date:20131001

[geo] An earth systems engineering perspective on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Andrew Lockley

http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/ensu.12.00022

An earth systems engineering perspective on geoengineering

Brad Allenby
Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability, Volume 166, Issue
5, 01 October 2013 , pages 220 –228

The growing recognition of the inadequacies of the Kyoto Protocol and the
ongoing climate change negotiating process has led to increasing interest
in large-scale technology modification of earth systsems – ‘geoengineering’
– as a response. Although it is important to identify alternatives,
technological and otherwise, to help mitigate the effects of, and adapt to,
climate change, geoengineering techniques as currently understood are naïve
and potentially very risky. An earth systems engineering and management
perspective enables a deeper understanding of the challenges raised by
technological solutions, and suggests means by which geoengineering
approaches might be modified to be both more effective and less risky.

-- 
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] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

2013-10-01 Thread Ken Caldeira

I usually try to avoid off-topic posts, but this time I feel strongly
enough that I just can't resist temptation.



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/30/2699121/real-budget-crisis-co2/

 The Real Budget Crisis: ‘The CO2 Emissions Budget Framing Is A Recipe For
Delaying Concrete Action
Now’

BY JOE ROMM  ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AT
5:17 PM

Time:
“Why the Coming Budget Crisis May Be the Worst”

UK 
Guardian:
“IPCC: 30 years to climate calamity if we carry on blowing the carbon
budget”

The Washington establishment and the media have been mesmerized into
inaction by a short-term budget crisis — funding the continued operation of
the government. But it is the continued operation of a livable climate that
should have their full attention.

[image: Climate graphic]

Decades from now, our children won’t be fretting over the inanity of the
GOP shutting down the government because of their implacable opposition to
giving health security to millions of uninsured Americans. Rather, they
will be our struggling to secure the health and well-being of billions of
people in a Dust-Bowlified
world
ruined
by their parents’ greed and myopia.

On Friday, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released
its latest assessment of how humans are destroying a livable climate. As we
discussed, it was yet another dire prognosis — 9°F Warming For U.S., Faster
Sea Rise, More Extreme Weather, Permafrost
Collapse.
It should have spurred an immediate global move toward deep cuts in carbon
pollution.

Instead, U.S. opinion makers steering the ship of state went right back to
arguing about whether the deck chairs [infirmary beds?] should have been
rearranged in the manner approved by President Obama, Congress, and the
Supreme Court.

Our inaction on climate is primarily the fault of the disinformers and
obstructionists — and those in the media who enable them — but the IPCC
certainly deserves some amount of blame for its poor communication skills
and flat learning
curve
.

The UK Guardian, in its IPCC
piece
(cited
above), writes:

But the most controversial finding of the report was its “carbon budget”.
Participants told the Guardian this was the last part of the summary to be
decided, and the subject of hours of heated discussions in the early hours
of Friday morning. Some countries were concerned that including the numbers
would have political repercussions.

The scientists found that to hold warming to 2C, total emissions cannot
exceed 1,000 gigatons of carbon. Yet by 2011, more than half of that total
“allowance” – 531 gigatons – had already been emitted.

*To ensure the budget is not exceeded, governments and businesses may have
to leave valuable fossil fuel reserves unexploited.* “There’s a finite
amount of carbon you can burn if you don’t want to go over 2C,” Stocker
told the Guardian. “That implies if there is more than that [in fossil fuel
reserves], that you leave some of that carbon in the ground.”

This raises key questions of how to allocate the remaining “carbon budget”
fairly among countries, an issue that some climate negotiators fear could
wreck the UN climate talks, which are supposed to culminate in a global
agreement on emissions in 2015.

“To ensure the budget is not exceeded, governments and businesses may have
to leave valuable fossil fuel reserves unexploited.” They “may have to”?
Try “must.” Is there any other subject than climate change where the media
feel obliged to hedge even the most obvious statements?

As an aside, the fossil fuel reserves that must remain unexploited are
“valuable” only in a world that actually doesn’t accept the climate science
reviewed in the IPCC report. The sentence would read more accurately this
way: “To ensure the budget is not exceeded, governments and businesses must
leave climate-destroying fossil fuel reserves unexploited.”

Climatologist Ken Caldeira emailed me with an even greater concern about
the way this issue is being framed, pointing to the same UK Guardian piece:

There is some noise around the idea that it useful to think about some
amount of “allowable CO2 emissions budget” that would keep the world under
2 C of global warming.

This concept is dangerous for two reasons:

1. There are no such things as an “allowable CO2 emissions.” Th

Re: [geo] Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia

2013-10-01 Thread Oliver Tickell

See 
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/climatepdfs02/ClimImpts1258VolcaClimChg00.pdf

for discussion of impacts on climate.

On 01/10/2013 00:48, Andrew Lockley wrote:


Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas 
volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia


 Authors

Significance

Based on ice core archives of sulfate and tephra deposition, one of 
the largest volcanic eruptions of the historic period and of the past 
7,000 y occurred in A.D. 1257. However the source of this “mystery 
eruption” remained unknown. Drawing on a robust body of new evidence 
from radiocarbon dates, tephra geochemistry, stratigraphic data, a 
medieval chronicle, this study argues that the source of this eruption 
is Samalas volcano, part of the Mount Rinjani Volcanic Complex on 
Lombok Island, Indonesia. These results solve a conundrum that has 
puzzled glaciologists, volcanologists, and climatologists for more 
than three decades. In addition, the identification of this volcano 
gives rise to the existence of a forgotten Pompeii in the Far East.


-- Forwarded message --
From: "Article Notifications" >

Date: Oct 1, 2013 12:46 AM
Subject: Link to an Article from PNAS
To: mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
Cc:


The following article from "PNAS" may be of interest to you:

Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas 
volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia 



--
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] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

2013-10-01 Thread Andrew Lockley

Poster's note : little new content other than a few names in this layman's
report.

http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2013/09/27/the-national-academies-contemplate-geoengineering/

The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering

By Thomas Sumner

The ideas seem lifted from a James Bond super villain’s dastardly plot:
carpeting the Earth with whitened clouds, constructing giant solar
reflectors in space, using chemicals to change the makeup of the
atmosphere. But with scientific models predicting potentially devastating
changes in the world’s climate, seemingly impractical and improbable
geoengineering solutions become more and more alluring.This month at the
National Academy of Sciences in Washington D.C., a 16-person ad hoc
committee of scientists held its second meeting to discuss the practicality
of various methods of purposefully changing Earth’s environment to combat
climate change, sometimes called climate engineering or geoengineering.
Convened purely for investigation and discussion rather than making
recommendations, the group cast a wide net for ideas, even those they might
ultimately reject as made- for-Hollywood only.One geoengineering approach
would inject aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away solar
radiation. A 2009 scientific paper evaluated benefits, risks, and costs of
using aircraft, balloons, and other means to loft aerosols, as depicted in
this figure from the paper. Credit: Brian West.The first morning of the
September 10-11meeting, Harvard University geology professor Daniel
Schrag addressed the committee, laying out the climate issues
geoengineering hopes to solve.Schrag said the consequences of climate
change—sea level rise, more severe weather extremes, ocean
acidification—demand action. However, even in a best case scenario with a
perfect political climate and a quick move to low-emission energy sources,
Schrag said fixing carbon dioxide emissions within the foreseeable future
would be impossible.“Scientifically we can’t fix this problem for 100
years,” he argued.This lack of a single simple and viable solution is what
makes geoengineering worth considering, according to Gary Geernaert,
director of the US Department of Energy’s Climate and Environmental
Sciences Division, who spoke to the committee.“There’s no silver bullet for
climate change,” said Geernaert said. “We need to look at all the available
solutions.”

Wild potential plans
Geoengineering breaks down into two main approaches: capturing carbon and
reflecting solar radiation.The first aims to remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect warming the planet. The
second hopes to create a cooling effect by bouncing solar radiation away
before it can cause warming. Tactics include dumping large amounts of
reflective asteroid dust into orbit around Earth, making clouds whiter,
seeding the creation of more clouds and covering rooftops with reflective
materials.

The committee gave respectful attention to schemes that even their
proponents consider iffy. Schrag, for instance, mentioned an “impractical”
idea he and his colleagues had to create a massive acid exchange to remove
carbon from the air.When carbon dioxide is mixed with water, it forms a
mild acid called carbonic acid (carbonated water). Limestone can neutralize
the acid, as it does in caves, where the carbon gets bound up in
stalactites and stalagmites.Schrag’s proposal uses massive amounts of
quicklime – the product of breaking down limestone using heat – to
neutralize atmospheric and ocean carbon. Multiple times throughout his
description Schrag branded the plan “completely impractical” – it requires
massive amounts of energy and manpower to operate – yet the committee asked
thoughtful follow-up questions.

