[geo] Heterogeneous ice nucleation ability of crystalline NaCl dihydrate particles - Wagner - 2013 - JGR Atmospheres - Wiley

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : of particular relevance to marine cloud brightening

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50325/abstract

Keywords:

heterogeneous ice nucleation;sodium chloride dihydrate;sea salt aerosol

Abstract

The aerosol and cloud chamber AIDA (Aerosol Interactions and Dynamics in
the Atmosphere) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology has been used to
quantify the deposition mode ice nucleation ability of airborne crystalline
sodium chloride dihydrate (NaCl ∙ 2H2O) particles with median diameters
between 0.06 and 1.1 µm. For this purpose, expansion cooling experiments
with starting temperatures from 235 to 216 K were conducted. Recently,
supermicron-sized NaCl ∙ 2H2O particles deposited onto a surface have been
observed to be ice-active in the deposition mode at temperatures below 238
K, requiring a median threshold ice saturation ratio of only 1.02 in the
range from 238 to 221 K. In AIDA, heterogeneous ice nucleation by NaCl ∙
2H2O was first detected at a temperature of 227.1 K with a concomitant
threshold ice saturation ratio of 1.25. Above that temperature, the
crystallized salt particles underwent a deliquescence transition to form
aqueous NaCl solution droplets upon increasing relative humidity. At
nucleation temperatures below 225 K, the inferred threshold ice saturation
ratios varied between 1.15 and 1.20. The number concentration of the
nucleated ice crystals was related to the surface area of the seed aerosol
particles to deduce the ice nucleation active surface site (INAS) density
of the aerosol population as a function of the ice supersaturation. Maximum
INAS densities of about 6 ⋅ 1010 m−2 at an ice saturation ratio of 1.20
were found for temperatures below 225 K. These INAS densities are similar
to those recently derived for deposition mode ice nucleation on mineral
dust particles.

-- 
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] ACP - Abstract - Depositional ice nucleation onto crystalline hydrated NaCl particles: a new mechanism for ice formation in the troposphere

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : may be relevant to marine cloud brightening and cirrus
stripping geoengineering techniques

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/1121/2012/acp-12-1121-2012.html

Abstract
Sea-salt aerosol (SSA) particles are ubiquitous in the marine boundary
layer and over coastal areas. Therefore SSA have ability to directly and
indirectly affect the Earth's radiation balance. The influence SSA have on
climate is related to their water uptake and ice nucleation
characteristics. In this study, optical microscopy coupled with Raman
spectroscopy was used to detect the formation of a crystalline NaCl hydrate
that could form under atmospheric conditions. NaCl(s) particles (~1 to 10
μm in diameter) deliquesced at 75.7 ± 2.5% RH which agrees well with values
previously established in the literature. NaCl(aq) particles effloresced to
a mixture of hydrated and non-hydrated particles at temperatures between
236 and 252 K. The aqueous particles effloresced into the non-hydrated form
at temperatures warmer than 252 K. At temperatures colder than 236 K all
particles effloresced into the hydrated form. The deliquescence relative
humidities (DRH) of hydrated NaCl(s)particles ranged from 76.6 to 93.2% RH.
Based on the measured DRH and efflorescence relative humidities (ERH), we
estimate crystalline NaCl particles could be in the hydrated form 40-80% of
the time in the troposphere. Additionally, the ice nucleating abilities of
NaCl(s) and hydrated NaCl(s) were determined at temperatures ranging from
221 to 238 K. Here, depositional ice nucleation is defined as the onset of
ice nucleation and represents the conditions at which the first particle on
the substrate nucleated ice. Thus the values reported here represent the
lower limit of depositional ice nucleation. NaCl(s) particles
depositionally nucleated ice at an average Sice value of 1.11 ± 0.07.
Hydrated NaCl(s) particles depositionally nucleated ice at an
average Sice value of 1.02 ± 0.04. When a mixture of hydrated and anhydrous
NaCl(s) particles was present in the same sample, ice preferentially
nucleated on the hydrated particles 100% of the time. While both types of
particles are efficient ice nuclei, hydrated NaCl(s) particles are better
ice nuclei than NaCl(s) particles.

Citation:
Wise, M. E., Baustian, K. J., Koop, T., Freedman, M. A., Jensen, E. J., and
Tolbert, M. A.: Depositional ice nucleation onto crystalline hydrated NaCl
particles: a new mechanism for ice formation in the troposphere, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 12, 1121-1134, doi:10.5194/acp-12-1121-2012, 2012.

