Re: [geo] Trump, Energy and Climate

[Fred Zimmerman]

Ronal -

I like the idea of starting with the food sector. For one thing, most
people have some opinion about climate change, whereas few people outside
enviro circles have (IMO) any settled ideas (or any ideas at all) about the
possible role of biological CDR. So it's terra incognito, or terra preta,
if you will.  Also, it fits with psychology that is already primed --
America as the breadbasket to the world is on the same key as Make America
Great Again. And finally (and this addresses Mark's point about state
legislators) -- policy attitudes will follow the money. If biological CDR
proves effective and profitable, it will become popular with states. A
practical thing that might be within the grasp of members of this list is
to try to arrange trade delegation trips focused on biological CDR.

Don't want to go too far astray from the science of geoengineering here,
but we do have to think about these aspects, too.

Fred
ᐧ

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Ronal W. Larson  wrote:

> Fred et al:
>
> I like all your points.  The Forbes article (cite below)  by Joel Kotkin
> should be helpful to this list as we attempt to keep the climate topic
> alive.  Here is what Kotkin had to say on climate (under the heading “The
> Green Trap”  (with two inserts):
>
> *Clinton’s support for climate change legislation, a lower priority among
> the electorate** than other concerns
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3876534/Americans-scared-clowns-Obamacare-climate-change-new-polls-show.html>,
> was seen as necessary to shore up support from greens threatening to attack
> her
> <https://www.thenation.com/article/the-climate-movement-has-to-elect-hillary-clinton-and-then-give-her-hell/>
>  from
> the left. Yet the issue never caught on the heartland, which tends to see
> climate change mitigation as injurious to them.*
> *[RWL:  And we on this list probably mostly or completely believe the
> opposite - that mitigation is way overdue.  How do we turn
> this “ heartland” opinion around?  We on this list are partially
> responsible for this failure of most of his supporters to believe climate
> change is serious.  It seems likely to me that Trump himself already knows
> climate change is real, anthropogenic and serious.*
>
> Skip 6 sentences on manufacturing - which relate to regulation and global
> trade.  Carbon taxes fit in here.
>
>
> *‘Agricultural states, reeling from the decline of commodity prices, not
> surprisingly, also went for the New Yorker."*
> *[RWL:Food prices are amazingly low.  Convincing Trump that
> encouraging use of farm land for energy and CDR as a second competing
> market for food should help all farmers and ag states - as well as the
> climate.*
>
> * There are probably other “geo” examples in the disaggregated analysis
> that Fred recommends.*
>
> *Ron*
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:36 PM, Fred Zimmerman 
> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting article that breaks down the state by state results
> by industry sector in a way that suggests a more granular rethink of
> climate change policy is needed than I think your article suggests.  Not
> being negative, just suggesting that success might require rebuilding
> climate change coalition state by state getting states to buy in bottom up
> than from national level top down with states seen more as blockers.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/09/donald-
> trumps-presidenti-victory-demographics/#7d88d72f79a8
> ᐧ
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:59 PM, barteau  wrote:
>
>> I have just published the piece at the link below.
>> Mark Barteau
>>
>> http://theconversation.com/what-president-trump-means-for-
>> the-future-of-energy-and-climate-68045
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subs

Re: [geo] Trump, Energy and Climate

[Fred Zimmerman]

This is an interesting article that breaks down the state by state results
by industry sector in a way that suggests a more granular rethink of
climate change policy is needed than I think your article suggests.  Not
being negative, just suggesting that success might require rebuilding
climate change coalition state by state getting states to buy in bottom up
than from national level top down with states seen more as blockers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-presidenti-victory-demographics/#7d88d72f79a8
ᐧ

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:59 PM, barteau  wrote:

> I have just published the piece at the link below.
> Mark Barteau
>
> http://theconversation.com/what-president-trump-means-
> for-the-future-of-energy-and-climate-68045
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] White Arctic vs. Blue Arctic: A case study of diverging stakeholder responses to environmental change

[Fred Zimmerman]

An important but dangerous line of thought, as it implies questions like
"Green Amazon v. Amber Amazon": rain forest v. savannah?

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Attached
>
> Earth’s Future
> White Arctic vs. Blue Arctic: A case study of diverging stakeholder
> responses to environmental change
>
> Robert Newton, Stephanie Pfirman, Peter Schlosser, Bruno Tremblay,
> Maribeth Murray, and Rafe Pomerance
>
> Abstract
> Recent trends and climate models suggest that the Arctic summer sea ice
> cover is likely to be lost before climate interventions can stabilize it.
> There are environmental, socioeconomic, and sociocultural arguments for,
> but also against, restoring and sustaining current conditions. Even if
> global warming
> can be reversed, some people will experience ice-free summers before
> perennial sea ice begins to return.
>
> We ask: How will future generations feel about bringing sea ice back where
> they have not experienced it before? How will conflicted interests in
> ice-covered vs. ice-free conditions be resolved? What role will science
> play in these debates?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fwd: solar cell captures CO2 and sunlight, produces burnable fuel (Science, July 29)

[Fred Zimmerman]

Thoughts? I'm having a difficult time evaluating significance of this.

https://news.uic.edu/breakthrough-solar-cell-captures-co2-and-sunlight-produces-burnable-fuel

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a
potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts
atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using
only sunlight for energy.

The finding is reported in the July 29 issue of *Science* and was funded by
the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. A
provisional patent application has been filed.

Unlike conventional solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity
that must be stored in heavy batteries, the new device essentially does the
work of plants, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into fuel, solving
two crucial problems at once. A solar farm of such “artificial leaves”
could remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and produce
energy-dense fuel efficiently.

“The new solar cell is not photovoltaic — it’s photosynthetic,” says Amin
Salehi-Khojin, assistant professor of mechanical and industrial engineering
at UIC and senior author on the study.

“Instead of producing energy in an unsustainable one-way route from fossil
fuels to greenhouse gas, we can now reverse the process and recycle
atmospheric carbon into fuel using sunlight,” he said.

While plants produce fuel in the form of sugar, the artificial leaf
delivers syngas, or synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen gas and carbon
monoxide. Syngas can be burned directly, or converted into diesel or other
hydrocarbon fuels.

The ability to turn CO2 into fuel at a cost comparable to a gallon of
gasoline would render fossil fuels obsolete.

Chemical reactions that convert CO2 into burnable forms of carbon are
called reduction reactions, the opposite of oxidation or combustion.
Engineers have been exploring different catalysts to drive CO2 reduction,
but so far such reactions have been inefficient and rely on expensive
precious metals such as silver, Salehi-Khojin said.

“What we needed was a new family of chemicals with extraordinary
properties,” he said.
[image: Amin Salehi-Khojin & Mohammad Asadi]

Amin Salehi-Khojin (left), UIC assistant professor of mechanical and
industrial engineering, and postdoctoral researcher Mohammad Asadi with
their breakthrough solar cell that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide
directly into syngas.

Salehi-Khojin and his coworkers focused on a family of nano-structured
compounds called transition metal dichalcogenides — or TMDCs — as
catalysts, pairing them with an unconventional ionic liquid as the
electrolyte inside a two-compartment, three-electrode electrochemical cell.

The best of several catalysts they studied turned out to be nanoflake
tungsten diselenide.

“The new catalyst is more active; more able to break carbon dioxide’s
chemical bonds,” said UIC postdoctoral researcher Mohammad Asadi, first
author on the *Science* paper.

In fact, he said, the new catalyst is 1,000 times faster than noble-metal
catalysts — and about 20 times cheaper.

Other researchers have used TMDC catalysts to produce hydrogen by other
means, but not by reduction of CO2. The catalyst couldn’t survive the
reaction.

“The active sites of the catalyst get poisoned and oxidized,” Salehi-Khojin
said. The breakthrough, he said, was to use an ionic fluid called
ethyl-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate, mixed 50-50 with water.

“The combination of water and the ionic liquid makes a co-catalyst that
preserves the catalyst’s active sites under the harsh reduction reaction
conditions,” Salehi-Khojin said.

The UIC artificial leaf consists of two silicon triple-junction
photovoltaic cells of 18 square centimeters to harvest light; the tungsten
diselenide and ionic liquid co-catalyst system on the cathode side; and
cobalt oxide in potassium phosphate electrolyte on the anode side.

When light of 100 watts per square meter – about the average intensity
reaching the Earth’s surface – energizes the cell, hydrogen and carbon
monoxide gas bubble up from the cathode, while free oxygen and hydrogen
ions are produced at the anode.

“The hydrogen ions diffuse through a membrane to the cathode side, to
participate in the carbon dioxide reduction reaction,” said Asadi.

The technology should be adaptable not only to large-scale use, like solar
farms, but also to small-scale applications, Salehi-Khojin said. In the
future, he said, it may prove useful on Mars, whose atmosphere is mostly
carbon dioxide, if the planet is also found to have water.

“This work has benefitted from the significant history of NSF support for
basic research that feeds directly into valuable technologies and
engineering achievements,” said NSF program director Robert McCabe.