Unforeseen consequences

Before a geoengineering project can move forward, scientists need to know
the impacts it will have—both good and bad. Running large-scale tests is
too dangerous, since any unexpected negative consequences would be
similarly large-scale, according to NASA scientist Ralph Kahn.“A lot more
geoscience has to be done before we can consider geoengineering,” said
Kahn.Smaller tests may be safer, but any potential benefits would likely be
too small to quantify. Luckily natural analogs can provide insights into
the potential effects of geoengineering projects. Volcanoes, for instance,
blast particles into the atmosphere that can reflect the Sun’s rays away
from Earth. Several proposed geoengineering projects suggest emulating this
effect with artificial volcanos. By observing real volcanos, scientists
might see the potential downsides beforehand, preventing swapping one
man-made climate disaster for another.Over the course of the meeting, 15
experts addressed the committee, ranging into politics and ethics as well
as Earth-altering schemes. In coming months, the committee will assemble a
report on three or four example techniques, weighing their potential risks
and consequences

-- 
You received this mes

[geo] Lifeless Earth: What if everything died out tomorrow? - environment - 27 September 2013 - New Scientist

2013-10-01 Thread Andrew Lockley

Poster's note : This is basically just really cool and interesting. But my
excuses for posting it are as follows :
1) It discusses the consequences of the Permian Triassic extinction event,
which may offer a model for extreme global warming and ocean anoxia in a
BAU /feedback world
2) It's got Ken in
3) It discusses Hansen's Venus runaway scenario
Enjoy!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929360.800-lifeless-earth-what-if-everything-died-out-tomorrow.html?full=true#.UkqngyO3PFo

Lifeless Earth: What if everything died out tomorrow?

27 September 2013 by Bob Holmes
Magazine issue 2936.

Living things have a huge influence on our planet. Earth without life would
be very different place

THE end could come with a bang – a nearby supernova that bathes Earth in
deadly gamma rays. Or it might come with a whimper – a supervirus that
somehow proves lethal to every living cell on the planet. Neither is
remotely likely, but nor are they impossible. Yet thinking about them
raises an intriguing question: what would happen to Earth if every living
thing were to die tomorrow?

More than you might think. Life is far more than a trivial infestation atop
the physical structure of our planet. Living organisms play a major role in
a wide range of seemingly lifeless processes, from climate and atmospheric
chemistry to the shape of the landscape and even, maybe, plate tectonics."

The signature of life has gone everywhere – it's really modified the whole
planet," says Colin Goldblatt, an earth-systems scientist at the University
of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. "If you take it away, what
changes? Well, everything."Just for fun, then, let's assume that the worst
has happened and every living thing on the planet has died: animals,
plants, the algae in the oceans, even the bacteria living kilometres down
in the Earth's crust. All of it, dead. What happens then (see diagram)?

The first thing to note, actually, is what will not happen. There will be
none of the rapid decomposition that befalls dead organisms today, because
that decay is caused almost entirely by bacteria and fungi. Decomposition
will still happen, but very slowly as organic molecules react with oxygen.
Much of the dead material will simply mummify; some will be incinerated in
lightning-sparked fires.Still, the first effects of the wipeout will start
to show very quickly, with the climate getting hotter and drier, especially
toward the centres of continents. That's because forests and grasslands act
as massive water pumps, drawing water out of the soil and releasing it into
the air. With no living plants, that pump shuts down and rainfall tails off
– all within a week, says climate scientist Ken Caldeira at the Carnegie
Institution for Science in Stanford, California.Water evaporating from
plant leaves also helps cool the planet, as though the trees were sweating,
so a drier world will quickly warm up. "I'm guessing it might be a couple
of degrees," says Caldeira.In some parts of the world the effect may be a
lot stronger. The Amazon basin, for example, depends heavily on moisture
released from plants to drive its rainfall. Without the plants, regions
such as these could rapidly heat up – by as much as 8 °C, says Axel
Kleidon, an earth scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
in Jena, Germany.That initial spike is just the start. As the years roll
by, the world will continue to get warmer as more and more carbon dioxide
creeps into the atmosphere. This happens largely because there are no
longer any plankton in the ocean storing carbon in their bodies, dying and
sinking down to the depths. As this "biological carbon pump" grinds to a
halt, carbon-depleted surface waters quickly come into equilibrium with the
carbon-rich depths, and some of this extra carbon finds its way into the
atmosphere. The net result is that in as little as 20 years, atmospheric
CO2 roughly triples – enough to raise average global temperatures by about
5 °C, says James Kasting, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State
University.Plankton will be missed in another way, too, because they
release large amounts of a compound called dimethyl sulphide into the
atmosphere over the oceans. These molecules act as seeds for water vapour
to condense into clouds – especially the low, dense clouds that help
radiate heat away from the planet's surface. Without plankton, almost
immediately, the clouds that form over the oceans will have bigger droplets
and therefore be darker, absorbing more heat, says Caldeira. That could
contribute another 2 °C of warming within years to decades. On top of the 5
°C from all the extra CO2, that would be enough to rapidly accelerate the
melting of the polar ice caps.As the world warms, more water will evaporate
from the oceans, so more rain will fall. Not everywhere will get wetter,
though. Most of the extra rain is likely to fall where it does today – in
equatorial regions where converging winds cause air to convect upward, cool
and dump its mois

[geo] Sensitivity of simulated climate to latitudinal distribution of solar insolation reduction in SRM geoengineering methods

2013-10-01 Thread Govindasamy Bala

Here is A discussion Paper on geoengineering in Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics that came out today

Sensitivity of simulated climate to latitudinal distribution of solar
insolation reduction in SRM geoengineering methods

A. Modak and G. Bala
Divecha Centre for Climate Change & Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic
Sciences, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560 012, India

Abstract
Solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering has been proposed as a
potential option to counteract climate change. We perform a set of
idealized geoengineering simulations to understand the global hydrological
implications of varying the latitudinal distribution of solar insolation
reduction in SRM methods. We find that for a fixed to tal mass of sulfate
aerosols (12.6Mt of SO4), relative to a uniform distribution which
mitigates changes in global mean temperature, global mean radiative forcing
is larger when aerosol concentration is maximum at the poles leading to a
warmer global mean climate and consequently an intensified hydrological
cycle. Opposite changes are simulated when aerosol concentration is
maximized in the tropics. We obtain a range of 1K in global mean
temperature and 3% in precipitation changes by varying the distri-
bution pattern: this range is about 50% of the climate change from a
doubling of CO2. Hence, our study demonstrates that a range of global mean
climate states, determined by the global mean radiative forcing, are
possible for a fixed total amount of aerosols but with differing
latitudinal distribution, highlighting the need for a careful
evaluation ofSRM proposals

-- 
Best wishes,

---
Dr. G. Bala
Associate Professor
Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore - 560 012
India

Tel: +91 80 2293 3428
+91 80 2293 2075
Fax: +91 80 2360 0865
+91 80 2293 3425
Email: gb...@caos.iisc.ernet.in
 bala@gmail.com
Web:http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/gbala.html
---

-- 
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] An earth systems engineering perspective on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Stephen Salter


Hi All

Brad Allenby has got in a muddle about upper and lower atmosphere.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering 
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs


On 01/10/2013 09:07, Andrew Lockley wrote:


http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/ensu.12.00022

An earth systems engineering perspective on geoengineering

Brad Allenby
Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability, Volume 166, Issue 
5, 01 October 2013 , pages 220 –228


The growing recognition of the inadequacies of the Kyoto Protocol and 
the ongoing climate change negotiating process has led to increasing 
interest in large-scale technology modification of earth systsems – 
‘geoengineering’ – as a response. Although it is important to identify 
alternatives, technological and otherwise, to help mitigate the 
effects of, and adapt to, climate change, geoengineering techniques as 
currently understood are naïve and potentially very risky. An earth 
systems engineering and management perspective enables a deeper 
understanding of the challenges raised by technological solutions, and 
suggests means by which geoengineering approaches might be modified to 
be both more effective and less risky.


--
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.



--


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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
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] Briggs with Opinion Article: Is Geoengineering a National Security Risk?

2013-10-01 Thread Geoengineering Our Climate (eds. Blackstock, Miller and Rayner)

Dear colleagues,

Dr. Chad Briggs (Strategic Director, Global Interconnections LLC) has
written an opinion article "Is Geoengineering a National Security Risk?".
He takes a military planner's perspective, and outlines some thoughts on
why (in particular, SRM) geoengineering may be overstated as a military
option.

It can be found at:
http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/10/01/is-geoengineering-a-national-security-risk-opinion-article/
.

Best wishes to all,

Sean Low

-- 
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] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

2013-10-01 Thread Hawkins, Dave

Actually, this is not off-topic since I have been in meetings where some have 
argued that if geo-engineering methods are deployed "successfully" then there 
is no finite limit or cumulative budget for GHG emissions. (I don' mention this 
argument approvingly; just to note the relationship to the geo-engineering 
topic.)