-- 
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] Artificial Photosynthesis – The Future of Carbon Dioxide Removal?

[Oliver Tickell]

Why the concern over removing carbon dioxide? The important thing about 
such technology is that it produces hydrogen directly, which can in turn 
be stored and used to generate electricity or propel vehicles in its own 
right, or used as feedstock for methane  or ammonia production. In this 
way it will displace fossil fuels and lead to less CO2 being emitted. 
Oliver.


On 09/07/2013 22:18, Andrew Lockley wrote:


Article link
http://www.ecopedia.com/environment/artificial-photosynthesis-the-future-of-carbon-dioxide-removal-in-solar-forests/

Paper link
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl401615t

In a May, 2013 paper in NANO Letters, titled “A Fully Integrated 
Nanosystem of Semiconductor Nanowires for Direct Solar Water 
Splitting.” With co-authors are Chong Liu, Jinyao Tang, Hao Ming Chen 
and Bin Liu, Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have reported the 
first fully integrated nanosystem for artificial photosynthesis. The 
article is about as fun to read as the title, but it makes a very 
clear point – artificial photosynthesis is not only possible, it can 
potentially be done at even greater efficiency than by the plants it 
is based on. The research is based on solar cells that split water 
molecules and combine them with airborne carbon dioxide to produce the 
simple sugar glucose and oxygen. Peidong Yang, a chemist with Berkeley 
Lab’s Materials Sciences Division, explains it like this, “The 
photo-generated electrons in the silicon nanowires migrate to the 
surface and reduce protons to generate hydrogen while the 
photo-generated holes in the titanium oxide nanowires oxidize water to 
evolve oxygen molecules. The majority charge carriers from both 
semiconductors recombine at the ohmic contact, completing the relay of 
the Z-scheme, similar to that of natural photosynthesis.” In English, 
the artificial photosynthesis cells are comprised of two sides, one 
made of titanium oxide and the other of silicon. There are also a host 
of co-catalysts that help the process get started. Each cell works 
almost identically to a standard solar voltaic cell, but instead of 
using the displaced electron to create a current, it uses the electron 
to chemically adjust the structure of molecules in the cell. The 
photosynthesis inside the artificial leaf structures is currently not 
very efficient; in fact it is a paltry 12% efficient. That’s slightly 
lower than the efficiency of plants. Up to this point, all such 
projects have been focused on a single solar leaf. This is the first 
successful attempt at creating a viable network of integrated leaves 
that act in a similar manner as trees. The total output of the system 
was similar to that of a 10 ft. Maple tree. This could be a hugely 
important advance in solar technology as it has the potential to 
remove the need for inverters or batteries in solar applications. The 
solar leaf will produce a storable energy and remove carbon dioxide 
from the air. This would allow the installation of solar leaves in 
areas where traditional battery storage systems are not feasible. At 
the current efficiency level, it doesn’t make sense to pursue this 
technology, but there are several carbon reducing catalysts that, in 
theory, should be able to break the 12% threshold. The only real 
sticking point in the entire artificial photosynthesis game is that 
artificial catalysts are still not able to efficiently utilize carbon 
dioxide in the concentrations that are currently in the atmosphere. 
Until researchers are able to overcome this fundamental issue, even 
the most efficient carbon dioxide transferring solar trees will not be 
feasible on a large scale.


See more at:
http://www.ecopedia.com/environment/artificial-photosynthesis-the-future-of-carbon-dioxide-removal-in-solar-forests/#sthash.PQDVflEm.dpuf

--
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.

[geo] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on "Nitrogen Geoengineering"

[O Morton]

David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as expressed 
in the text, you'll find that I don't agree.

The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen cycle 
did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it 
deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a 
geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, and 
indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed 
purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday 
life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change 
today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no 
easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to 
develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate 
arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some 
of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such.

On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 16:47:30 UTC+1, David Lewis wrote:
>
> If inventing a way to convert nitrogen from air into chemicals qualifies 
> as geoengineering, it isn't even close to being the first example.  I.e. 
> when the first hominid moved the first rock out of the way to get into the 
> first cave, according to Morton's reasoning, geoengineering began.  See: 
> Wilkinson B. H. *Geology 33, 161 - 164 (2005)* *Humans as geologic 
> agents:  A deep-time perspective.*   
>
> From the abstract:  "Humans are now an order of magnitude more important 
> at moving sediment than the sum of all other natural processes operating on 
> the surface of the planet".
>
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:16:29 AM UTC-7, geoengineeringourclimate wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Oli Morton of The Economist has penned an Opinion Article for the 
>> 'Geoengineering Our Climate?' series titled "Nitrogen Geoengineering"
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on "Nitrogen Geoengineering"

[Andrew Lockley]

I maintain that development of techniques for fire clearance, and axes for
deforestation would fit your definition.