“The results nicely meld experimental and computational studies to obtain
new insight into the unique electronic properties of transition metal
dichalcogenides,” McCabe said. “The research tea

Re: [geo] CIA Director Brennan Speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations on geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

I think I overstated my formulation. I was not talking about the science
but really the level of enthusiasm and energy around various options. While
we see people full-throatedly arguing for MOAR BECCS NOW we don't really
see the same breadth of enthusiasm for immediate SAI.
ᐧ

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> I think of carbon dioxide removal as a form of mitigation and of solar
> geoengineering as an extreme form of adaptation.
>
> They are not not mutually exclusive, and not substitutes except insofar as
> more carbon dioxide removal reduces the motivation to deploy solar
> geoengineering.
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 07:52 Fred Zimmerman 
> wrote:
>
>> What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that this 
>> community
>> had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism,
>> most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for
>> slowing the rate of change.  Do others agree with my formulation?
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
>>>
>>> Extract
>>>
>>> Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to
>>> collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the
>>> warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal
>>> attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding
>>> the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in
>>> much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
>>>
>>> An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some
>>> risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy
>>> additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also
>>> relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully
>>> deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
>>>
>>> As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of
>>> challenges for our government and for the international community. On the
>>> technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to
>>> accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean
>>> acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the
>>> atmosphere.
>>>
>>> On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather
>>> patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger
>>> sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and
>>> back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with
>>> other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to
>>> guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] CIA Director Brennan Speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations on geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

What I find interesting about this is that it had seemed to me that
this community
had largely moved on to CDR & especially BECCS as the preferred mechanism,
most people accepting David Keith's view of SAI as a last-ditch option for
slowing the rate of change.  Do others agree with my formulation?

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

>
>
> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html
>
> Extract
>
> Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to
> collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the
> warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal
> attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding
> the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in
> much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
>
> An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some
> risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy
> additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also
> relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully
> deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
>
> As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of
> challenges for our government and for the international community. On the
> technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to
> accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean
> acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the
> atmosphere.
>
> On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather
> patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger
> sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and
> back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with
> other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to
> guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Climate impacts of irrigated afforestation of the Sahara in a complex earth system model

[Fred Zimmerman]

Interesting study (and exercise in positive thinking)!  Study finds 0.04C
net global cooling, not bad for a "wedge" -- if I recall correctly Socolow
et al. required 15 wedges to achieve stabilization, e.g. (simplifying
vastly) roughly 0.2C/wedge (2004, 2011
https://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/socolow/Wedges-reaffirmed-PLUS-ten-soliticed-comments-9-29-11.pdf)
  Each wedge requires a pretty huge effort like building 750 new nuclear
reactors, or afforesting the Sahara.  However, the poster doesn't address
the likely ripple effects of afforestation, i.e. growth in population, land
use, and energy consumption which would very likely offset any savings.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note : economically, cropland would be more likely funded
>
> Attached
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Special Message : Geoengineering 2015 Annual Review

[Fred Zimmerman]

May I ask the group members each to nominate a top 5? (or 3, or 1, or 10,
whatever you like?)

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I would add Kwiatkowski et al. (ERL, 2015) which performed the first
> simulations of effects of ocean pipes in a fully coupled 3D
> atmosphere-ocean climate-carbon model (CESM) and showed that at large
> scale, there is great potential for near term cooling but on century
> time-scales cloud feedbacks could end up producing a net warming instead of
> the intended net cooling.
>
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034016
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> Lester Kwiatkowski *et al* 2015 *Environ. Res. Lett.* 10 034016
>
> ​
>
> Environmental Research Letters 
> Atmospheric consequences of disruption of the ocean thermocline
>
> Lester Kwiatkowski, Katharine L Ricke and Ken Caldeira
>
> Published 19 March 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd • Environmental
> Research Letters , Volume 10
> , Number 3
> 
>
> Technologies utilizing vertical ocean pipes have been proposed as a means
> to avoid global warming, either by providing a source of clean energy,
> increasing ocean carbon uptake, or storing thermal energy in the deep
> ocean. However, increased vertical transport of water has the capacity to
> drastically alter the ocean thermocline. To help bound potential climate
> consequences of these activities, we perform a set of simulations involving
> idealized disruption of the ocean thermocline by greatly increasing
> vertical mixing in the upper ocean. We use an Earth System Model (ESM) to
> evaluate the likely thermal and hydrological response of the atmosphere to
> this scenario. In our model, increased vertical transport in the upper
> ocean decreases upward shortwave and longwave radiation at the
> top-of-the-atmosphere due primarily to loss of clouds and sea-ice over the
> ocean. This extreme scenario causes an effective radiative forcing of
> ≈15.5–15.9 W m−2, with simulations behaving on multi-decadal time scales
> as if they are approaching an equilibrium temperature ≈8.6–8.8 °C higher
> than controls. Within a century, this produces higher global mean surface
> temperatures than would have occurred in the absence of increased vertical
> ocean transport. In our simulations, disruption of the thermocline strongly
> cools the lower atmosphere over the ocean, resulting in high pressure
> anomalies. The greater land-sea pressure contrast is found to increase
> water vapour transport from ocean to land in the lower atmosphere and
> therefore increase global mean precipitation minus evaporation (P–E) over
> land; however, many high latitude regions and some low latitude regions
> experience decreased P–E. Any real implementation of ocean pipe
> technologies would damage the thermal structure of the ocean to a lesser
> extent than simulated here; nevertheless, our simulations indicate the
> likely sign and character of unintended atmospheric consequences of such
> ocean technologies. Prolonged application of ocean pipe technologies,
> rather than avoiding global warming, could exacerbate long-term warming of
> the climate system.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/
> blog: http://kencaldeira.org
> @KenCaldeira
>
> My assistant is Dawn Ross , with access to
> incoming emails.
> Postdoc positions:
> https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/postdoc-opportunity-the-global-cycle-of-atmospheric-kinetic-energy/
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Nils Matzner and I compiled the attached list of some of the most
>> interesting, informative, representative and controversial papers of the
>> year.
>>
>> Please reply on-list including any you think we're missed. We'll publish
>> an extended version as a blog post soon.
>>
>> Thanks for reading the list in 2015 - and thanks to Oscar Escobar and
>> Nils Matzner for sourcing much of the material I distribute here.
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 

Re: [geo] Climate scientists ponder spraying diamond dust in the sky to cool planet : Nature News & Comment

[Fred Zimmerman]

What could possibly go wrong:  how would this plan prevent enterprising
entrepreneurs from "harvesting" the atmospheric diamond dust and
repurposing it for "bling" or industrial applications?
ᐧ

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

>
> http://www.nature.com/news/climate-scientists-ponder-spraying-diamond-dust-in-the-sky-to-cool-planet-1.18634
>
> News & Comment
> News2015October
>
> NATURE | NEWS
>
> Climate scientists ponder spraying diamond dust in the sky to cool planet
>
> Solid particles of diamond or alumina might be safer than sulphate
> droplets as a way to redirect the Sun’s energy, calculations suggest.
>
> Andy Extance
>
> 26 October 2015
>
> Injecting materials in the stratosphere is seen a desperate but feasible
> 'geoengineering' measure to counter the effects of global warming.
>
> Climate scientists have thought up plenty of futuristic ways to cool the
> planet, but an analysis published on 26 October1 examines what may be their
> wildest idea yet: spraying tiny diamonds high into the atmosphere.
>
> Researchers have for years discussed the merits of pumping water-based
> sulphate spray into the sky to reflect and scatter the Sun's energy —
> essentially, mimicking the cooling caused by volcanic eruptions. Like most
> kinds of geoengineering, the idea is highly controversial and so far
> untested.
>
> But if anyone does try this 'solar-radiation management', then it may be
> safer to use dusts of solid, nanometre-sized particles, suggests a team of
> scientists from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In a paper
> published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics1, they calculate that
> nanoparticles of diamond or alumina (aluminium oxide) could be more
> effective and less environmentally damaging than sulphates. And although
> diamond dust is expensive, it is not completely out of the question, the
> researchers argue.
>
> Related storiesClimate geoengineering schemes come under firePolicy: Start
> research on climate engineeringClimate tinkerers thrash out a plan
>
> "Our paper is really geared towards removing the mindset that it has to be
> sulphate that's used to do solar radiation management," says Debra
> Weisenstein, an atmospheric modelling expert at Harvard and one of the
> study's authors.
>
> Sulphate's side-effects
>
> Other researchers have proposed spraying solid dusts before2. But the
> latest study is the first to model the particles' effects in detail,
> Weisenstein says, by examining how they interact — both physically and
> chemically — with different substances in the atmosphere, and making the
> comparison with sulphates.
>
> In the atmosphere, sulphates lead to the production of sulphuric acid,
> which damages the ozone layer. By absorbing certain wavelengths of light,
> they also heat up the lower stratosphere; that in turn could affect
> air-circulation patterns and climate. Sulphates would also diffuse light,
> an effect that could boost plant growth but would lower the power output of
> solar panels3.
>
> Alumina and diamond dust both lead to fewer problems, says
> Weisenstein. “You could have significantly less impact on ozone, less
> heating of the stratosphere and less of an increase in diffuse light at
> Earth’s surface,” she says. That is because alumina and diamond do not
> result in the production of sulphuric acid, and they scatter and absorb
> particular wavelengths of light in a different way.
>
> Besides analysing environmental effects, the paper also shows that, pound
> for pound, alumina dust would achieve a similar cooling effect to that of
> sulphate sprays — but that diamond dust would be at least 50% more
> effective.
>
> Diamonds in the sky
>
> Of course, spraying diamond dust into the sky would ring up a hefty bill.
> Diamond dust is less expensive than cut gemstones: tiny synthetic diamond
> particles are now available at less than US$100 per kilogram, the Harvard
> researchers note. But based on their paper's results, offsetting just a few
> percent of the energy trapped by human-emitted greenhouse gases would take
> hundreds of thousands of tonnes of dust annually. Although the Harvard
> researchers stress that they didn’t do a detailed cost analysis, at current
> prices that would still require billions of dollars each year.
>
> However, Weisenstein is adamant that the ultimate cost would be lower.
> "Once this can be scaled up to make the right quantities, you assume the
> price is going to drop," she says. "Trying to estimate based on how much
> diamond costs currently is not particularly useful."
>
> And David Keith, a climate scientist also at Harvard and another of the
> paper's authors, says he does not think even today's costs would be
> prohibitive. By 2065, he says, with 10 billion people on the planet, the
> cost might be on the order of $5 per person to pump up some 450,000 tons of
> diamond dust.
>
> Still, the Harvard team is focusing on alumina right now, Weisenstein
> says, because it’s easier to

Re: [geo] Evidence for deep-ocean frozen methane release VERY bad news?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Hi John,

Just to be clear, I'm in favor of research, investigation, and action. But
 don't think that it's sufficiently persuasive to say to policy makers "by
the time concentrations are rising rapidly, it will be too late." That
simply will not be enough to trigger the drastic immediate action that you
recommend.