But to the point of Ken's post, I think there are ways in which the finite 
cumulative budget concept can be helpful in motivation behavior change today.  
For example, the long life of large fossil-fueled installations implies a 
locked-in consumption of the finite budget unless the equipment is retired 
"prematurely."  I have stressed this point for some time in making the case 
against further construction of new coal power plants.  (The sum of the 
cumulative CO2 from remaining operations of today's coal plants and the 
cumulative emissions from new coal plants projected by IEA to be built between 
now and 2035, by themselves would exceed the remaining "2 degree budget" by 
20%.)  The fact that this argument is not wholly successful to date (it has 
been effective in limited number of cases) is not a reason to dismiss the 
budget concept as unhelpful.
A second line of argument relates to valuation of the shares of fossil fuel 
extraction companies.  Those values reflect at least in part the expected 
stream of future revenues from converting proven fossil reserves into money.  
The carbon budget is not accepted today as real by most markets or governments 
but the fossil fuel companies cannot assure their investors that this will be 
the case 10 or 20 years from now.  Accordingly, an argument can be made that 
the price of their shares should be discounted today to reflect the risk that 
in the investment time horizon there is a meaningful risk that governments will 
agree there is a budget that must be honored.  This would mean the longer the 
world delays in taking action, the more of the finite budget will be consumed 
and the more draconian the future actions will need to be.  These ideas have 
not yet gotten a lot of traction but they are beginning to be discussed and 
have been the basis of several shareholder resolutions.
David

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 4:16 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget 
concept

I usually try to avoid off-topic posts, but this time I feel strongly enough 
that I just can't resist temptation.



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/30/2699121/real-budget-crisis-co2/

The Real Budget Crisis: ‘The CO2 Emissions Budget Framing Is A Recipe For 
Delaying Concrete Action 
Now’

BY JOE ROMM ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AT 5:17 
PM

Time:
 “Why the Coming Budget Crisis May Be the Worst”

UK 
Guardian:
 “IPCC: 30 years to climate calamity if we carry on blowing the carbon budget”

The Washington establishment and the media have been mesmerized into inaction 
by a short-term budget crisis — funding the continued operation of the 
government. But it is the continued operation of a livable climate that should 
have their full attention.

[Climate graphic]

Decades from now, our children won’t be fretting over the inanity of the GOP 
shutting down the government because of their implacable opposition to giving 
health security to millions of uninsured Americans. Rather, they will be our 
struggling to secure the health and well-being of billions of people in a 
Dust-Bowlified 
world
 ruined by their parents’ greed and myopia.

On Friday, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 
latest assessment of how humans are destroying a livable climate. As we 
discussed, it was yet another dire prognosis — 9°F Warming For U.S., Faster Sea 
Rise, More Extreme Weather, Permafrost 
Collapse.
 It should have spurred an immediate global move toward deep cuts in carbon 
pollution.

Instead, U.S. opinion makers steering the ship of state went right back to 
arguing about whether the deck chairs [infirmary beds?] should have been 
rearranged in the manner approved by President Obama, Congress, and the Supreme 
Court.

Our inaction on climate is primarily the fault of the disinformers and 
obstructionists — and those in the media who enable them — but the IPCC 
certainly deserves some amoun

Re: [geo] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

2013-10-01 Thread Fred Zimmerman

I agree with Dave that this is not off-topic at all. This is not a new
"finding" by the IPCC. the carbon emissions budget has been a mainstream
and heavily worked concept since at least 2009.

*Meinshausen, M., N. Meinshausen, W. Hare, S. C. B. Raper, K. Frieler, R.
Knutti, D. J. Frame and M. R. Allen (2009). "Greenhouse-gas emission
targets for limiting global warming to 2°C." Nature 458(7242): 1158.*
(HTML)
(PDF ) (
Supplementary
)

It's way too late to worry about whether the carbon emissions budget is a
useful framing device.  the simple message is "we're going to blow way past
our budget."




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


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Ken Caldeira
wrote:

> I usually try to avoid off-topic posts, but this time I feel strongly
> enough that I just can't resist temptation.
>
> 
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/30/2699121/real-budget-crisis-co2/
>
>  The Real Budget Crisis: ‘The CO2 Emissions Budget Framing Is A Recipe
> For Delaying Concrete Action 
> Now’
>
> BY JOE ROMM  ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
> AT 5:17 PM
>
> Time:
> “Why the Coming Budget Crisis May Be the Worst”
>
> UK 
> Guardian:
> “IPCC: 30 years to climate calamity if we carry on blowing the carbon
> budget”
>
> The Washington establishment and the media have been mesmerized into
> inaction by a short-term budget crisis — funding the continued operation of
> the government. But it is the continued operation of a livable climate that
> should have their full attention.
>
> [image: Climate graphic]
>
> Decades from now, our children won’t be fretting over the inanity of the
> GOP shutting down the government because of their implacable opposition to
> giving health security to millions of uninsured Americans. Rather, they
> will be our struggling to secure the health and well-being of billions of
> people in a Dust-Bowlified 
> world
>  ruined
> by their parents’ greed and myopia.
>
> On Friday, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> released its latest assessment of how humans are destroying a livable
> climate. As we discussed, it was yet another dire prognosis — 9°F Warming
> For U.S., Faster Sea Rise, More Extreme Weather, Permafrost 
> Collapse.
> It should have spurred an immediate global move toward deep cuts in carbon
> pollution.
>
> Instead, U.S. opinion makers steering the ship of state went right back to
> arguing about whether the deck chairs [infirmary beds?] should have been
> rearranged in the manner approved by President Obama, Congress, and the
> Supreme Court.
>
> Our inaction on climate is primarily the fault of the disinformers and
> obstructionists — and those in the media who enable them — but the IPCC
> certainly deserves some amount of blame for its poor communication skills
> and flat learning 
> curve
> .
>
> The UK Guardian, in its IPCC 
> piece
>  (cited
> above), writes:
>
> But the most controversial finding of the report was its “carbon budget”.
> Participants told the Guardian this was the last part of the summary to be
> decided, and the subject of hours of heated discussions in the early hours
> of Friday morning. Some countries were concerned that including the numbers
> would have political repercussions.
>
> The scientists found that to hold warming to 2C, total emissions cannot
> exceed 1,000 gigatons of carbon. Yet by 2011, more than half of that total
> “allowance” – 531 gigatons – had already been emitted.
>
> *To ensure the budget is not exceeded, governments and businesses may have
> to leave valuable fossil fuel reserves unexploited.* “There’s a finite
> amount of carbon you can burn if you don’t want to go over 2C,” Stocker
> told the Guardian. “That implies if there is more than that [in fossil fuel
> reserves], that you leave some of that carbon in the ground.”
>
> This raises key questions of how to allocate the remaining “carbon budget”
> fairly among countries, an issue that some climate negotia

Re: [geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

2013-10-01 Thread Fred Zimmerman

I think there is some value in the layman's perspective. Sometimes it helps
to be further away from the discussion. For example I thought this
observation was rather telling.

The committee gave respectful attention to schemes that even their
proponents consider iffy. Schrag, for instance, mentioned an “impractical”
idea he and his colleagues had to create a massive acid exchange to remove
carbon from the air.When carbon dioxide is mixed with water, it forms a
mild acid called carbonic acid (carbonated water). Limestone can neutralize
the acid, as it does in caves, where the carbon gets bound up in
stalactites and stalagmites.Schrag’s proposal uses massive amounts of
quicklime – the product of breaking down limestone using heat – to
neutralize atmospheric and ocean carbon. Multiple times throughout his
description Schrag branded the plan “completely impractical” – it requires
massive amounts of energy and manpower to operate – yet the committee asked
thoughtful follow-up questions.




