless escalation of his atrocities in Ukraine?

Have you, like me, paused to think about the implications if this invasion
cascades outward into a wider ground war in Europe, or if Putin, cut off
from reality and seeing his domestic power base potentially weaken, makes
good on his ratcheting nuclear threat?

I should be writing today about the steps taken in a United Nations meeting
in Nairobi toward a global accord limiting plastic pollution
<https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/biggest-green-deal-since-paris-un-approve-plastic-treaty-roadmap-2022-03-02/>,
or about deeper details of this week's big report on climate change impacts
and adaptation
<https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-how-politics-not-climate-change-is-responsible-for-disasters-and-conflict-178071>
options.

But instead I'm taking a step back to reflect on nuclear peril - the
ultimate example of humanity's tendency to be "a technical giant and an
ethical child,
<https://revkin.medium.com/when-data-and-values-met-at-the-vatican-cf35e6f99153>"
as a cardinal proposed during a Vatican conference on sustainability in
2014.

As a host of geopolitical and military analysts have been writing and
tweeting, the prospect remains remote that Putin will step beyond deploying
Russia's forbidding arsenal of conventional weapons to a nuclear assault.

But the odds are not zero. Keep in mind there are many options for him,
weapon-wise, beyond ballistic salvos, as Heritage Foundation researchers
Peter Brooks and Patty-Jane Geller wrote last month in a Daily Signal
article titled "Russia’s Small Nukes Are a Big Problem
<https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/02/01/russias-small-nukes-are-a-big-problem/>."
Several thousand "tactical" nuclear weapons are at hand. And keep in mind
that war comes with chaos, and that means mistakes.

The problem of course is that such weapons implicitly cross a line
uncrossed in three generations. As former Secretary of Defense Jam

[geo] Fwd: [preview] Yes, nuclear winter is back and more unnerving than ever. Please pass this along.

[Andrew Revkin]

New piece on atmospheric/climate impacts should Putin unleash a limited
nuclear attack. Includes MacCracken caveats, Paul Ehrlich, Alan Robock,
Brian Toon and much more.

Please weigh in here or in the post comment thread (the latter helps
elevate the piece out there in Google search etc.)

https://revkin.bulletin.com/as-putin-s-nuclear-brinkmanship-continues-nuclear-winter-risk-rises




Putin's Ukraine Escalation Prompts Fresh Urgency on "Nuclear Winter" and
U.S. Nuclear Posture
<https://www.facebook.com/bulletin_community_platforms/notif/link/?ndid=Y0YMTY0NjQyNDQzMzg1MzI4NzpjbzBkcWlhMHhvaGxjNWphbzNjdHltZWo1OWF3cnZyNXR3Ymc3NDR3a2JpbDcxZHNiZ0BkZXZudWxsLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbToxNjg5Mg&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Frevkin.bulletin.com%2Fas-putin-s-nuclear-brinkmanship-continues-nuclear-winter-risk-rises%2F%3Fsource%3Demail¬if_type=voices_article_preview&link_type=cta_to_article&source=email>

In the Cold War, scientists found fires from a nuclear war could loft so
much smoke high into the rainless stratosphere that solar dimming could
spawn famine. Lately, the science has strengthened.


Andrew Revkin
Mar 04


*Please **SUBSCRIBE <https://revkin.bulletin.com/subscribe>** to receive my
posts by email (content always free). Spread word to friends by **sending
an email here
*
*.*
Phrase of the week - "deconfliction hotline"

As Vladimir Putin's horrific war on Ukraine intensifies, there have been
flashes of what counts as good news these days.

Late in the week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon and
Russian counterparts established a *
<https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/u-s-russia-establish-hotline-to-avoid-accidental-conflict-hPUjy4NlEcA2SE6kCwHO>
<https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/u-s-russia-establish-hotline-to-avoid-accidental-conflict-hPUjy4NlEcA2SE6kCwHO>"deconfliction
hotlin
<https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/u-s-russia-establish-hotline-to-avoid-accidental-conflict-hPUjy4NlEcA2SE6kCwHO>*econfliction
hotline," a communication portal, also used around the Syrian conflict,
aimed at avoiding spiraling missteps. Such circuit breakers are an
essential way to limit odds of accidental escalation - one of the *three
flavors of war escalation
<https://revkin.bulletin.com/the-putin-nuclear-threat-cant-be-ignored>* I
wrote about earlier this week.