Let's say global methane concentrations rise by 10% next year (which is a
worst case scenario in my view).  Massive panic!  but if that happened, the
*first* international response would be to create a rapid large scale high
resolution observational program.  *That* is the critical path for
effective action and so that is what we should focus on right now.  This
view is based not on skepticism or lack of urgency but on fundamentals of
project management.

Fred
ᐧ

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, John Nissen 
wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> If we wait until the concentration starts to rise very rapidly it's
> probably too late to do anything about it!  And the concentration has been
> rising again after some years of little change.  The reason is not well
> understood.  Bubble studies of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf gave
> estimates of methane release of ~20 megatons in 2013.  Plume sizes have
> escalated, suggesting a doubling in methane release every few years.  If
> exponential increase persists, or if there is a regional disruption from an
> earthquake or tsunami pressure wave, then the release could reach the
> gigaton per annum level, raising global concentration very rapidly and
> kiboshing efforts to curb global warming.
>
> What to do?  Try cooling the Arctic while developing methods to suppress
> methane, e.g. diatom food and nutrients for methanotrophs.
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Fred Zimmerman <
> geoengineerin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Worrisome but as with all these bubble studies the data is sparse
>> relative to the area covered so difficult to make any firm conclusions.  A
>> major large area study is needed: lots of sensors or a new remote sensing
>> optoelectronic seismological  or sonar technique exploiting bubble
>> phenomenology. Remember always that global atmospheric methane
>> concentrations are a crosscheck on panic.  If the global (fully mixed)
>> concentration starts to rise very rapidly *then* it's time to panic.
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Eric Durbrow  wrote:
>>
>>> I found this recent article extremely disturbing but perhaps I am
>>> exaggerating the impact of possible deep-ocean methane release. Can someone
>>> provide a perspective? Is this a potential "game-over?”
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GC005955/abstract
>>>
>>> Press Release:
>>>
>>> Warming ocean temperatures a third of a mile below the surface, in a
>>> dark ocean in areas with little marine life, might attract scant attention.
>>> But this is precisely the depth where frozen pockets of methane 'ice'
>>> transition from a dormant solid to a powerful greenhouse gas.
>>>
>>> New University of Washington research suggests that subsurface warming
>>> could be causing more methane gas to bubble up off the Washington and
>>> Oregon coast.
>>>
>>> The study, to appear in the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics,
>>> Geosystems, shows that of 168 bubble plumes observed within the past
>>> decade, a disproportionate number were seen at a critical depth for the
>>> stability of methane hydrates.
>>>
>>> "We see an unusually high number of bubble plumes at the depth where
>>> methane hydrate would decompose if seawater has warmed," said lead author
>>> H. Paul Johnson, a UW professor of oceanography. "So it is not likely to be
>>> just emitted from the sediments; this appears to be coming from the
>>> decomposition of methane that has been frozen for thousands of years."
>>>
>>> Methane has contributed to sudden swings in Earth's climate in the past.
>>> It is unknown what role it might contribute to contemporary climate change,
>>> although recent studies have reported warming-related methane emissions in
>>> Arctic permafrost and off the Atlantic coast.
>>>
>>> Of the 168 methane plumes in the new study, some 14 were located at the
>>> transition depth -- more plumes per unit area than on surrounding parts of
>>> the Washington and Oregon seafloor.
>>>
>>> If methane bubbles rise all the way to the surface, they enter the
>>> atmosphere and act a

Re: [geo] Creating corals that can survive climate change (off topic?)

[Fred Zimmerman]

It becomes more problematic if we think about the precedent of selecting
for super resilient individuals of every species ...
ᐧ

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Thinly disguised GMO?  How did this evade ETC's and CBD's super sensitive
> radar?
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/creating-corals-that-can-survive-climate-change/2015/10/19/ca0464fe-62fc-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html?utm_content=buffercffe6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
>
> washingtonpost.com1996-2015 The Washington Post
>
> Creating corals that can survive climate change
>
> By Dennis Hollier October 19
>
> Keyhole Reef is one of dozens of small reefs rising abruptly from the
> depths of Kaneohe Bay, one of Hawaii’s most scenic places. The water around
> it is sapphire blue, and bright schools of tang and triggerfish flit over
> its surface. But the reef is showing troubling signs of stress these days
> because of climate change.
>
> Here and there along the steep face of the reef, clumps of coral have
> turned stark white. This bleaching means the coral has begun to eject the
> micro-algae that normally live within its tissues and provide up to 90
> percent of the nutrients that coral needs to live. And that has scientists
> worried, because similar things are happening in tropical waters around the
> world. Coral reefs are one of the planet’s keystone habitats, as rich in
> species as the rain forest. But they’re even more vulnerable to climate
> change and the warm, acidic ocean conditions it is creating.
>
> [Dramatic bleaching event underway around the globe, began in 2014]
>
> Yet scientists may be coming up with a way to protect the fragile reefs
> for the warmer world of the future
>
> Ruth Gates, director of the Hawaii Institute for Marine Biology, calls the
> process human-assisted evolution. Last spring, she and Madeleine van Oppen
> of the Australian Institute for Marine Sciences received a $4 million grant
> from the family foundation of Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen for a plan
> to develop strains of coral that will be able to withstand changing ocean
> conditions.
>
> Gates emphasizes that now is the time for scientists to act, while there
> is still enough diversity on the reef. “As a biologist who’s been looking
> at reefs for 30 years,” she says, “I’m spectacularly realistic about what I
> see, and it’s not pretty — and if we don’t do anything about it, it’s going
> to intensify.”
>
> The secret lives of coral
>
> Like their close relatives, sea anemones and jellyfish, corals begin their
> life as free-swimming larvae. Eventually, though, they settle permanently
> on a rock or a patch of dead coral and transform into polyps, the basic
> units of coral. Almost immediately, the polyps begin to secrete the hard
> exoskeleton that we think of as coral reef. Collectively, corals are
> nature’s most prodigious architects. The Great Barrier Reef, where van
> Oppen does her research, is large enough to be seen from space.
>
> In a sense, each coral polyp is an individual, with a mouth and tentacles
> and its own community of symbionts. But the concept of individuality in
> coral is a complex one. Although larvae are the result of sexual
> reproduction, corals also reproduce clonally. Polyps will divide over and
> over again so that all the polyps in a colony, or a head of coral, may be
> genetically identical. Each may feed and spawn independently, but they’re
> also all connected by tissue and by a kind of nervous system called a nerve
> net. If you touch one end of a colony, the tentacles on the other end will
> retract.
>
> Then there’s the relationship between coral and its symbiotic
> microorganisms. Because their lives are so intertwined, scientists
> generally think of all these organisms as a single entity they call a
> holobiont. If human-assisted evolution is going save coral, it will have to
> work on the entire holobiont.
>
> Despite the provocative label, human-assisted evolution relies largely
> upon old-fashioned selective breeding. Gates points out that, even during a
> dramatic warming event, like last summer’s in Hawaii, when mean sea
> temperatures in Kaneohe Bay were several degrees above normal, not all the
> coral on a reef bleaches. Some individuals are clearly more tolerant of
> these kinds of stresses. Gates is collecting small samples of those
> individuals and bringing them into her lab to crossbreed them. By selecting
> the most robust offspring, she hopes to produce more-resilient strains of
> coral.
>
> Creating ‘super corals’
>
> That’s just the first step. Ultimately, the plan is to return these corals
> back onto the damaged reefs they came from so they can interbreed with the
> wild coral. But before that happens, Gates and van Oppen believe they can
> exploit the complex biology of these organisms to create “super corals.”
>
> There are two main 

[geo] Russia now requiring scientists to vet articles with FSB - climate/geo impact?

[Fred Zimmerman]

http://www.nature.com/news/russian-secret-service-to-vet-research-papers-1.18602

Any thoughts from Russian scholars, or friends of Russian scholars, whether
this may have a "chilling" effect on climate & geoengineering research?
Less info about Russian climate = big handicap for climate/geo research,
not a good omen.


Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA



*PageKicker <http://www.pagekicker.com/> -- real-time, customized, mobile,
social deep contentNimble Books LLC -- innovative, idiosyncratic
independent publisher on military, naval, and politics*
ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] space based observations & geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

Any thoughts on whether this comprehensive real time info could assist in
monitoring status of geoengineering experiments/deployments?

http://aviationweek.com/space/unprecedented-peek-behind-sbirs-veil?

In less than 10 sec., every point on the face of the Earth is imaged by the
U.S. Air Force’s newest infrared (IR) missile warning satellite system. The
message from the operators of the new Space-Based Infrared System (Sbirs)
at the 460th Space Wing at Buckley AFB, Colorado, is that missile or space
launches cannot happen anywhere on Earth—or over it—without their knowing.
With Sbirs, they can detect a launch faster than ever, more accurately
identify the missile type, ...

Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA



*PageKicker <http://www.pagekicker.com/> -- real-time, customized, mobile,
social deep contentNimble Books LLC -- innovative, idiosyncratic
independent publisher on military, naval, and politics*
ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Evidence for deep-ocean frozen methane release VERY bad news?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Worrisome but as with all these bubble studies the data is sparse relative
to the area covered so difficult to make any firm conclusions.  A major
large area study is needed: lots of sensors or a new remote sensing
optoelectronic seismological  or sonar technique exploiting bubble
phenomenology. Remember always that global atmospheric methane
concentrations are a crosscheck on panic.  If the global (fully mixed)
concentration starts to rise very rapidly *then* it's time to panic.
ᐧ

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Eric Durbrow  wrote:

> I found this recent article extremely disturbing but perhaps I am
> exaggerating the impact of possible deep-ocean methane release. Can someone
> provide a perspective? Is this a potential "game-over?”
> Eric
>
> Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GC005955/abstract
>
> Press Release:
>
> Warming ocean temperatures a third of a mile below the surface, in a dark
> ocean in areas with little marine life, might attract scant attention. But
> this is precisely the depth where frozen pockets of methane 'ice'
> transition from a dormant solid to a powerful greenhouse gas.
>
> New University of Washington research suggests that subsurface warming
> could be causing more methane gas to bubble up off the Washington and
> Oregon coast.
>
> The study, to appear in the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems,
> shows that of 168 bubble plumes observed within the past decade, a
> disproportionate number were seen at a critical depth for the stability of
> methane hydrates.
>
> "We see an unusually high number of bubble plumes at the depth where
> methane hydrate would decompose if seawater has warmed," said lead author
> H. Paul Johnson, a UW professor of oceanography. "So it is not likely to be
> just emitted from the sediments; this appears to be coming from the
> decomposition of methane that has been frozen for thousands of years."
>
> Methane has contributed to sudden swings in Earth's climate in the past.
> It is unknown what role it might contribute to contemporary climate change,
> although recent studies have reported warming-related methane emissions in
> Arctic permafrost and off the Atlantic coast.
>
> Of the 168 methane plumes in the new study, some 14 were located at the
> transition depth -- more plumes per unit area than on surrounding parts of
> the Washington and Oregon seafloor.
>
> If methane bubbles rise all the way to the surface, they enter the
> atmosphere and act as a powerful greenhouse gas. But most of the deep-sea
> methane seems to get consumed during the journey up. Marine microbes
> convert the methane into carbon dioxide, producing lower-oxygen,
> more-acidic conditions in the deeper offshore water, which eventually wells
> up along the coast and surges into coastal waterways.
>
> "Current environmental changes in Washington and Oregon are already
> impacting local biology and fisheries, and these changes would be amplified
> by the further release of methane," Johnson said.
>
> Another potential consequence, he said, is the destabilization of seafloor
> slopes where frozen methane acts as the glue that holds the steep sediment
> slopes in place.
>
> Methane deposits are abundant on the continental margin of the Pacific
> Northwest coast. A 2014 study from the UW documented that the ocean in the
> region is warming at a depth of 500 meters (0.3 miles), by water that
> formed decades ago in a global warming hotspot off Siberia and then
> traveled with ocean currents east across the Pacific Ocean. That previous
> paper calculated that warming at this depth would theoretically destabilize
> methane deposits on the Cascadia subduction zone, which runs from northern
> California to Vancouver Island.
>
> At the cold temperatures and high pressures present on the continental
> margin, methane gas in seafloor sediments forms a crystal lattice structure
> with water. The resulting icelike solid, called methane hydrate, is
> unstable and sensitive to changes in temperature. When the ocean warms, the
> hydrate crystals dissociate and methane gas leaks into the sediment. Some
> of that gas escapes from the sediment pores as a gas.
>
> The 2014 study calculated that with present ocean warming, such hydrate
> decomposition could release roughly 0.1 million metric tons of methane per
> year into the sediments off the Washington coast, about the same amount of
> methane from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout.
>
> The new study looks for evidence of bubble plumes off the coast, including
> observations by UW research cruises, earlier scientific studies and local
> fishermen's reports. The authors included bubble plumes that rose at least
> 150 meters (490 feet) tall that clearly originate from the seafloor. The
> dataset included 45 plumes originally detected by fishing boats, whose
> modern sonars can detect the bubbles while looking for schools of fish,
> with their observations later confirmed during UW research cruises.
>
> Results show t

Re: [geo] Economic impacts from thawing permafrost

[Fred Zimmerman]

$43T in damages seems like a lot to me, especially if spread over a century
or the period 2015-2100.  Global GDP is about $78T.

I don't have access to the article, so can't comment in detail, but if I
did I would be trying to figure out what they imply is $T/degC/year.  While
a cost of a few trillion dollars per year is not chicken feed and would
bring with it many human costs that cannot be translated into dollars, it
is probably manageable for the global economy -- some estimates put the
cost of 9/11 at $1T, the TARP bailouts were $.75T, the Iraq war was $3% or
more ...

Cheers,

Fred

Cheers,

Fred

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html
>
> "The Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the global average1
> .
> If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase at current rates, this
> warming will lead to the widespread thawing of permafrost and the release
> of hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 and billions of tonnes of CH4 into
> the atmosphere2
> .
> So far there have been no estimates of the possible extra economic impacts
> from permafrost emissions of CO2 and CH4. Here we use the default PAGE09
> integrated assessment model3
> 
>  to
> show the range of possible global economic impacts if this CO2 and CH4 is
> released into the atmosphere on top of the anthropogenic emissions from
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario A1B (ref. 4
> )
> and three other scenarios. Under the A1B scenario, CO2 and CH4released
> from permafrost increases the mean net present value of the impacts of
> climate change by US$43 trillion, or about 13% (5–95% range: US$3–166
> trillion), proportional to the increase in total emissions due to thawing
> permafrost. The extra impacts of the permafrost CO2 and CH4 are
> sufficiently high to justify urgent action to minimize the scale of the
> release."
>
> GR - Seems like a low estimate to me - X meters of additional sea level
> rise is only going to cause $43T in damages?  Anyway, any one else ready to
> let go the fantasy that emissions reduction from fossil energy and land use
> alone is really going to solve this problem? What are the moral (and
> financial) hazards in refusing to consider CDR and SRM?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] (must read) Geoengineering as a design problem

[Fred Zimmerman]

I ran this by my pal Pete Jones who is an expert on system design among
other things (redesignresearch.com) and here is what he had to say:

>
> Seems to me like a provocation to consider a large-scale engineering
> design approach to analysis, identification of points to induce effects,
> and to manage interventions.  As a “design problem” the issue is
> underconceptualized (at first read) in that the “strategy” being
> recommended is conventional linear normal science.  Not that a design
> approach couldn’t be used, it’s just they probably got this paper published
> because their reviewers don’t understand the advanced design literature. It
> seems like a  radical design solution, but it is a conventional strategy
> that would not accommodate discovery, emergent complexity, and accounting
> for unpredictable and unobservable effects.
>
> A non-parametric discovery approach ought to be considered for problems of
> this scale. My former student John Cassel has investigated approaches such
> as this (he just presented at RSD4 on agro-ecology). Last year’s paper on
> NDEAM was an outline for non-parametric design for such complex engineering
> problems., which he published in our special issue.
>
> The Methodological Unboundedness of Limited Discovery Processes
>
> https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/755
>
> PJ


On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/1635/2015/esdd-6-1635-2015.html
>
> Geoengineering as a design problem
>
> 08 Sep 2015
> Abstract. Understanding the climate impacts of solar geoengineering is
> essential for evaluating its benefits and risks. Most previous simulations
> have prescribed a particular strategy and evaluated its modeled effects.
> Here we turn this approach around by first choosing example climate
> objectives and then designing a strategy to meet those objectives in
> climate models.
>
> There are four essential criteria for designing a strategy: (i) an
> explicit specification of the objectives, (ii) defining what climate
> forcing agents to modify so the objectives are met, (iii) a method for
> managing uncertainties, and (iv) independent verification of the strategy
> in an evaluation model.
>
> We demonstrate this design perspective through two multi-objective
> examples. First, changes in Arctic temperature and the position of tropical
> precipitation due to CO2 increases are offset by adjusting high latitude
> insolation in each hemisphere independently. Second, three different
> latitude-dependent patterns of insolation are modified to offset
> CO2-induced changes in global mean temperature, interhemispheric
> temperature asymmetry, and the equator-to-pole temperature gradient. In
> both examples, the "design" and "evaluation" models are state-of-the-art
> fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models.
>
> Citation: Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Wang, H., and Rasch, P. J.:
> Geoengineering as a design problem, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 6,
> 1635-1710, doi:10.5194/esdd-6-1635-2015, 2015.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] A novel sub-seabed CO2 release experiment informing monitoring and impact assessment for geological carbon storage

[Fred Zimmerman]

It's not a question of criticism and no hurt feelings were intended. I am
responding to the topic it raises with a comment that the study (which is
well designed and executed) does not address what I believe is the major
irreducible uncertainty associated with long-term sequestration. I don't
want to criticize the paper, I want to hear about how to reduce that
uncertainty.  I think it is hard to characterize 37 days as anything more
than a minimal start on a huge problem.
ᐧ

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Chris Vivian 
wrote:

> Fred,
>
> The paper by Taylor et al. addresses the specific issue of understanding
> the best practice for monitoring potential leakage and the environmental
> impact that could result from a diffusive leak from a CCS storage complex
> under the sea. It did not set out to address concerns about long-term
> viability of geological storage so your criticism of the paper is not
> fair. Also, in the context of the question being asked, a 37 day test was
> an entirely reasonable first attempt at addressing the question.
>
> Chris.
>
> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:27:43 PM UTC+1, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> I don't see where this paper addresses my principal concern about
>> long-term sequestration, which is precisely that: how can we be
>> sufficiently confident without a 3000 year experimental baseline that
>> sequestration as implemented will endure for 3000 years?  How can we
>> exclude either imperfectly understood natural phenomena, imperfect
>> execution, or unanticipated anthropogenic behaviors?  In fact, this test
>> lasted for 37 days (!).
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Andrew Lockley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Attached
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] A novel sub-seabed CO2 release experiment informing monitoring and impact assessment for geological carbon storage

[Fred Zimmerman]

I don't see where this paper addresses my principal concern about long-term
sequestration, which is precisely that: how can we be sufficiently
confident without a 3000 year experimental baseline that sequestration as
implemented will endure for 3000 years?  How can we exclude either
imperfectly understood natural phenomena, imperfect execution, or
unanticipated anthropogenic behaviors?  In fact, this test lasted for 37
days (!).
ᐧ

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Attached
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Climate change: Devine Intervention?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Hi Greg,

I also have been reading the encyclical.  Here are my reactions.