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


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Poster's note : little new content other than a few names in this layman's
> report.
>
>
> http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2013/09/27/the-national-academies-contemplate-geoengineering/
>
> The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering
>
> By Thomas Sumner
>
> The ideas seem lifted from a James Bond super villain’s dastardly plot:
> carpeting the Earth with whitened clouds, constructing giant solar
> reflectors in space, using chemicals to change the makeup of the
> atmosphere. But with scientific models predicting potentially devastating
> changes in the world’s climate, seemingly impractical and improbable
> geoengineering solutions become more and more alluring.This month at the
> National Academy of Sciences in Washington D.C., a 16-person ad hoc
> committee of scientists held its second meeting to discuss the practicality
> of various methods of purposefully changing Earth’s environment to combat
> climate change, sometimes called climate engineering or geoengineering.
> Convened purely for investigation and discussion rather than making
> recommendations, the group cast a wide net for ideas, even those they might
> ultimately reject as made- for-Hollywood only.One geoengineering approach
> would inject aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away solar
> radiation. A 2009 scientific paper evaluated benefits, risks, and costs of
> using aircraft, balloons, and other means to loft aerosols, as depicted in
> this figure from the paper. Credit: Brian West.The first morning of the
> September 10-11meeting, Harvard University geology professor Daniel
> Schrag addressed the committee, laying out the climate issues
> geoengineering hopes to solve.Schrag said the consequences of climate
> change—sea level rise, more severe weather extremes, ocean
> acidification—demand action. However, even in a best case scenario with a
> perfect political climate and a quick move to low-emission energy sources,
> Schrag said fixing carbon dioxide emissions within the foreseeable future
> would be impossible.“Scientifically we can’t fix this problem for 100
> years,” he argued.This lack of a single simple and viable solution is what
> makes geoengineering worth considering, according to Gary Geernaert,
> director of the US Department of Energy’s Climate and Environmental
> Sciences Division, who spoke to the committee.“There’s no silver bullet for
> climate change,” said Geernaert said. “We need to look at all the available
> solutions.”
>
> Wild potential plans
> Geoengineering breaks down into two main approaches: capturing carbon and
> reflecting solar radiation.The first aims to remove carbon dioxide from the
> atmosphere, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect warming the planet. The
> second hopes to create a cooling effect by bouncing solar radiation away
> before it can cause warming. Tactics include dumping large amounts of
> reflective asteroid dust into orbit around Earth, making clouds whiter,
> seeding the creation of more clouds and covering rooftops with reflective
> materials.
>
> The committee gave respectful attention to schemes that even their
> proponents consider iffy. Schrag, for instance, mentioned an “impractical”
> idea he and his colleagues had to create a massive acid exchange to remove
> carbon from the air.When carbon dioxide is mixed with water, it forms a
> mild acid called carbonic acid (carbonated water). Limestone can neutralize
> the acid, as it does in caves, where the carbon gets bound up in
> stalactites and stalagmites.Schrag’s proposal uses massive amounts of
> quicklime – the product of breaking down limestone using heat – to
> neutralize atmospheric and ocean carbon. Multiple times throughout his
> description Schrag branded the plan “completely impractical” – it requires
> massive am

Re: [geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

2013-10-01 Thread Oliver Tickell

This "observation" is completely wrong.

Yes, limestone is dissolved by carbonic acid H2CO3 to create bicarbonate
Ca(HCO3-)2. But the deposits in caves are carbonate, formed by the
reverse reaction in which CO2 is emitted. So no carbon is locked away.
Carbonate is just moved from one place to another.

If the bicarbonate makes it to the sea, then it may remain in solution
for some time. But as soon as carbonate is deposited, the carbon gain is
lost.

This is the problem with putting quicklime into oceans. It has to be
done very carefully and at very low concentrations or it just
precipitates out as carbonate emitting CO2 in the process - all those
emissions kilning lime for zero benefit!

The proper reaction to utilise is the weathering of olivine as
previously discussed many times ... Oliver.

On 01/10/2013 14:42, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
I think there is some value in the layman's perspective. Sometimes it
helps to be further away from the discussion. For example I thought
this observation was rather telling.

The committee gave respectful attention to schemes that even their
proponents consider iffy. Schrag, for instance, mentioned an
“impractical” idea he and his colleagues had to create a massive
acid exchange to remove carbon from the air.When carbon dioxide is
mixed with water, it forms a mild acid called carbonic acid
(carbonated water). Limestone can neutralize the acid, as it does
in caves, where the carbon gets bound up in stalactites and
stalagmites.Schrag’s proposal uses massive amounts of quicklime –
the product of breaking down limestone using heat – to neutralize
atmospheric and ocean carbon. Multiple times throughout his
description Schrag branded the plan “completely impractical” – it
requires massive amounts of energy and manpower to operate – yet
the committee asked thoughtful follow-up questions.

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

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Poster's note : little new content other than a few names in this
layman's report.

http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2013/09/27/the-national-academies-contemplate-geoengineering/

The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering

By Thomas Sumner

The ideas seem lifted from a James Bond super villain’s dastardly
plot: carpeting the Earth with whitened clouds, constructing giant
solar reflectors in space, using chemicals to change the makeup of
the atmosphere. But with scientific models predicting potentially
devastating changes in the world’s climate, seemingly impractical
and improbable geoengineering solutions become more and more
alluring.This month at the National Academy of Sciences in
Washington D.C., a 16-person ad hoc committee of scientists held
its second meeting to discuss the practicality of various methods
of purposefully changing Earth’s environment to combat climate
change, sometimes called climate engineering or geoengineering.
Convened purely for investigation and discussion rather than
making recommendations, the group cast a wide net for ideas, even
those they might ultimately reject as made- for-Hollywood only.One
geoengineering approach would inject aerosols into the
stratosphere to reflect away solar radiation. A 2009 scientific
paper evaluated benefits, risks, and costs of using aircraft,
balloons, and other means to loft aerosols, as depicted in this
figure from the paper. Credit: Brian West.The first morning of the
September 10-11meeting, Harvard University geology
professor Daniel Schrag addressed the committee, laying out the
climate issues geoengineering hopes to solve.Schrag said the
consequences of climate change—sea level rise, more severe weather
extremes, ocean acidification—demand action. However, even in a
best case scenario with a perfect political climate and a quick
move to low-emission energy sources, Schrag said fixing carbon
dioxide emissions within the foreseeable future would be
impossible.“Scientifically we can’t fix this problem for 100
years,” he argued.This lack of a single simple and viable solution
is what makes geoengineering worth considering, according to Gary
Geernaert, director of the US Department of Energy’s Climate and
Environmental Sciences Division, who spoke to the
committee.“There’s no silver bullet for climate change,” said
Geernaert said. “We need to look at all the available solutions.”

Wild potential plans
Geoengineering breaks down into two main approaches: capturing
carbon and reflecting solar radiation.The first aims to remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby reducing the
greenhouse effect warming the planet. The second hopes

Re: [geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

2013-10-01 Thread Greg Rau

Thanks for pointing this out. Impractical indeed. Schrag apparently wants to 
make CaCO3 by reacting concentrated air CO2 with Ca(OH)2, the latter made from 
CaCO3 at great energy and carbon expense, clearly a "circular" strategy and 
energy sink. Making Ca(HCO3)2aq on the other hand would make more sense 
(Keshghi 1995, Rau and Caldeira 1999-2011, Harvey 2008, et al.), but then as 
Ken bemoaned earlier today, don't expect critical, policy-infuencing bodies to 
read, understand, acknowledge the literature. 

Another telling statement:
"Schrag said fixing carbon dioxide emissions within the foreseeable future 
would be impossible.“Scientifically we can’t fix this problem for 100 years,” 
he argued."  


In most scientific circles "Impossible" requires some very serious proof, but 
since this in now coming from the inner sanctum of Harvard and the NAS, 
different laws apparently apply.  I'd point out that Nature will fix the CO2 
problem in some 100kyrs via processes akin to Shrag's "impossible" CaCO3 
strategy above. The question is: is it truly impossible to speed up mineral 
weathering to at least help air CO2 management in the next 100yrs, considering 
that we would be starting with a proven global scale CO2 mitigation method 
whose current cost is zero? It would seem rather reckless not to try, but then 
one would have to disbelieve Schrag (and the NAS?), and what are the chances 
that the decision makers will? With the earth (and limited research resources) 
in the balance, the lack of awareness and open mindedness here is indeed scary.

Greg



>
> From: Fred Zimmerman 
>To: Andrew Lockley ; geoengineering 
> 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:42 AM
>Subject: Re: [geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - 
>GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere
> 
>
>
>I think there is some value in the layman's perspective. Sometimes it helps to 
>be further away from the discussion. For example I thought this observation 
>was rather telling.
>
>
>The committee gave respectful attention to schemes that even their proponents 
>consider iffy. Schrag, for instance, mentioned an “impractical” idea he and 
>his colleagues had to create a massive acid exchange to remove carbon from the 
>air.When carbon dioxide is mixed with water, it forms a mild acid called 
>carbonic acid (carbonated water). Limestone can neutralize the acid, as it 
>does in caves, where the carbon gets bound up in stalactites and 
>stalagmites.Schrag’s proposal uses massive amounts of quicklime – the product 
>of breaking down limestone using heat – to neutralize atmospheric and ocean 
>carbon. Multiple times throughout his description Schrag branded the plan 
>“completely impractical” – it requires massive amounts of energy and manpower 
>to operate – yet the committee asked thoughtful follow-up questions.
>>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>---
>Fred Zimmerman
>
>Geoengineering IT!   
>Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
>GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 
>
>
>On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Lockley  
>wrote:
>
>Poster's note : little new content other than a few names in this layman's 
>report. 
>>http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2013/09/27/the-national-academies-contemplate-geoengineering/
>>The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering
>>By Thomas Sumner
>>The ideas seem lifted from a James Bond super villain’s dastardly plot: 
>>carpeting the Earth with whitened clouds, constructing giant solar reflectors 
>>in space, using chemicals to change the makeup of the atmosphere. But with 
>>scientific models predicting potentially devastating changes in the world’s 
>>climate, seemingly impractical and improbable geoengineering solutions become 
>>more and more alluring.This month at the National Academy of Sciences in 
>>Washington D.C., a 16-person ad hoc committee of scientists held its second 
>>meeting to discuss the practicality of various methods of purposefully 
>>changing Earth’s environment to combat climate change, sometimes called 
>>climate engineering or geoengineering. Convened purely for investigation and 
>>discussion rather than making recommendations, the group cast a wide net for 
>>ideas, even those they might ultimately reject as made- for-Hollywood 
>>only.One geoengineering approach would inject aerosols into the
 stratosphere to reflect away solar radiation. A 2009 scientific paper 
evaluated benefits, risks, and costs of using aircraft, balloons, and other 
means to loft aerosols, as depicted in this figure from the paper. Credit: 
Brian West.The first morning of the September 10-11meeting, Harvard University 
geology professor Daniel Schrag addressed the committee, laying out the climate 
issues geoengineering hopes to solve.Schrag said the consequences of climate 
change—sea level rise, more severe weather extremes, ocean acidification—demand 
action. However, even in a best case scenario with a perfect political climate 
and a quick move to low-