I doubt very much that aboriginal hunters in Australia or southern European
farmers lacked the intent to clear land, nor that they only used pre
existing technology. It was clearly done to remove constraints on food
supply.

It's deliberate, it's technological, it's large scale, and it's in response
to food supply constraints - so I believe it fits your definition.

A
On Jul 10, 2013 12:43 PM, "O Morton"  wrote:

> David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as
> expressed in the text, you'll find that I don't agree.
>
> The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen cycle
> did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it
> deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a
> geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, and
> indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed
> purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday
> life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change
> today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no
> easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to
> develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate
> arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some
> of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such.
>
> On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 16:47:30 UTC+1, David Lewis wrote:
>>
>> If inventing a way to convert nitrogen from air into chemicals qualifies
>> as geoengineering, it isn't even close to being the first example.  I.e.
>> when the first hominid moved the first rock out of the way to get into the
>> first cave, according to Morton's reasoning, geoengineering began.  See:
>> Wilkinson B. H. *Geology 33, 161 - 164 (2005)* *Humans as geologic
>> agents:  A deep-time perspective.*
>>
>> From the abstract:  "Humans are now an order of magnitude more important
>> at moving sediment than the sum of all other natural processes operating on
>> the surface of the planet".
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:16:29 AM UTC-7, geoengineeringourclimate wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> Oli Morton of The Economist has penned an Opinion Article for the
>>> 'Geoengineering Our Climate?' series titled "Nitrogen Geoengineering"
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
> 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.

[geo] FB group: summer schools on climate geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

For those interested in networking prior to the Harvard geoengineering
session, or for those who have attended summer schools in the past or may
attend in the future, Hollie Roberts at Harvard recommends this group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/214837068555382/



---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080

-- 
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] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on "Nitrogen Geoengineering"

[Fred Zimmerman]

Isn't Oliver's definition:

was developed purposefully i*n response to a threat*, which, *while not
obvious in everyday life, had been identified by the scientific
elite.*Like climate change today
*, that threat was seen as being of global significance* and* to have no
easily attainable political solution. *


I am not crazy about "identified by the scientific elite", I would prefer
the more objective and more accurate "scientific method" -- it's not the
eliteness that gives the threat credibility, it's the method.

---
Fred Zimmerman
Geoengineering IT!
Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080


On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> I maintain that development of techniques for fire clearance, and axes for
> deforestation would fit your definition.
>
> I doubt very much that aboriginal hunters in Australia or southern
> European farmers lacked the intent to clear land, nor that they only used
> pre existing technology. It was clearly done to remove constraints on food
> supply.
>
> It's deliberate, it's technological, it's large scale, and it's in
> response to food supply constraints - so I believe it fits your definition.
>
> A
> On Jul 10, 2013 12:43 PM, "O Morton"  wrote:
>
>> David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as
>> expressed in the text, you'll find that I don't agree.
>>
>> The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen cycle
>> did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it
>> deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a
>> geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, and
>> indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed
>> purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday
>> life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change
>> today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no
>> easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to
>> develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate
>> arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some
>> of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such.
>>
>> On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 16:47:30 UTC+1, David Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>> If inventing a way to convert nitrogen from air into chemicals qualifies
>>> as geoengineering, it isn't even close to being the first example.  I.e.
>>> when the first hominid moved the first rock out of the way to get into the
>>> first cave, according to Morton's reasoning, geoengineering began.  See:
>>> Wilkinson B. H. *Geology 33, 161 - 164 (2005)* *Humans as geologic
>>> agents:  A deep-time perspective.*
>>>
>>> From the abstract:  "Humans are now an order of magnitude more important
>>> at moving sediment than the sum of all other natural processes operating on
>>> the surface of the planet".
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:16:29 AM UTC-7, geoengineeringourclimate
>>> wrote:

 Dear colleagues,

 Oli Morton of The Economist has penned an Opinion Article for the
 'Geoengineering Our Climate?' series titled "Nitrogen Geoengineering"