1.  It is remarkable that a public figure has been able to write an
intelligent and largely accurate summary of the climate change situation
without ever once using a single number or statistic.  It certainly helps
the readability for the broad audience. It is also admirable that he
emphasizes he is writing to every human being.

2. I agree that there is nothing that I have read so far that would
expressly forbid either SRM or CDR.

3.  However, I think that you are not giving sufficient weight to the full
contents of the document. The nontechnical parts (which are the majority)
contain a moving exposition of the value of seeing nature as an integrated
whole with the economic, political, and ecologic system of the world; human
experience of the divine; St. Francis's joy in nature; and the unpopular
values of sobriety and humility.  With that vocabulary in mind it is, I
think, harder, although not impossible, for those who resonate with this
vision to accept a world that requires "solar radiation management" and
"carbon dioxide removal".  Expressing it another way, perhaps this is a
hint that the vocabulary around GE  research needs to shift somewhat.

Cordially,

Fred Zimmerman

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Pope’s climate, etc weigh-in here:
>
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2105201/laudato-si-inglese.pdf
>
> Surprisingly wide ranging and deep perspectives. Some nuggets follow.
>
> “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle,
> production and consumption, in order to combat this [global] warming or at
> least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”
>
> However:
> “A politics concerned with immediate results, supported by consumerist
> sectors of the population, is driven to produce short-term growth. In
> response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset the
> public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create
> risks for foreign investment. The myopia of power politics delays the
> inclusion of a far-sighted environmental agenda within the overall agenda
> of governments.”
>
> “It is remarkable how weak international political responses have been.
> The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our
> politics are subject to technology and finance. There are too many special
> interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good
> and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected. “
>
> “The alliance between the economy and technology ends up sidelining
> anything unrelated to its immediate interests. Consequently the most one
> can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and
> perfunctory expressions of concern for the envi- ronment, whereas any
> genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a
> nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obsta- cle to be circumvented.”
>
> “We lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths and meeting the
> needs of the present with concern for all and without prejudice towards
> coming generations.”
>
> As for solutions:
> “Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental
> crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but
> also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes,
> even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to
> indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical
> solutions.”
>
> GR  Seems to be channeling Machiavelli.
>
> “There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few
> years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can
> be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and
> developing sources of renewable energy. Worldwide there is minimal access
> to clean and renewable energy. There is still a need to develop adequate
> storage technologies.”
>
> “At one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress
> and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the
> application of new technology and without any need for ethical
> considerations or deep change. At the other extreme are those who view men
> and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat,
> jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the pres- ence of human
> beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention
> prohibited. Viable future scenarios will have to be generated between these
> extremes, since there is no one path to a solution. This makes a variety of
> proposals possible, all capable of entering

Re: [geo] Coral bleaching under unconventional scenarios of climate warming and ocean acidification - NCC

[Fred Zimmerman]

For skimmers:

The conclusions drawn from this body of work, which applied widely used
algorithms to estimate coral bleaching8 , are that we must either accept
that the loss of a large percentage of the world’s coral reefs is
inevitable, or consider technological solutions to buy those reefs time
until atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be reduced.

An optimum approach to preserve coral reefs would most likely advocate a
mitigation intensive scenario such as RCP2.6 (ref. 6) that addresses
global-scale ocean acidification concerns17 in combination with detailed
monitoring and the option of deploying carefully researched local or global
SRM to limit thermal stress if unacceptable thresholds are reached.

ᐧ

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Attached
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Geo-Engineering the Anthropocene

[Fred Zimmerman]

An interesting piece indeed that would be more useful if it offered
proposals as well as raising questions.  One gets the impression that the
author's idea of appropriate "visuality" would be a 24/7 loop of the
destruction of the global environment by fossil fuels.  But it's hard to
see how such a "visuality against the Anthropocene" could be created
without an elaborate global media industrial complex which presupposes that
which it it supposedly critiques.  One could argue that the visuality of
the Anthropocene began at Lescaux: indeed, that the essence of the
Anthropocene *is* this Lescauvian (?) ability to see nature as something
outside ourselves...

There are actually are a lot of useful conversations that this group could
have about visual communication strategies for SRM and CDR.  All of us of
who have written for popular or policy audiences have had the experience of
providing illustrations for reports.  Certain things work better as
illustrations than others, this tends to produces an implicit visual bias.
There is an extensive literature about how climate science findings are
communicated and (mis)understood.

Let me ask the group for some free thought: what are the 10 Commandments
for visual communication about geoengineering?  What are some images that
should never (again) be used? What are some best practices?

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note : An unusual piece, notably discussing the visual depiction
> of geoengineering
>
> http://blog.fotomuseum.ch/2015/05/ii-geo-engineering-the-anthropocene/
>
> II. Geo-Engineering the Anthropocene
>
> By T.J. DEMOS
> Published: 13. MAY 2015
>
> “A daunting task lies ahead for scientists and engineers to guide society
> towards environmentally sustainable management during the era of the
> Anthropocene. This will require appropriate human behaviour at all scales,
> and may well involve internationally accepted, large-scale geo-engineering
> projects, for instance to ‘optimize’ climate.”[1]—Paul Crutzen, 2002
>
> The Anthropocene thesis, as presented in the increasingly expanding body
> of images and texts, appears generally split between optimists and
> pessimists, especially when it comes to geo-engineering, the deliberate
> intervention in the Earthʼs natural systems to counteract climate change.
> As the Anthropocene appears to imply the necessity of geo-engineering—as
> Crutzen, one of the inventors of the term makes clear—the battle lines have
> been drawn between those who think “we” humans confront an extraordinary
> opportunity to bio-technologically remake the world, and others who opt for
> hands-off caution and would rather modify human behavior instead of the
> environment in addressing the climate crisis.
>
> For instance, ethics philosopher Clive Hamilton, participating in “The
> Anthropocene—An Engineered Age?,” the 2014 panel discussion at Berlin’s
> Haus der Kulturen der Welt (HKW), breaks the world down into
> techno-utopians and eco-Soterians. The former are today’s “new
> Prometheans,” intent on creating a new Eden on Earth, and the latter, named
> after Soteria, the ancient Greek personification of safety and
> preservation, remain pledged to the precautionary principle, respectful of
> Earth’s processes and critical of human hubris, the very same hubris, they
> argue, that got us into the environmental crisis in the first place.[2] For
> sociologist Bruno Latour, we must not disown the contemporary Frankenstein
> we’ve created—the contemporary Earth of the Anthropocene—but rather learn
> to love and care for the “monster” we’ve created. Meanwhile for activist
> Naomi Klein, arguments like Latour’s are dangerously misguided: “The earth
> is not our prisoner, our patient, our machine, or, indeed, our monster. It
> is our entire world. And the solution to global warming is not to fix the
> world, it is to fix ourselves.”[3]
>
> In fact, the visual culture of the Anthropocene, whether delivered
> photographically or via remote-sensing technology, is riven by exactly this
> tension. Its iconography both portrays the remarkable extent of the
> human-driven alteration of Earth systems (with ample photographic and
> satellite-based imagery of large-scale mining, oil drilling, and
> deforestation projects), and documents the dangers of the unintended
> consequences of such ventures. Ultimately, however, imaging systems play
> more than an illustrative role here, as they tend to grant viewers a sense
> of control over the represented object of their gaze, even if that control
> is far from reality.
>
> In other words, Anthropocene imagery tends to reinforce the techno-utopian
> position that “we” have indeed mastered nature, just as we’ve mastered its
> imaging—and in fact the two, the dual colonization of nature and
> representation, seem inextricably intertwined. That is, even while these
> geo-engineering projects are generally done by corporations and heavy
> industry, certainly not identical to the 

Re: [geo] Better weather? The cultivation of the sky. Hulme

[Fred Zimmerman]

I have been thinking about what we might call "geoengineering v 3.0" or
"Fractal Earth". Over the very long term, modifying Earth's landforms so
that more and more of them are located in the temperate zone and conform to
the habitat preferences of humans, i.e. fertile ground near oceans,
mountains, and rivers with abundant marine life, within eyesight of both
forest and field.  Seattle, Santa Barbara, the caves near Gibraltar.  (For
those who are fairly recent parents, think the village in "Brother Bear".)
There is an extensive literature on human habitat preferences

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+habitat+preferences&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=k9dIVbTuJ9bpoAT_9YCQCw&ved=0CCMQgQMwAA

The ultimate future of the "Active Anthropocene"?

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Attached
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates : Nature Climate Change

[Fred Zimmerman]

Does this also mean bad news in that 1) terrestrial biotic sequestration
may be less effective than believed 2) this may affect crop productivity?
Also, does the article offer any numbers around the degree of soil loss and
whether this is across all latitudes?