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Greg Rau

To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshimas/day" statement below see:
http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387


It's actually 345,600 Hiroshimas/day or 4 bombs/sec, but you get the idea. 90% 
of the heat is going into the ocean. This would seem a powerful analogy (minus 
the radionuclides) for what we are doing to the planet and why we need to 
intervene.
Greg




>
> From: Russell Seitz 
>To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
>Cc: Gene Gordon ; Simon Driscoll 
>; Salif KONE ; 
>kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 
>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:57 AM
>Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
> 
>
>
>The Cold War  and the Apollo Program were not pursued in the expectation of 
>profiting from software spinoffs, LED lighting,CAT scanners, cell phones and 
>microwave popcorn.
>
>
>Although the consequences, physical and economic, are global, one sees little 
>societal complaint about the unregulated  outcome of this research , though 
>many profit from it and more aspire to do likewise.
>
>On Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:46:23 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>Al Gore is not opposing geoengineering research because he wants to profit off 
>of climate change, as suggested by Eugene.
>>
>>
>>Asserting this is as nutty as asserting that people commonly support 
>>geoengineering research because they hope to profit off of the technologies 
>>developed.
>>
>>
>>Let's try to be more generous in our attribution of motives.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>___
>>Ken Caldeira
>>
>>Carnegie Institution for Science 
>>Dept of Global Ecology
>>
>>260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>>
>>+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@ carnegiescience.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/ 
>>caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>>
>>
>>Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snan...@ carnegiescience.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:41 AM,  wrote:
>>
>>Somewhat confusing and very tough! It is generally believed that the monetary 
>>investment return (my choice based on your use of the terms portfolio and 
>>type) of research if there is a return is at least 20 years. I suspect that 
>>for global warming research the financial investment return delay would be 
>>much longer. In contrast the return on development is much earlier and more 
>>certain but it is too early for development. I suspect that few here will 
>>make a personal financial investment. The personal investment is related to 
>>career and how large is also personal. Governments seldom make financial 
>>investments unless politics is part of the equation.
>>>
>>
>>>From: "Simon Driscoll" 
>>>To: "Ken Caldeira" 
>>>
>>>Cc: "Salif KONE" , geoengi...@googlegroups. com
>>>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:09:59 PM
>>>Subject: RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of 
>>>investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research."
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>__ __
>>>
>>>Simon Driscoll
>>>Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics
>>>Department of Physics
>>>University of Oxford
>>>
>>>Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930
>>>Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940
>>>
>>>http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/ contacts/people/driscoll
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>From: kcal...@gmail.com [kcal...@gmail.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira 
>>>[kcal...@carnegiescience.edu ]
>>>Sent: 24 August 2013 17:09
>>>To: Simon Driscoll
>>>Cc: Salif KONE; geoengi...@googlegroups. com
>>>Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a pleasing simplicity to answering a question as if it were a 
>>>binary, but I suppose if you got these people in a room and spoke with them 
>>>quietly, the question could not be answered with a yes or no, but rather 
>>>with an expression of what kind and how much.
>>>
>>>
>>>If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of 
>>>investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research. I suspect 
>>>that even Al Gore and Ray Pierrehumbert would favor some climate modeling, 
>>>strategic analyses, etc.  'Small and limited' is not as catchy 'they're just 
>>>crazy' as a rhetorical device.  Sometimes the will to entertain supercedes 
>>>the need to make a nuanced point.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Saturday, August 24, 2013, Simon Driscoll wrote:
>>>
>>>Salif,

my belief is that he suggests other avenues are far more sensible and that 
this avenue isn't one to seek a solution from, hence his: "We shouldn’t 
waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but 
they’re just crazy." Admittedly, it's quite full on, albeit similar 
sentiments have been echoed before by some of the world's most prominent 
scientists/policy researchers etc., e.g.: 
"In delivering the prestigious Tyndall Lecture at the annual American 
Geophysical Union meeting last December, he said th

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Alan Robock

Dear All,

I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be used. I
heard someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use this and she
did not distinguish between all the effects of atomic bombs and the
energy equivalent of the atomic explosions.

Equating nuclear war and global warming is a false comparison. Nuclear
war is a much worse fate for our planet, and is a scare tactic. The
number is correct (I did the calculation myself when I first heard of
this), but trapping energy has completely different effects from
dropping nuclear bombs on people. Using this is distracting,
sensational, and easy to refute if the speaker does not carefully
explain that it is the energy released by the bombs, with no other
effects including radioactivity, fires, and blast.

I told John Cook this at the AGU Chapman Conference on Climate
Communication this summer, and he said he would consider this
recommendation, but I don't know if he plans to continue to feature this
idea on Skeptical Science.

But see
http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change
for another point of view.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

On 10/1/13 1:22 PM, Greg Rau wrote:

To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshimas/day" statement below see:
http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387

It's actually 345,600 Hiroshimas/day or 4 bombs/sec, but you get the
idea. 90% of the heat is going into the ocean. This would seem a
powerful analogy (minus the radionuclides) for what we are doing to
the planet and why we need to intervene.

Greg

--
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] Volcanic cooling signal in tree ring temperature records for the past millennium - D'Arrigo - JGR Atmospheres - Wiley

2013-10-01 Thread Andrew Lockley

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50692/abstract

Volcanic cooling signal in tree ring temperature records for the past
millennium

Rosanne D'Arrigo, Rob Wilson, Kevin J. Anchukaitis
Article first published online: 29 AUG 2013
DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50692

Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Volume 118, Issue 16, pages 9000–9010, 27 August 2013

Keywords:

volcanism;dendrochronology;maximum latewood density;tree
rings;cross-dating;temperature reconstructions

Abstract

[1] Tree rings are an important proxy for understanding the timing and
environmental consequences of volcanic eruptions as they are precisely
dated at annual resolution and, particularly in tree line regions of the
world, sensitive to cold extremes that can result from climatically
significant volcanic episodes. Volcanic signals have been detected in ring
widths and by the presence of frost-damaged rings, yet are often most
clearly and quantitatively represented within maximum latewood density
series. Ring width and density reconstructions provide quantitative
information for inferring the variability and sensitivity of the Earth's
climate system on local to hemispheric scales. After a century of
dendrochronological science, there is no evidence, as recently theorized,
that volcanic or other adverse events cause such severely cold conditions
near latitudinal tree line that rings might be missing in all trees at a
given site in a volcanic year (“stand-wide” missing rings), resulting in
misdating of the chronology. Rather, there is a clear indication of precise
dating and development of rings in at least some trees at any given site,
even under adverse cold conditions, based on both actual tree ring
observations and modeling analyses. The muted evidence for volcanic cooling
in large-scale temperature reconstructions based at least partly on ring
widths reflects several factors that are completely unrelated to any
misdating. These include biological persistence of such records, as well as
varying spatial patterns of response of the climate system to volcanic
events, such that regional cooling, particularly for ring widths rather
than density, can be masked in the large-scale reconstruction average.

-- 
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] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Hawkins, Dave

I agree with Alan's point that the nuclear bomb comparison is too easily 
contaminated with all the other associations that the bomb evokes.  But perhaps 
we could nominate other energy release comparisons that would make the point 
that today's forcing is a big deal.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Alan Robock
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:31 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Dear All,

I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be used.  I heard 
someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use this and she did not 
distinguish between all the effects of atomic bombs and the energy equivalent 
of the atomic explosions.

Equating nuclear war and global warming is a false comparison.  Nuclear war is 
a much worse fate for our planet, and is a scare tactic.  The number is correct 
(I did the calculation myself when I first heard of this), but trapping energy 
has completely different effects from dropping nuclear bombs on people.  Using 
this is distracting, sensational, and easy to refute if the speaker does not 
carefully explain that it is the energy released by the bombs, with no other 
effects including radioactivity, fires, and blast.

I told John Cook this at the AGU Chapman Conference on Climate Communication 
this summer, and he said he would consider this recommendation, but I don't 
know if he plans to continue to feature this idea on Skeptical Science.