  --
>> 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
>

-- 
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] Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineering on cirrus clouds - Kuebbeler - 2012 - GRL - Wiley, open access

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : important paper, shows we may need much more aerosol than
predicted.  However, this isn't directly compared to other estimates in the
paper.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053797/full

Keywords
aerosol effects;cirrus clouds;geo-engineeringJump to…

Abstract

[1] Cooling the Earth through the injection of sulphate into the
stratosphere is one of the most discussed geo-engineering (GE) schemes.
Stratospheric aerosols can sediment into the troposphere, modify the
aerosol composition and thus might impact cirrus clouds. We use a global
climate model with a physically based parametrization for cirrus clouds in
order to investigate possible microphysical and dynamical effects. We find
that enhanced stratospheric aerosol loadings as proposed by several GE
approaches will likely lead to a reduced ice crystal nucleation rate and
thus optically thinner cirrus clouds. These optically thinner cirrus clouds
exert a strong negative cloud forcing in the long-wave which contributes by
60% to the overall net GE forcing. This shows that indirect effects of
stratospheric aerosols on cirrus clouds may be important and need to be
considered in order to estimate the maximum cooling derived from
stratospheric GE.

-- 
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] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on "Nitrogen Geoengineering"

[David Lewis]

I wonder why it should matter who identified the problem or who thought of 
the solution, i.e. a member or members of the scientific elite.  Why should 
it matter whether the perceived problem is obvious to the person on the 
street?  And whether the proposed solution or any solution other than the 
proposed geoengineering scheme can be implemented easily by the existing 
political order or not seems irrelevant.  

Phil Rausch recently gave a talk entitled Geoengineering at the AGU Chapman 
conference on Communicating Climate Science (available 
*here*) 
where he referred to geoengineering as "the introduction of climate change 
deliberately rather than carelessly", which seems to be at the heart of 
what the word means to actively researching contemporary climatologists.  

Bringing the nitrogen cycle up while discussing geoengineering seems useful 
as a way to talk about the fact that humans have had an impact on the 
planet for some time, but the question is, does it advance the debate to 
include it as geoengineering now?  

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:43:49 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:
>
> David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as 
> expressed in the text, you'll find that I don't agree.
>
> The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen cycle 
> did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it 
> deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a 
> geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, and 
> indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed 
> purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday 
> life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change 
> today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no 
> easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to 
> develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate 
> arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some 
> of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such.
>
>

-- 
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] Re: The governonsense of climate engineering

[Michael Hayes]

Hi Folks,
 
If the need for a formalized and science backed GE advocacy is left 
un-answered much longer, it may simply take GE off the table completely. 
ETC pulls in over $1M of donations per year on this one issue and its staff 
of journalist are well aware of the value in selling hype to those they 
solicit money from. And, *money does buy legitimacy*, is there any surprise 
here?
Going up against such a group as ETC will be like nailing Jello to the wall 
(messy, not pretty and endlessly repetitive) and no academic institution 
will want to waddle into that feted mud pit.
I recommend that a non-profit group be formed for proper GE advocacy as 
soon as possible. I believe this was proposed in this forum over 2 years 
ago. The upcoming changes to the London Protocol will be an important test 
for the future of GE as a field of study. A de facto control over the 
future of this issue is being erected and it is not based upon science. It 
is based upon yellow journalism and the fear that sells such garbage. 
It takes 4 people to form a 501 (c)(3) and around $3K. The organization 
could be in place and operational well before the LP is changed. With 501 
(c)(3) standing, those that are concerned about catastrophic climate change 
can have their voices heard with equal authority as those that support ETC. 
We have to face the fact that an "idea" can not compete with a well funded 
groupwho
 has no true obligation to the truth or the future of our planet. Their 
only verifiable obligation is to paying the bills needed to stay in 
business!! The "idea" needs its own well funded support group or it will be 
ether defeated, severly minimized or simply used as a money press for those 
like ETC.
 