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note : newly-identified mechanism for carbon release gives
> opportunity for management and geoengineering intervention
>
> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2580.html
>
> NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
> Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates
>
> Marco Keiluweit, Jeremy J. Bougoure, Peter S. Nico, Jennifer Pett-Ridge,
> Peter K. Weber & Markus Kleber
> doi:10.1038/nclimate2580
>
> 30 March 2015
>
> Abstract
> Multiple lines of existing evidence suggest that climate change enhances
> root exudation of organic compounds into soils. Recent experimental studies
> show that increased exudate inputs may cause a net loss of soil carbon.
> This stimulation of microbial carbon mineralization (‘priming’) is commonly
> rationalized by the assumption that exudates provide a readily bioavailable
> supply of energy for the decomposition of native soil carbon
> (co-metabolism). Here we show that an alternate mechanism can cause carbon
> loss of equal or greater magnitude. We find that a common root exudate,
> oxalic acid, promotes carbon loss by liberating organic compounds from
> protective associations with minerals. By enhancing microbial access to
> previously mineral-protected compounds, this indirect mechanism accelerated
> carbon loss more than simply increasing the supply of energetically more
> favourable substrates. Our results provide insights into the coupled
> biotic–abiotic mechanisms underlying the ‘priming’ phenomenon and challenge
> the assumption that mineral-associated carbon is protected from microbial
> cycling over millennial timescales.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL

[Fred Zimmerman]

Mark, I don't mean to be difficult, but I think the answer to this question
is plainly "no" and is likely to remain that way until such there is such
time as there is an unambiguous, impossible to rationalize away, real-time
climate catastrophe. This thread is talking about a large quasi-industrial
activity in one of the few relatively pristine areas in the world.  You can
quibble with the phrase "quasi industrial" but you are talking about dozens
or hundreds of ships or kilometer upon kilometer of pipes, and the
coalition that favors action is automatically split by concern over the
Arctic wild.  This just isn't going to happen.  We should focus resources
on CDR methods that are more palatable to wider audiences.

Could the governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States be
> convinced to make covering the Arctic Ocean with summer sea ice a condition
> of ship passage or oil development?


On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:57 PM,  wrote:

> Team,
>
> So who has a lot of money and might be convinced to thicken sea ice?
>
> The offshore oil industry, the shipping industry, and governments around
> the Arctic planning to benefit from both oil and shipping.
>
> Sea ice prevents the formation of large surface waves by limiting fetch.
> Sea ice dampens waves to zero within a few hundred meters.  Sea ice is
> destroyed by surface waves.  (Mark Harris, "Waves of Destruction",
> Scientific American, May 2015).
>
> Oil companies could shelter oil platforms with grounded rings of sea ice.
> Shipping companies would benefit from calm water.
>
> Mark E. Capron, PE
> Ventura, California
> www.PODenergy.org
>
>
>   Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice
> restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL
> From: John Nissen 
> Date: Sat, May 02, 2015 10:56 am
> To: Peter Flynn 
> Cc: Ken Caldeira , Andrew Lockley
> , "Cvijanovic, Ivana" ,
> geoengineering , Doug MacMartin
> , Sev Clarke , Bru Pearce
> 
>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> As the paper points out, projections for sea ice suggest that the Arctic
> Ocean will be seasonably free before mid-century [1], and this will pose
> challenges in the Arctic; but there are potential impacts on the whole
> planet from the Arctic being locked into rapid warming:
> 1. sea level will rise ever faster;
> 2. methane bubbling up from the ocean bed in ever increasing quantities
> could add disastrously to global warming;
> 3.  the jet stream could be further disrupted, causing extreme climate
> change in the Northern Hemisphere [2].
>
> Thus saving the sea ice takes on a high priority for urgent action.  To
> minimise risk of extreme impacts, we need to restore sea ice by employing
> both cooling techniques (such as tropospheric cloud brightening,
> stratospheric aerosol cooling and ocean brightening) and ice thickening
> techniques.
>
> Furthermore we need to deal with growing impacts of Arctic warming in the
> pipeline: preparing for sea level rise; suppressing and/or capturing
> methane; and adapting to more extreme climate change than already seen this
> century as the jet stream meanders more and gets stuck for longer periods.
>
> It may be possible to combine some of these techniques.  For example, sea
> ice could be thickened such as to capture methane bubbling up underneath
> it.  We need urgent study on this kind of intervention, and I would be
> grateful if the geoengineering googlegroup forum could be used for an open
> discussion on the possibilities.
>
> Cheers, John
>
> [1] Many reputable scientists now say that the Arctic Ocean could be
> seasonally ice free by 2030; and a few top sea ice experts point to the
> observed volume trend which suggests September ice free by 2020.
>
> [2] See Scientific American, May 2015 issue, on Arctic waves, with
> reference to extreme climate change in the past.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Peter Flynn 
> wrote:
>
>> If the object is restoration of sea ice, I continue to believe that a
>> direct approach of thickening sea ice by pumping sea water onto it, thereby
>> circumventing the self insulating feature of natural formation of sea ice,
>> is the quickest, most direct, and most proven approach, easily terminated
>> if any unintended consequence is observed.
>>
>> Thickening ice by putting water onto the surface of existing ice is well
>> proven for both fresh water and sea water. Ice roads throughout the north,
>> including the supply road to Leningrad during WWII, are built this way. Sea
>> water was used in the Beaufort Sea to quickly build ice islands to support
>> drilling platforms, with maximum thicknesses greater than eight meters.
>>
>> To the extent that the ocean can be brightened without ice, it would
>> perhaps make more sense to do this at lower latitude, to reflect more light
>> per square meter of brightened surface.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>> Department of 

Re: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering - Robock

[Fred Zimmerman]

I think the most important implication of all findings of anticipated
changes in precipitation as a result of SRM -- of whatever degree or
direction -- is that they dramatically raise the bar for the level of
confidence (and therefore, amount of research) that would be needed to
achieve wide consensus for initation.  As Jim Fleming's history of weather
modification shows the ferocity of cries for "get me more water" is matched
only by the ferocity of cries for "don't take away my water."  One might
almost say these findings make geoengineering fundamentally a problem in
water stress modeling.
ᐧ

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Doug MacMartin 
wrote:

> Of course, one should point out that (i) global average precipitation
> increased with CO2, and decreases with solar reduction, and is only
> over-compensated if one tried to bring global mean temperature all the way
> back to preindustrial, which is a choice, not a given (and an unlikely one
> at that).  And (ii) overcooling the tropics relative to the high latitudes
> is true for a uniform insolation reduction, but no-one said we have to
> choose a uniform reduction, so that is also a choice, not a property of
> geoengineering.
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 25, 2015 5:16 AM
> *To:* geoengineering
> *Subject:* [geo] Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering - Robock
>
>
>
> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.4916181
>
> Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
>
> Alan Robock
>
> AIP Conf. Proc. 1652, 183 (2015);
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4916181
> Conference date: 8–9 March 2014
> Location: Berkeley, California
>
> The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, conducting climate model
> experiments with standard stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios, has
> found that insolation reduction could keep the global average temperature
> constant, but global average precipitation would reduce, particularly in
> summer monsoon regions around the world. Temperature changes would also not
> be uniform; the tropics would cool, but high latitudes would warm, with
> continuing, but reduced sea ice and ice sheet melting. Temperature extremes
> would still increase, but not as much as without geoengineering. If
> geoengineering were halted all at once, there would be rapid temperature
> and precipitation increases at 5–10 times the rates from gradual global
> warming. The prospect of geoengineering working may reduce the current
> drive toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and there are concerns
> about commercial or military control. Because geoengineering cannot safely
> address climate change, global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
> and to adapt are crucial to address anthropogenic global warming.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Robock interview in Bull. Atom. Sci.

[Fred Zimmerman]

I agree with the theoretical proposition that this could be a cause of
high-level state-to-state conflict, but it should also be recognized that
there are a number of factors that tend to make this an unlikely scenario
and should not deter or delay research.

* Attribution is always likely to be controversial and debatable (natural
variation...) and thus a weak foundation for making threats that will be
extremely unpopular in the rest of the world.
* The potential harm, while severe, is not as direct, immediate, tangible,
and incontrovertible as a tank division rolling across a border or a ship
getting sunk.  Nations have swallowed very significant insults to their
interests for the last 70 years without resorting to nuclear weapons.
* By the time any geoengineering scheme is actually implemented it will
have been governanced and NGO'd to death.

If the argument is that we should avoid research into potentially
beneficial schemes that might cause high-level state conflict 30 or 50
years from now, there are a lot of other potentially beneficial areas of
research that might also cause severe conflict fifty years from now and
should also be banned.