But see 
http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change 
for another point of view.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor

  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics

  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program

Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751

Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644

14 College Farm Road  E-mail: 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

  http://twitter.com/AlanRobock

Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
On 10/1/13 1:22 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshimas/day" statement below see:
http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387

It's actually 345,600 Hiroshimas/day or 4 bombs/sec, but you get the idea. 90% 
of the heat is going into the ocean. This would seem a powerful analogy (minus 
the radionuclides) for what we are doing to the planet and why we need to 
intervene.
Greg

--
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.

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread David Appell

Alan,

I see your point Do you (or does anyone) have a more appropriate
analogy for such large amounts of heat? The tempting thing about the
"Hiro" is it's just the right amount (63 terajoules) for many global
climate numbers I have sometimes used "Civ," the power production of
all of human civilization (~15 terawatts), but it's not as intuitive or
readily imagined.

David
--
e: david.app...@gmail.com
w: http://www.davidappell.com
t: @davidappell
b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com

On 10/1/2013 11:30 AM, Alan Robock wrote:

Dear All,

I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be used.
I heard someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use this and
she did not distinguish between all the effects of atomic bombs and
the energy equivalent of the atomic explosions.

But see
http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change
for another point of view.

Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USAhttp://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

On 10/1/13 1:22 PM, Greg Rau wrote:

To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshimas/day" statement below see:
http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387

Greg

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: [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

2013-10-01 Thread David Lewis

"it might be that for the middle classes of the industrial world that 
climate change is really a secondary issue and they'll still have their TV 
sets and their McBurgers and McNuggets to eat and life would go on"   

- thus spake Ken Caldeira, discussing his Sept 2012 Scientific American 
articlein
 avideoproduced by himself.  He 
says in the video the article is his answer to a 
question posed to him by Sci-Am editors, i.e. "what would happen if we 
burned ALL the fossil fuels available and dumped that CO2 into the 
atmosphere?"

What if Pachauri produced a 4 minute video discussing the new Working Group 
I AR5 report using this "do nothing about your fossil fuel addiction and a 
hundred years from now people just like you might still be watching TV and 
eating their McBurgers worrying about something else" concept, saying the 
IPCC thought this could be one way things might turn out, *after*civilization 
burned
* ALL* the fossil fuels?  

Those who promote the carbon budget approach are doing so in reaction to a 
previous effort which had not roused civilization to act decisively. 
 Almost everyone used to sign on to calls for civilization to act to reduce 
GHG emissions by a certain percentage by a certain date.  An example of a 
fairly recent call like this, for "approximately 50% reduction in global 
emissions from 1990 levels by 2050" is the G8 +5 Academies Joint 
Statement.  
Similar calls date back to at least 1988.  

The criticism is, politicians and everyone else might think they could 
expand emissions right up until 2049 and then deal with the problem. 
 Civilization is certainly continuing to expand its emissions.   Hence the 
push by some to try a different approach.  

Schellnhuber, who is central in the German discussion about what that 
country should do about climate change, has been promoting this relatively 
new carbon budget approach.  He is, according to Caldeira if I understand 
him correctly, one of these *dangerous noise makers*.  Why is it that 
Germany seems so far ahead of the US when it comes to taking nationally 
coordinated action aimed at limiting emission of GHG?  The principal 
adviser to Chancellor Merkel on climate change has been prescribing "a 
recipe for disaster" that can only encourage politicians to delay "concrete 
action now".  Presumably, Merkel has been ignoring her climate adviser.  

An example of the way Schellnhuber presents the carbon budget concept was 
recorded, i.e. when he gave the 
keynoteand
 the closing 
remarksat
 the 4 degrees conference in Australia.  He thought the approach had 
advantages.  

Obviously, since it is a fact that civilization is recarbonizing its energy 
system notwithstanding the total of everything Germany and every other 
country is doing, this approach could also be *a flop*.  

Enter Caldeira.  

He offers his idea, i.e. it is imperative that we frame the issue 
differently again.  Fine.  Not one more emitted molecule of CO2 is 
"allowable", we must say, while driving our motorcycles to work or as we 
fly to the next scientific conference.  We must preach that everyone should 
believe that "when I emit CO2, I am transgressing against nature and future 
generations", period.  

Maybe it will work.  However, condemning the sincere efforts of others who 
have better results in their own countries to show for their efforts, just 
because nothing so far anywhere is good enough, in the way Caldeira has, 
goes too far.  

"Ease up on those acid filled beakers" was a caption under a Far Side 
cartoon of scientists fighting each other in a lab.   

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:16:49 AM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
> I usually try to avoid off-topic posts, but this time I feel strongly 
> enough that I just can't resist temptation. 
>

(He was responding to the Romm post, i.e. 

> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/30/2699121/real-budget-crisis-co2/
>
>  The Real Budget Crisis: ‘The CO2 Emissions Budget Framing Is A Recipe 
> For Delaying Concrete Action 
> Now’
>  
>
> BY JOE ROMM  ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 
> AT 5:17 PM
>
>
>

-- 
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://gro

RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Christopher Green, Prof.

Not only is Alan Robock right but this discussion defies all reason.  Comparing 
heat without considering damage is nonsensical. Comparing the time dimension of 
a nuclear weapon in which there is no time to adapt with long term impact of 
climate change in which some adaptation is possible defies any logic or sense 
of scientific thinking. There is no way to justify Al Gore's statement (I was 
unaware he had made it) which is beyond the pale. Although I voted for him , Al 
Gore has proving to be a fool.)

If this discussion does anything so far as I am concerned it is to make me very 
wary of geo-engineers. To put geo-engineering in the hands of hysterical, 
chicken little "the sky is falling" "experts"  is to render geo-engineering 
dangerous rather than a potential fall back in case of a near-term "tipping 
point".

So far as the IPCC  and budgets are concerned CO2 emissions may be bad but in 
the current state of technology they are unavoidable. The world as a whole 
needs growing amounts of energy. Many years ago, Marty Hoffert put together a 
team to make the case that climate could not be stabilized without a 
thorough-going energy technology revolution---one that would require numerous 
breakthroughs. What happened? The IPCC more or less denied breakthroughs were 
needed. It has overtly promoted non-hydro renewables which in their current 
state cannot begin to meet the world's need for dependable, concentrated 
energy. What we have seen instead is renewables growing at the expense of 
nuclear energy, but failing to put a dent in the global share (of energy) 
contributed by carbon (fossil) fuels. Meanwhile, CCS faces many more 
technological challenges than its proponents acknowledged. Greens seem happy to 
undermine nuclear at every point. So Don't blame the fossil fuel industry for 
the lack of progress on low carbon-emitting energies. The IPCC and the greens 
have done enormous damage to Marty's vision. The result is to provide another 
"rationale" for geo-engineering: to (partially as it does not prevent emissions 
from growing) make up for failure to advance on the low carbon energy 
technology front.

  Sorry for the rant. I rarely "contribute" anything to the discussion, even 
though I have been part of the google group (almost) since its inception. But 
enough is enough!!!

Chris Green



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of David Appell
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:56 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Alan,

I see your point Do you (or does anyone) have a more appropriate analogy 
for such large amounts of heat? The tempting thing about the "Hiro" is it's 
just the right amount (63 terajoules) for many global climate numbers I 
have sometimes used "Civ," the power production of all of human civilization 
(~15 terawatts), but it's not as intuitive or readily imagined.

David
--
e: david.app...@gmail.com
w: http://www.davidappell.com
t: @davidappell
b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com


On 10/1/2013 11:30 AM, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear All,

I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be used.  I heard 
someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use this and she did not 
distinguish between all the effects of atomic bombs and the energy equivalent 
of the atomic explosions.

Equating nuclear war and global warming is a false comparison.  Nuclear war is 
a much worse fate for our planet, and is a scare tactic.  The number is correct 
(I did the calculation myself when I first heard of this), but trapping energy 
has completely different effects from dropping nuclear bombs on people.  Using 
this is distracting, sensational, and easy to refute if the speaker does not 
carefully explain that it is the energy released by the bombs, with no other 
effects including radioactivity, fires, and blast.

I told John Cook this at the AGU Chapman Conference on Climate Communication 
this summer, and he said he would consider this recommendation, but I don't 
know if he plans to continue to feature this idea on Skeptical Science.

But see 
http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change 
for another point of view.

Alan


Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor

  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics

  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program

Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751

Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644

14 College Farm Road  E-mail: 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA 
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

  http://twitter.com/AlanRobock

Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
On 10/1/13 1:22 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshi

Re: [geo] Re: [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

2013-10-01 Thread Ken Caldeira

The line that David Lewis quotes was intended to represent a dystopian view
of the future in which biodiversity has been depleted and many people in
the developing world are pushed over the edge, but the middle classes of
the industrialized world still have their minds anesthetized by television
as they eat their inhumanely-produced industrial food.