And the fire reported at the largest nuclear power plant
<https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/>
in Europe was actually at a training facility outside the plant perimeter,
not that this reduces deep concern about Russia's capacity to unleash holy
hell in its messy surge into a country with 15 power-plant nuclear reactors
and the wreckage of Chernobyl. (Follow *James Acton
<https://carnegieendowment.org/experts/434>* of the nuclear program at
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for more and read his piece on
Ukraine's nuclear status
<https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nuclear-danger-in-ukraine-isn-t-chernobyl-pub-86521>
.)

President Joe Biden is *
<https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/the-ukraine-invasion-highlights-why-bidens-nuclear-posture-review-should-endorse-bold-new-vision-for-nuclear-security/>poised
to update the United States N
<https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/the-ukraine-invasion-highlights-why-bidens-nuclear-posture-review-should-endorse-bold-new-vision-for-nuclear-security/>*uclear
Posture Review. I hope Putin's aggression doesn't sway the administration
to give up on some of Biden's earlier pledges to focus on deterrence and
arms reduction. But with the midterms and 2024 in mind, I wouldn't count on
this. And history has shown how difficult it is for any president to
counter the pull of politics and path dependency and the self-sustaining
power of the military-industrial complex. See the readings below for some
invaluable guidance.
Nuclear winter is back

The prime focus worldwide has to be on finding ways to counter or slow
Putin's unprovoked Ukraine invasion and help the millions of Ukrainians
whose lives are imperiled or up-ended.

And it's equally vital to support those in Russia courageously protesting
against this war crime. (I hope science organizations are trying to protect
Oleg Anisimov, who was threatened with "oblivion"
<https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/1498300847138217984> by a Putin crony
after he spoke against the invasion at last weekend's meeting approving the
latest United Nations climate report
<https://revkin.bulletin.com/un-climate-panel-says-nations-must-boost-resilience-even-as-they-cut-heating-gases>
.)
Twitter
See @Revkin's post on Twitter.
twitter.com/Revkin
<https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/1498294

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT Technology Review

[Andrew Revkin]

 Solar geoengineering is no more controversial than ocean iron
>> fertilization, given that both are under a de facto ban on field research.
>>
>>
>>
>> The article comments that “if it brightened marine clouds, it would
>> likely draw greater scrutiny given the sensitivity around geoengineering
>> approaches that aim to achieve cooling by reflecting away sunlight.”  It
>> may prove to be the case that ISA could only be deployed by an
>> intergovernmental planetary cooling agreement of the scale of the Bretton
>> Woods Agreement of 1944 to establish the IMF and World Bank.  In that
>> governance scenario, the scrutiny placed on all cooling technologies will
>> be intense regardless of the balance of effects between brightening and
>> greenhouse gas removal.
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree with the scientists quoted in the article who oppose field
>> tests. That is a dangerous and complacent attitude, failing to give due
>> weight to the risks of sudden tipping points that can only be prevented by
>> albedo enhancement and GHG removal at scale.  Learning by doing is the most
>> safe and effective strategy.  If there are unexpected effects it is easy to
>> stop the trials.  The only risk of well governed field tests is that they
>> would provide information to justify a slower transition from fossil
>> fuels.  On balance that is not a serious risk, given that emissions are
>> expected to continue regardless of climate concerns.  Cooling technologies
>> are essential to balance the ongoing heating, the sooner the better.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was pleased that the article included my comment that our company
>> decided not to pursue our ISA field test proposal because the overall
>> political governance framework is not ready to support this form of
>> geoengineering.  This illustrates that strategic discussion of ethics and
>> governance will need to be far more advanced before any geoengineering
>> deployment is possible. I explored these moral themes in a recent discussion
>> note
>> <https://pdfhost.io/v/nn85Rgk.g_Moral_Perspectives_on_Climate_Policy>
>> published by the Healthy Planet Action Coalition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Tulip
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to healthy-climate-alliance+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7f4ac2e8-d38b-bf1d-7563-2f27cb5c6c88%40comcast.net
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7f4ac2e8-d38b-bf1d-7563-2f27cb5c6c88%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
-- 
___
ANDREW REVKIN
Climate Communication Advisor
Columbia Climate School
http://sustcomm.ei.columbia.edu
Subscribe to my Sustain What dispatch
https://revkin.Substack.com

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BakwtYfDsA1ifb4wacO_Q_RaFV0UZCCP4hoX3jDo0kce5jF7Q%40mail.gmail.com.