ᐧ

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jamais Cascio 
wrote:

> * avoiding *mitigation is almost certain to increase the severity of
> known and much more probable causes of conflict
>
>
> No question. There’s already been discussion of the Syrian civil war as
> being a climate-triggered conflict (Andrew linked an article to this list
> early in March), and there’s every reason to believe that climate-related
> crises will be catalysts for further violence around the world.
>
> Again, this isn’t just something I’ve pulled from nowhere. I’ve had
> multiple conversations with strategic policy officials (mostly, but not
> exclusively, from the US) and the ones that understand the potential value
> and dangers of geoengineering (primarily SRM) also recognize that it has
> some elements that could make it a very real cause of high-level
> state-to-state conflict, up to and including the threatened use of nuclear
> weapons.
>
> -Jamais
>
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Fred Zimmerman 
> wrote:
>
> I think people are concerned about conflict from geoengineering but I
> don't think they are any more concerned about nuclear war risks from
> geoengineering than from any other cause of conflict and probably much less
> so.  I would agree that preventing new causes of conflict is a credible
> reason for avoiding or delaying geoengineering but as so often the case on
> this list we have to remember that* avoiding *mitigation is almost
> certain to increase the severity of known and much more probable causes of
> conflict.
> ᐧ
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jamais Cascio 
> wrote:
>
>> This isn’t that difficult to see. A country takes desperate action taken
>> in order to support/protect itself, but that action has global effects,
>> including the potential for major system-disrupting changes to critical
>> ocean-atmospheric systems already under enormous stress. One nation’s
>> last-ditch attempt at self-preservation becomes another nation’s potential
>> existential risk.
>>
>> Country 1: “If I don’t do this, I’ll likely die. You can’t stop me.”
>> Country 2: “If you do this, we may die. We must stop you.”
>>
>> It’s definitely a concern among the government types and policy-makers
>> I’ve spoken to/worked with.
>>
>> -Jamais Cascio
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Lockley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> What makes you think that geoengineering would be the trigger for nuclear
>> war anymore than everything else people have been squabbling over for the
>> last seventy years?
>>
>> A
>> On 17 Apr 2015 21:00, "Alan Robock"  wrote:
>>
>>> Cloud control: Climatologist Alan Robock on the effects of
>>> geoengineering and nuclear war
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>> In this interview, Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock talks
>>> with Elisabeth Eaves from the Bulletin
>>> about geoengineering and nuclear winter. He says that geoengineering is
>>> not the solution to global warming
>>> because of its many risks and unknowns. He notes that some of the
>>> technology that would be required to
>>> implement geoengineering has not been developed and that many
>>> socio-political questions would have to be
>>> resolved before it could be put into practice. The world would have to
>>> reach agreement on a target temperature
>>> and on what entity should do the implementing. Robock's biggest fear
>>> with regard to geoengineering is that
>>> d

Re: [geo] Robock interview in Bull. Atom. Sci.

[Fred Zimmerman]

I think people are concerned about conflict from geoengineering but I don't
think they are any more concerned about nuclear war risks from
geoengineering than from any other cause of conflict and probably much less
so.  I would agree that preventing new causes of conflict is a credible
reason for avoiding or delaying geoengineering but as so often the case on
this list we have to remember that* avoiding *mitigation is almost certain
to increase the severity of known and much more probable causes of conflict.
ᐧ

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jamais Cascio 
wrote:

> This isn’t that difficult to see. A country takes desperate action taken
> in order to support/protect itself, but that action has global effects,
> including the potential for major system-disrupting changes to critical
> ocean-atmospheric systems already under enormous stress. One nation’s
> last-ditch attempt at self-preservation becomes another nation’s potential
> existential risk.
>
> Country 1: “If I don’t do this, I’ll likely die. You can’t stop me.”
> Country 2: “If you do this, we may die. We must stop you.”
>
> It’s definitely a concern among the government types and policy-makers
> I’ve spoken to/worked with.
>
> -Jamais Cascio
>
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> What makes you think that geoengineering would be the trigger for nuclear
> war anymore than everything else people have been squabbling over for the
> last seventy years?
>
> A
> On 17 Apr 2015 21:00, "Alan Robock"  wrote:
>
>> Cloud control: Climatologist Alan Robock on the effects of geoengineering
>> and nuclear war
>>
>> Abstract
>> In this interview, Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock talks
>> with Elisabeth Eaves from the Bulletin
>> about geoengineering and nuclear winter. He says that geoengineering is
>> not the solution to global warming
>> because of its many risks and unknowns. He notes that some of the
>> technology that would be required to
>> implement geoengineering has not been developed and that many
>> socio-political questions would have to be
>> resolved before it could be put into practice. The world would have to
>> reach agreement on a target temperature
>> and on what entity should do the implementing. Robock's biggest fear with
>> regard to geoengineering is that
>> disputes over these questions could escalate into nuclear war which in
>> turn could cause nuclear winter,
>> producing global famine among other effects. He goes on to describe his
>> meeting with former Cuban President
>> Fidel Castro and discuss the role of the arts in addressing existential
>> threats.
>>
>> Attached.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/opt

Re: [geo] Dilution limits dissolved organic carbon utilization in the deep ocean

[Fred Zimmerman]

Isn't this also relevant to sequestration strategies? It sounds as if
increased concentrations could create different results than currently
anticipated.
ᐧ

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note : of interest to OIF researchers
>
> http://m.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/18/science.1258955.abstract
>
> Science
> DOI: 10.1126/science.1258955
> Report
>
> OCEAN CHEMISTRY
>
> Dilution limits dissolved organic carbon utilization in the deep ocean
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Oceanic dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is the second largest reservoir of
> organic carbon on Earth. About 72% of the global DOC inventory is stored in
> deep oceanic layers for years to centuries, supporting the current view
> that it consists of materials resistant to microbial degradation. An
> alternative hypothesis is that deep-water DOC consists of many different,
> intrinsically labile compounds at concentrations too low to compensate for
> the metabolic costs associated to their utilization. Here we present
> experimental evidence showing that low concentrations rather than
> recalcitrance preclude consumption of a significant fraction of DOC leading
> to slow microbial growth in the deep ocean. These findings demonstrate an
> alternative mechanism for the long-term storage of labile DOC in the deep
> ocean, which has been hitherto largely ignored.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Fwd: When Global Catastrophes Collide: The Climate Engineering Double Catastrophe | Scientific American

[Fred Zimmerman]

The link in Google Scholar to the PDF is wrong -- it is correct here at
Google Books
https://books.google.com/books?id=4M6AAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=xkwc1eUYi9&dq=piers%20blaikie&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=piers%20blaikie&f=false

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Fred Zimmerman 
wrote:

> I was paraphrasing an article by someone else, so this isn't necessarily
> my personal view (or a precisely accurate paraphrase), but I think the line
> of argument would be that systems depend on people, too. People and
> planetary support systems are inextricably linked, mutually reinforcing,
> and mutually vulnerable (which is the point of the articles about "double
> catastrophes").  If we think about this as "Lifeboat Earth', yes, we need
> to stop pumping water (CO2) into the bilges, we need to start pumping it
> out, etc., but the success of our efforts is likely to be highly dependent
> on the state of the passengers.
>
>  I don't think there's really any need to decide whether climate
> intervention research or resiliency improvement should be first priority we
> need to do them both and can easily afford to do so. At this point, climate
> intervention research is not even a measurable line item in most government
> budgets. 10,000 people can do everything that needs to be done for now
> while the remaining 6.999 billion focus on reducing CO2 output and
> increasing resilience.
>
> There is a pretty elaborate literature on disaster vulnerability that
> boils down to the observation that it is not a coincidence that multiply
> disadvantaged people tend to live in locations where hazards occur more
> often. Piers Blaikie 2003
> http://www.microdis-eu.be/sites/default/files/D4.4.5%20-%20Combined%20Literature%20Review.pdf
> is a seminal article (4800 citations in Google Scholar)  Without great
> efforts towards improving resilience and equity of social systems, this
> pernicious pattern will likely continue in the CE era.
>
> Just my $0.02, others may have better insights..
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
>
>> Isn't putting people, rather than their planetary support systems, at the
>> center of global risk management putting the cart before the horse? The 
>> "health,
>> education, sanitation, mobility, equity" of the former would seem to be
>> dictated by the quality and quantity of the latter. In which case
>> preserving those systems using conventional and if necessary unconventional
>> means (Climate Intervention?) would seem our first priority for evaluation,
>> ahead of strategies for somehow becoming resilient to alternative outcomes.
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>>  *From:* Fred Zimmerman 
>> *To:* Andrew Lockley ; geoengineering <
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 2, 2015 8:43 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Fwd: When Global Catastrophes Collide: The Climate
>> Engineering Double Catastrophe | Scientific American
>>
>> There is a related Comment in a recent issue of Nature.  If I may
>> summarize: the most cost-effective form of adaptation to climate change
>> catastrophes (whether single or multiple) is to improve resilience of
>>  vulnerable individuals populations in every dimension -- health,
>> education, sanitation, mobility, equity.  If those are neglected, efforts
>> at mitigation by climate intervention will be, not wasted, but far less
>> effective.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066
>>
>> Global change: Put people at the centre of global risk management
>>
>>- Jan Willem Erisman
>>
>> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-1>
>>,
>>- Guy Brasseur
>>
>> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-2>
>>,
>>- Philippe Ciais
>>
>> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-3>
>>,
>>- Nick van Eekeren
>>
>> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-4>
>>- & Thomas L. Theis
>>
>> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-5>
>>
>> 11 March 2015 Corrected:
>>
>>1. 25 March 2015
>>
>> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-

Re: [geo] Fwd: When Global Catastrophes Collide: The Climate Engineering Double Catastrophe | Scientific American

[Fred Zimmerman]

I was paraphrasing an article by someone else, so this isn't necessarily my
personal view (or a precisely accurate paraphrase), but I think the line of
argument would be that systems depend on people, too. People and planetary
support systems are inextricably linked, mutually reinforcing, and mutually
vulnerable (which is the point of the articles about "double
catastrophes").  If we think about this as "Lifeboat Earth', yes, we need
to stop pumping water (CO2) into the bilges, we need to start pumping it
out, etc., but the success of our efforts is likely to be highly dependent
on the state of the passengers.

 I don't think there's really any need to decide whether climate
intervention research or resiliency improvement should be first priority we
need to do them both and can easily afford to do so. At this point, climate
intervention research is not even a measurable line item in most government
budgets. 10,000 people can do everything that needs to be done for now
while the remaining 6.999 billion focus on reducing CO2 output and
increasing resilience.

There is a pretty elaborate literature on disaster vulnerability that boils
down to the observation that it is not a coincidence that multiply
disadvantaged people tend to live in locations where hazards occur more
often. Piers Blaikie 2003
http://www.microdis-eu.be/sites/default/files/D4.4.5%20-%20Combined%20Literature%20Review.pdf
is a seminal article (4800 citations in Google Scholar)  Without great
efforts towards improving resilience and equity of social systems, this
pernicious pattern will likely continue in the CE era.