It never crossed my mind that some people, apparently including David
Lewis, could interpret such a vision as a positive view of the future.

___
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
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira



On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:28 PM, David Lewis  wrote:

> "it might be that for the middle classes of the industrial world that
> climate change is really a secondary issue and they'll still have their TV
> sets and their McBurgers and McNuggets to eat and life would go on"
>
> - thus spake Ken Caldeira, discussing his Sept 2012 Scientific American
> articlein
>  avideoproduced by himself.  He 
> says in the video the article is his answer to a
> question posed to him by Sci-Am editors, i.e. "what would happen if we
> burned ALL the fossil fuels available and dumped that CO2 into the
> atmosphere?"
>
> What if Pachauri produced a 4 minute video discussing the new Working
> Group I AR5 report using this "do nothing about your fossil fuel addiction
> and a hundred years from now people just like you might still be watching
> TV and eating their McBurgers worrying about something else" concept,
> saying the IPCC thought this could be one way things might turn out, *
> after* civilization burned* ALL* the fossil fuels?
>
> Those who promote the carbon budget approach are doing so in reaction to a
> previous effort which had not roused civilization to act decisively.
>  Almost everyone used to sign on to calls for civilization to act to reduce
> GHG emissions by a certain percentage by a certain date.  An example of a
> fairly recent call like this, for "approximately 50% reduction in global
> emissions from 1990 levels by 2050" is the G8 +5 Academies Joint
> Statement.
> Similar calls date back to at least 1988.
>
> The criticism is, politicians and everyone else might think they could
> expand emissions right up until 2049 and then deal with the problem.
>  Civilization is certainly continuing to expand its emissions.   Hence the
> push by some to try a different approach.
>
> Schellnhuber, who is central in the German discussion about what that
> country should do about climate change, has been promoting this relatively
> new carbon budget approach.  He is, according to Caldeira if I understand
> him correctly, one of these *dangerous noise makers*.  Why is it that
> Germany seems so far ahead of the US when it comes to taking nationally
> coordinated action aimed at limiting emission of GHG?  The principal
> adviser to Chancellor Merkel on climate change has been prescribing "a
> recipe for disaster" that can only encourage politicians to delay "concrete
> action now".  Presumably, Merkel has been ignoring her climate adviser.
>
> An example of the way Schellnhuber presents the carbon budget concept was
> recorded, i.e. when he gave the 
> keynoteand
>  the closing
> remarksat
>  the 4 degrees conference in Australia.  He thought the approach had
> advantages.
>
> Obviously, since it is a fact that civilization is recarbonizing its
> energy system notwithstanding the total of everything Germany and every
> other country is doing, this approach could also be *a flop*.
>
> Enter Caldeira.
>
> He offers his idea, i.e. it is imperative that we frame the issue
> differently again.  Fine.  Not one more emitted molecule of CO2 is
> "allowable", we must say, while driving our motorcycles to work or as we
> fly to the next scientific conference.  We must preach that everyone should
> believe that "when I emit CO2, I am transgressing against nature and future
> generations", period.
>
> Maybe it will work.  However, condemning the sincere efforts of others who
> have better results in their own countries to show for their efforts, just
> because nothing so far anywhere is good enough, in the way Caldeira has,
> goes too far.
>
> "Ease up on those acid filled beakers" was a caption under a Far Side
> cartoon of scientists fighting each other in a lab.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:16:49 AM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>>
>> I usually try to avoid off-topic posts, but this time I feel strongly
>> en

RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Hawkins, Dave

While the nuclear bomb analogy is off-base, the discussion is a reasonable one. 
 Part of the problem with understanding both the problem of climate change and 
the logistics of potential solutions is the scale of both the problem and the 
solution.  Finding ways to help people have a better sense of what the big 
numbers mean is a useful enterprise.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Christopher Green, Prof.
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:47 PM
To: david.app...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Not only is Alan Robock right but this discussion defies all reason.  Comparing 
heat without considering damage is nonsensical. Comparing the time dimension of 
a nuclear weapon in which there is no time to adapt with long term impact of 
climate change in which some adaptation is possible defies any logic or sense 
of scientific thinking. There is no way to justify Al Gore's statement (I was 
unaware he had made it) which is beyond the pale. Although I voted for him , Al 
Gore has proving to be a fool.)

If this discussion does anything so far as I am concerned it is to make me very 
wary of geo-engineers. To put geo-engineering in the hands of hysterical, 
chicken little "the sky is falling" "experts"  is to render geo-engineering 
dangerous rather than a potential fall back in case of a near-term "tipping 
point".

So far as the IPCC  and budgets are concerned CO2 emissions may be bad but in 
the current state of technology they are unavoidable. The world as a whole 
needs growing amounts of energy. Many years ago, Marty Hoffert put together a 
team to make the case that climate could not be stabilized without a 
thorough-going energy technology revolution---one that would require numerous 
breakthroughs. What happened? The IPCC more or less denied breakthroughs were 
needed. It has overtly promoted non-hydro renewables which in their current 
state cannot begin to meet the world's need for dependable, concentrated 
energy. What we have seen instead is renewables growing at the expense of 
nuclear energy, but failing to put a dent in the global share (of energy) 
contributed by carbon (fossil) fuels. Meanwhile, CCS faces many more 
technological challenges than its proponents acknowledged. Greens seem happy to 
undermine nuclear at every point. So Don't blame the fossil fuel industry for 
the lack of progress on low carbon-emitting energies. The IPCC and the greens 
have done enormous damage to Marty's vision. The result is to provide another 
"rationale" for geo-engineering: to (partially as it does not prevent emissions 
from growing) make up for failure to advance on the low carbon energy 
technology front.

  Sorry for the rant. I rarely "contribute" anything to the discussion, even 
though I have been part of the google group (almost) since its inception. But 
enough is enough!!!

Chris Green

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Appell
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:56 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Alan,

I see your point Do you (or does anyone) have a more appropriate analogy 
for such large amounts of heat? The tempting thing about the "Hiro" is it's 
just the right amount (63 terajoules) for many global climate numbers I 
have sometimes used "Civ," the power production of all of human civilization 
(~15 terawatts), but it's not as intuitive or readily imagined.

David
--
e: david.app...@gmail.com
w: http://www.davidappell.com
t: @davidappell
b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com

On 10/1/2013 11:30 AM, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear All,

I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be used.  I heard 
someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use this and she did not 
distinguish between all the effects of atomic bombs and the energy equivalent 
of the atomic explosions.

Equating nuclear war and global warming is a false comparison.  Nuclear war is 
a much worse fate for our planet, and is a scare tactic.  The number is correct 
(I did the calculation myself when I first heard of this), but trapping energy 
has completely different effects from dropping nuclear bombs on people.  Using 
this is distracting, sensational, and easy to refute if the speaker does not 
carefully explain that it is the energy released by the bombs, with no other 
effects including radioactivity, fires, and blast.

I told John Cook this at the AGU Chapman Conference on Climate Communication 
this summer, and he said he would consider this recommendation, but I don't 
know if he plans to continue to feature this idea on Skeptical Science.

But see 
http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change 
for another point of view.

Alan

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Alan Robock

Dear David,

I think an array of incandescent light bulbs around the world would work
much better. If you have 100 W bulbs, and want to model an imbalance at
the surface of 1 W/m2, then you will need one light bulb every 100 m2,
multiplied by 1 over the fraction of energy emitted by each bulb that is
heat rather than light. Light bulbs in an array separated by 5-10 m on
a side would not perhaps seem dramatic, but if you would zoom out and
see them everywhere on Earth, it could be.

Alan Robock

On 10/1/2013 2:55 PM, David Appell wrote:

Alan,

I see your point Do you (or does anyone) have a more appropriate
analogy for such large amounts of heat? The tempting thing about the
"Hiro" is it's just the right amount (63 terajoules) for many global
climate numbers I have sometimes used "Civ," the power production
of all of human civilization (~15 terawatts), but it's not as
intuitive or readily imagined.

David
--
e: david.app...@gmail.com
w: http://www.davidappell.com
t: @davidappell
b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com

On 10/1/2013 11:30 AM, Alan Robock wrote:

Dear All,

I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be
used. I heard someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use
this and she did not distinguish between all the effects of atomic
bombs and the energy equivalent of the atomic explosions.

Equating nuclear war and global warming is a false comparison.
Nuclear war is a much worse fate for our planet, and is a scare
tactic. The number is correct (I did the calculation myself when I
first heard of this), but trapping energy has completely different
effects from dropping nuclear bombs on people. Using this is
distracting, sensational, and easy to refute if the speaker does not
carefully explain that it is the energy released by the bombs, with
no other effects including radioactivity, fires, and blast.

But see
http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change
for another point of view.