Best,
Michael  

On Friday, July 5, 2013 3:31:38 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote:

> http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/the-governonsense-of-climate-engineering/
>
> At the environmental policy forum “The International Governance of Climate 
> Engineering”, held by The Institute for European Studies in Brussels on 
> June 28, opinions differed on how European policymakers should react to the 
> emerging field of climate engineering. Climate engineering refers to the 
> deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter the effects of 
> climate change (e.g. through blocking/reducing solar radiation in the upper 
> atmosphere or enhancing the uptake of carbon dioxide through ocean 
> ‘fertilization’).Ralph Bodle, Senior Fellow at the Ecologic Institute of 
> Berlin first presented his report, which suggested that the Convention on 
> Biological Diversity (CBD) might serve as a overarching but not supervisory 
> central institution for all climate engineering matters. Jacob Werksman, 
> the Principal Advisor of the European Commission’s DG Climate Action 
> disagreed, stating that the CBD was dominated by NGOs and developing 
> countries but not respected by countries that are not part of the CBD, such 
> as the US. He suggested the UNFCCC because of a more global membership and 
> it’s great ability to create new institutions. The argument against 
> introducing this discussing in the UNFCCC is the risk of a moral hazard 
> where there will always be some countries trying to use the opportunity of 
> geo-engineering to do less mitigation. The same can be expected for the 
> public opinion: why invest in climate mitigation of some technological fix 
> saves us from all the effort?Jacob Werksman was keen to stress that for 
> those reasons the EC did not have an explicit position on climate 
> engineering. It did not want to undermine the already difficult 
> negotiations in the UNFCCC and it did want to underline the multiple 
> co-benefits of a climate mitigation policy – on work and health for 
> example. But none of the speakers were talking about an international ban 
> on climate engineering. While Jacob Werksman talked about a de facto ban 
> with exceptions for research, Ralph Bodle said that deployment is an 
> inevitable part of that research. Both stated that any exception to the 
> rule of not doing climate engineering should be considered “with great 
> care”.However, there was agreement in the room on the high political risk 
> of any climate engineering experiment, especially if it has trans-boundary 
> effects. When we asked if there was any research on conflicts or tensions 
> related to climate engineering, Ralph Bodle said it was too early for that 
> because there had been few geo-engineering experiments so far. When we 
> remembered him of Iran’s unfounded claim that Europe had ‘manipulated 
> clouds’ and thus created a drought in Iran he did remember the case and 
> added examples from Israël, China and the Indian subcontinent – where 
> tensions rose either because of an unfounded claim or a real experiment 
> that did not even have a proven impact (China). Other conflicts c

[geo] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on "Nitrogen Geoengineering"

[O Morton]

@ Andrew -- There is a continuum here, but i would distinguish 
"large-scale" and "global", and note that global effects of clearance on 
climate (as opposed to homogocene issues) not large, or even necessarily 
noticeable

@ Fred -- method might be nice -- but read Crookes, the key document here, 
and the scientific method is not obvious. The fact that he was speaking to 
and trying to speak for a scientific elite matters, I think. Remember a key 
part of Bolin's plan for IPCC was to get global buy in to elite scientific 
view. Also note that I do not see elite in this context as pejorative, 
merely descriptive

@ David -- Not quite sure why the existing political order is irrelevant, 
but in general i agree with Phil's informal definition -- except that I 
don't think limate is the only thing that can be geoengineered/ "Change to 
teh way the earth system works made deliberately not carelessly" would suit 
me fine. And I don't think introduction of agriculture was intended 
deliberately to change the earth system, while nitrogen was, to a 
significant extent. Green revolution is, after all, an expression of global 
geopolitics, named is specific opposition to the "red revolution"

On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 17:38:45 UTC+1, David Lewis wrote:
>
> I wonder why it should matter who identified the problem or who thought of 
> the solution, i.e. a member or members of the scientific elite.  Why should 
> it matter whether the perceived problem is obvious to the person on the 
> street?  And whether the proposed solution or any solution other than the 
> proposed geoengineering scheme can be implemented easily by the existing 
> political order or not seems irrelevant.  
>
> Phil Rausch recently gave a talk entitled Geoengineering at the AGU 
> Chapman conference on Communicating Climate Science (available 
> *here*) 
> where he referred to geoengineering as "the introduction of climate change 
> deliberately rather than carelessly", which seems to be at the heart of 
> what the word means to actively researching contemporary climatologists.  
>
> Bringing the nitrogen cycle up while discussing geoengineering seems 
> useful as a way to talk about the fact that humans have had an impact on 
> the planet for some time, but the question is, does it advance the debate 
> to include it as geoengineering now?  
>
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:43:49 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:
>>
>> David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as 
>> expressed in the text, you'll find that I don't agree.
>>
>> The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen cycle 
>> did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it 
>> deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a 
>> geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, and 
>> indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed 
>> purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday 
>> life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change 
>> today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no 
>> easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to 
>> develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate 
>> arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some 
>> of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such.
>>
>>

-- 
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.