On 10/1/13 1:22 PM, Greg Rau wrote:

To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshimas/day" statement below see:
http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387

Greg

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

2013-10-01 Thread Jim Fleming

Dear Alan and All,

Here is a video we produced at Colby on energy consumption (not global
warming) using lightbulbs.  The tall gentleman on the library steps is
Sherry Rowland.  Perhaps someone could make an array of Christmas tree
lights?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSPJOTX06JU

Jim Fleming


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Alan Robock wrote:

>  Dear David,
>
> I think an array of incandescent light bulbs around the world would work
> much better.  If you have 100 W bulbs, and want to model an imbalance at
> the surface of 1 W/m2, then you will need one light bulb every 100 m2,
> multiplied by 1 over the fraction of energy emitted by each bulb that is
> heat rather than light.  Light bulbs in an array separated by 5-10 m on a
> side would not perhaps seem dramatic, but if you would zoom out and see
> them everywhere on Earth, it could be.
>
> Alan Robock
>
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
>   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
>   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
>
> On 10/1/2013 2:55 PM, David Appell wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> I see your point Do you (or does anyone) have a more appropriate
> analogy for such large amounts of heat? The tempting thing about the "Hiro"
> is it's just the right amount (63 terajoules) for many global climate
> numbers I have sometimes used "Civ," the power production of all of
> human civilization (~15 terawatts), but it's not as intuitive or readily
> imagined.
>
> David
> --
> e: david.app...@gmail.com
> w: http://www.davidappell.com
> t: @davidappell
> b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com
>
>
> On 10/1/2013 11:30 AM, Alan Robock wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be used.  I
> heard someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use this and she did
> not distinguish between all the effects of atomic bombs and the energy
> equivalent of the atomic explosions.
>
> Equating nuclear war and global warming is a false comparison.  Nuclear
> war is a much worse fate for our planet, and is a scare tactic.  The number
> is correct (I did the calculation myself when I first heard of this), but
> trapping energy has completely different effects from dropping nuclear
> bombs on people.  Using this is distracting, sensational, and easy to
> refute if the speaker does not carefully explain that it is the energy
> released by the bombs, with no other effects including radioactivity,
> fires, and blast.
>
> I told John Cook this at the AGU Chapman Conference on Climate
> Communication this summer, and he said he would consider this
> recommendation, but I don't know if he plans to continue to feature this
> idea on Skeptical Science.
>
> But see
> http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-changefor
>  another point of view.
>
> Alan
>
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
>   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
>   http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
>
> On 10/1/13 1:22 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
>
> To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshimas/day" statement below see:
>
> http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387
>
>  It's actually 345,600 Hiroshimas/day or 4 bombs/sec, but you get the
> idea. 90% of the heat is going into the ocean. This would seem a powerful
> analogy (minus the radionuclides) for what we are doing to the planet and
> why we need to intervene.
> Greg
>
>
> --
> 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, s

[geo] Comparing bombs, tonnes excess atmospheric C, and land area in a CDR analysis

2013-10-01 Thread Ronal W. Larson


List:   

   I wondered if I could relate CDR  (in my case easiest to use biochar) in 
some way to Hiroshima bombs.  Is the following, using an imbalance methodology, 
credible?  This assumes the reader has been following the list dialog on 
Hiroshima bombs.  I am not recommending that this be a new frame CDR.

   Imbalance #1:   Hansen’s 400,000 bombs per day is the present imbalance.  If 
we want to remove that imbalance in 50 years, we must remove 1/2*50 yrs*365 
days*0.4 million bombs/day = 3.65 billion bombs.  Call it 4 billion bombs.  The 
factor of 1/2 comes in computing the area of a triangle.   A linear drawdown 
shape is not realistic, but this is a rough computation.  All numbers below are 
rough - chosen for ease in following the arithmetic. 

b. Imbalance #2.The present atmospheric imbalance in carbon terms 
is on the order of 100 ppm or 200 Gt C.  But to remove that we must remove an 
equivalent amount from the oceans, so we need near 400 Gt C to remove in total. 
 


c.  Equating:   If the imbalances are 4 billion bombs and 400 billion tons 
C, then 1 bomb = 100 tons C and one ton C = .01 bomb.   If a ton C can be 
removed for $100 dollars, then removing a bomb will cost $10k.  Removing 400 Gt 
C would be $40 trillion, or $800 billion per year.  This is less than $30/tonne 
CO2.

d.  Comparing stoves to weapons:   One (approximate) way to generate about 
a third of a ton (near 1/3 kg char per meal or 1 kg char per day or 1/3 tonne 
carbon per year) of sequestered carbon is to replace cooking with one 
traditional cook stove with one charcoal-making stove for one year.  So 300 
families could, over a year, remove the 100 tonne carbon imbalance equivalent 
to one Hiroshima weapon.   In fifty years only 6 families per weapon.  
   This last surprised me.  Note that joules never appeared - only 
weapons and tons carbon.

e.   Handling out-year impacts.   Moving to the gigaton scale, the average 
annual amount of biochar might have to be 1/2 *400 Gt C/50 yrs = 4 Gt C/yr = 4 
wedges.  The factor of 2 is postulated to account for an assumed doubling of 
impact due to out-year carbon-negative impacts from increased above and below 
ground carbon.  There are also some perhaps equal-magnitude carbon-equivalent 
annual impacts - but they are not in this 4 wedge computation. (A combination 
of CDR approaches, rather than only biochar, would need be larger than 4 
wedges.)

f.What land area for 4 GtC/yr?   To keep below 1 Gigahectare, we need 
to end up with at least 4 wedges/1 Gha = 4 tonnes Cseq/ha-yr.  If we can get 
40% char from a tonne of carbon in the biomass  (which itself might be 50% 
carbon), then we need an NPP of  (4 tonnes Cseq/ha-yr)/(0.4) = 10 t C/ha-yr.  
This is the same as 1 kg C/sqm-yr) [which equates to about 2 kg 
biomass/sqm-yr)].   There are bioenergy operations operating well above this 
level today.  This is only about twice the global average NPP near (60 Gt C per 
yr)/12 Gha = 5 t/ha-yr  (or 0.5 kg/sqm-yr).  Careful selection of species and 
sites is assumed.
   A sizeable (below assume 10% processing loss) portion of the 60% of 
the carbon in the biomass is available for carbon neutral biopower and biofuels 
- hopefully mostly used for backing up (more land-efficient, but 
non-dispatchable) wind and solar to enable zero fossil fuels.

g.   Is 1 gigahectare realistic?  Possibly not - but there is about 3 to 4 
times that much available in both degraded and pasture land.  No need for any 
forest or ag land, although possibly 1 of the 4 wedges would come from those 
activities - where a portion of the biochar will certainly also be placed (if 
credits become available).  This could get the 1 Gha down to 3/4 of a Gha.

h. Tying land and time with bombs:  One hectare producing at the 10 tonnes 
C/ha-yr rate (char at 4 tC/ha-yr), over fifty years will produce 50 yrs * 4 t 
C/ha-yr * 1 ha = 200 tonnes of directly sequestered char and twice (by 
assumption) that due to out-year impacts - or (the required) 400 tonnes Cseq in 
a 50 year period.  (And twice 200 again for carbon neutral impacts, but we are 
not counting those here).  
   So to get enough land for one bomb (since in step [c] we found a 
bomb = 100 tonnes Cseq), we need (100 t Cseq per bomb if removal takes 50 
years)/(400 tonnes Cseq/ha in 50 years) = 1/4 ha per bomb.  

i.   Energy/bomb aspects.  The energy available along with biochar, 
assuming 32 Gigajoules per tonne C ,from the 0.25 ha (one bomb), on a per year 
basis, is:
(32 GJ/t C) * (.5 Cenergy/Ctotal) * (10 t Ctotal/ha-yr) * 0.25 ha = (32 
* 250 * 0.25) GJ/yr =  40 GJoule/year  as co-product from one bomb over 50 
years.  Using an annual per capita world average energy usage of about 80 
Gj/yr, this one-bomb land area can also provide the total energy needs of about 
(40 GJ/yr-bomb)/(80 GJ per person-yr) = 1/2 average person.  But if wind, 
solar, and hydro would do 80% of the supply, t

[geo] An earth systems engineering perspective on geoengineering

[geo] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

Re: [geo] Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia

[geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

[geo] Lifeless Earth: What if everything died out tomorrow? - environment - 27 September 2013 - New Scientist

[geo] Sensitivity of simulated climate to latitudinal distribution of solar insolation reduction in SRM geoengineering methods

Re: [geo] An earth systems engineering perspective on geoengineering

[geo] Briggs with Opinion Article: Is Geoengineering a National Security Risk?

RE: [geo] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

Re: [geo] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

Re: [geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

Re: [geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

Re: [geo] The National Academies Contemplate Geoengineering - GeoSpace - AGU Blogosphere

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

[geo] Volcanic cooling signal in tree ring temperature records for the past millennium - D'Arrigo - JGR Atmospheres - Wiley

RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

[geo] Re: [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Re: [geo] Re: [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept

RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering

[geo] Comparing bombs, tonnes excess atmospheric C, and land area in a CDR analysis

25 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information