Just my $0.02, others may have better insights..

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Isn't putting people, rather than their planetary support systems, at the
> center of global risk management putting the cart before the horse? The 
> "health,
> education, sanitation, mobility, equity" of the former would seem to be
> dictated by the quality and quantity of the latter. In which case
> preserving those systems using conventional and if necessary unconventional
> means (Climate Intervention?) would seem our first priority for evaluation,
> ahead of strategies for somehow becoming resilient to alternative outcomes.
> Greg
>
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* Fred Zimmerman 
> *To:* Andrew Lockley ; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 2, 2015 8:43 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Fwd: When Global Catastrophes Collide: The Climate
> Engineering Double Catastrophe | Scientific American
>
> There is a related Comment in a recent issue of Nature.  If I may
> summarize: the most cost-effective form of adaptation to climate change
> catastrophes (whether single or multiple) is to improve resilience of
>  vulnerable individuals populations in every dimension -- health,
> education, sanitation, mobility, equity.  If those are neglected, efforts
> at mitigation by climate intervention will be, not wasted, but far less
> effective.
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066
>
> Global change: Put people at the centre of global risk management
>
>- Jan Willem Erisman
>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-1>
>,
>- Guy Brasseur
>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-2>
>,
>- Philippe Ciais
>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-3>
>,
>- Nick van Eekeren
>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-4>
>- & Thomas L. Theis
>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#auth-5>
>
> 11 March 2015 Corrected:
>
>1. 25 March 2015
>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066#correction1>
>
> An individual focus is needed to assess interconnected threats and build
> resilience worldwide, urge Jan Willem Erisman and colleagues.
>
> ...Current global-change risk assessments take a top-down approach and
> target single stressors, such as the climate. They focus on the most
> vulnerable and at-risk communities, infrastructure, sectors, ecosystems and
> areas. Links between extreme weather and climate change have begun to be
> addressed, but wider impacts on land degradation, food and energy
> production, water supply and environmental hazards have not.
> ...User first
> We argu

Re: [geo] Fwd: When Global Catastrophes Collide: The Climate Engineering Double Catastrophe | Scientific American

[Fred Zimmerman]

There is a related Comment in a recent issue of Nature.  If I may
summarize: the most cost-effective form of adaptation to climate change
catastrophes (whether single or multiple) is to improve resilience of
 vulnerable individuals populations in every dimension -- health,
education, sanitation, mobility, equity.  If those are neglected, efforts
at mitigation by climate intervention will be, not wasted, but far less
effective.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-change-put-people-at-the-centre-of-global-risk-management-1.17066

Global change: Put people at the centre of global risk management

   - Jan Willem Erisman
   

   ,
   - Guy Brasseur
   

   ,
   - Philippe Ciais
   

   ,
   - Nick van Eekeren
   

   - & Thomas L. Theis
   


11 March 2015 Corrected:

   1. 25 March 2015
   


An individual focus is needed to assess interconnected threats and build
resilience worldwide, urge Jan Willem Erisman and colleagues.

...Current global-change risk assessments take a top-down approach and
target single stressors, such as the climate. They focus on the most
vulnerable and at-risk communities, infrastructure, sectors, ecosystems and
areas. Links between extreme weather and climate change have begun to be
addressed, but wider impacts on land degradation, food and energy
production, water supply and environmental hazards have not.
...User first

We argue that Earth-system risk management should follow the example of
health-care systems, in which emphasis is switching from medicalization to
supporting people's ability to adapt and self-manage8
.
Collectively, individual choices feed back into the community and help it
to lower its health risks.
ᐧ

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

>
>
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/02/06/when-global-catastrophes-collide-the-climate-engineering-double-catastrophe/
>
> Scientific American
>
> When Global Catastrophes Collide: The Climate Engineering Double
> Catastrophe
> By Seth Baum | February 6, 2013
>
> It could be difficult for human civilization to survive a global
> catastrophe like rapid climate change, nuclear war, or a pandemic disease
> outbreak. But imagine if two catastrophes strike at the same time. The
> damages could be even worse. Unfortunately, most research only looks at one
> catastrophe at a time, so we have little understanding of how they
> interact. My colleagues and I at the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute are
> beginning to fill this void, starting with a new paper [1] involving
> climate engineering and a separate catastrophe combining for a “double
> catastrophe”. It’s a grim prospect that could even result in human
> extinction, but we can also work to avoid it.
>
> Let’s start at the beginning of the scenario. Yes, the climate is
> changing, and we’re already seeing damages from it. But our planet is, as
> they say, just starting to warm up. Unless we do something to keep
> temperatures down, things could get much worse. One grim possibility is
> that large portions of Earth become uninhabitable to mammals [2]. (That
> includes us.) Temperature and humidity get too high for mammals to cool our
> bodies through perspiration – even if the wind’s blowing – and so we
> overheat and die. By continuing to put greenhouse gases into the
> atmosphere, we are tempting an extremely dangerous fate.
>
> Alarmingly, we have been slow to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the
> climate is changing faster than ever. Because of this, some people – myself
> included – have been interested in alternative ways to cool things down,
> mainly by engineering the planet. There are several approaches to climate
> engineering (also known as geoengineering). The most popular approach
> involves putting little particles into the atmosphere to reflect incoming
> sunlight back out to space. The more particles we put up there, the less
> sunlight reaches the surface, and the cooler temperatures will be. If it
> works, it could help us avoid the worst harms of climate change.
>
> But there’s a big catch. The particles don’t just stay in the atmosphere
> where we put them. They gradually drift towards the North and South Poles
> and fall to the surface. That takes about 5 years. And so if

Re: [geo] Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction - the reality is much worse - The Ecologist

[Fred Zimmerman]

The article is quite right in  my estimation  that the most likely outcome
based on current trends is 500+ ppm and RCP 8.5. Where it is exaggerated is
in arguing that the lowest RCP scenario 2.6 is the only one that is
survivable or that exceeding it is equated to the survival of human
civilization (per Schellnhuber quote). Most studies of impacts have indeed
found that impacts worsen significantly as they rise from 2C to 4C and
beyond--see Solomon NAS 2011 Climate Stabilization Report and Royal Society
2010 http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/6 Williams
2007
http://www.geography.wisc.edu/faculty/williams/lab/pubs/WilliamsJackson2007Frontiers_NovelClimates.pdf.
If I may summarize sweepingly these impact studies find potential impacts
by 2100 in the range of 1-10% of global GDP (trillions of dollars) and
50-500M lives.  Horrible and an unacceptable burden on future generations
but nowhere close to the end of human civilization.  The idea that 350 or
300 ppm are the only "safe" concentrations seems (to me) contradicted by
the fact that current human pop at 400 ppm is 7+ billion with any collapse
apparently decades away.




ᐧ

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Hawkins, Dave  wrote:

> I think the IPCC has been quite transparent about the negative emissions
> components. And it has not said it will happen, rather that this scale of
> is required to solve the cumulative budget equation.
>
> Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector.
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Oliver Tickell  > wrote:
>
> I would rather see it as an attack on the IPCC's pre-emptive stance that,
> before there is such a thing as field-proven CDR, political will behind it,
> public acceptance for it, funding mechanisms, etc etc, that the one and
> only climatically viable emissions scenario they put forward sneakily /
> covertly assumes that CDR will take place on the 100s of Gt scale late this
> century and puts this forward with no statement that this is what is is
> doing leaving it to others to unpick their assumptions!
>
> Oliver.
>
> On 27/02/2015 19:21, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> Poster's note : probably one of the more robust attacks on the viability
> of CDR I've seen for a while.
>
>
> http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2772427/survivable_ipcc_projections_are_based_on_science_fiction_the_reality_is_much_worse.html
>
> The Ecologist
>
> Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction - the reality is
> much worse
> Nick Breeze
> 27th February 2015
>
> The IPCC's 'Representative Concentration Pathways' are based on fantasy
> technology that must draw massive volumes of CO2 out of the atmosphere late
> this century, writes Nick Breeze - an unjustified hope that conceals a very
> bleak future for Earth, and humanity.
>
> It is quite clear that we have no carbon budget whatsoever. The account,
> far from being in surplus, is horrendously overdrawn. To claim we have a
> few decades of safely burning coal, oil and gas is an utter nonsense.
>
> The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published in their
> latest report, AR5, a set of 'Representative Concentration Pathways'
> (RCP's).
> These RCP's (see graph, right) consist of four scenarios that project
> global temperature rises based on different quantities of greenhouse gas
> concentrations.
>
> The scenarios are assumed to all be linked directly to emissions
> scenarios. The more carbon we emit then the hotter it gets. Currently
> humanity is on the worst case scenario of RCP 8.5 which takes us to 2°C
> warming by mid century and 4°C warming by the end of the century.
>
> As Professor Schellnhuber, from Potsdam Institute for Climate Research
> (PIK) said, "the difference between two and four degrees is human
> civilisation."
> In 2009 the International Union of Forest Research Organisations delivered
> a report to the UN that stated that the natural carbon sink of trees could
> be lost at a 2.5°C temperature increase.
> The ranges for RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 both take us over 2.5°C and any idea that
> we can survive when the tree sink flips from being a carbon sink to a
> carbon source is delusional.
>
> Where does this leave us?
>
> Of the four shown RCP's only one keeps us within the range that climate
> scientists regard as survivable. This is RCP 2.6 that has a projected
> temperature range of 0.9°C and 2.3°C.
> Considering we are currently at 0.85°C above the preindustrial level of
> greenhouse gas concentrations, we are already entering the range and as
> Professor Martin Rees says: "I honestly would bet, sad though it is, that
> the annual CO2 emissions are going to rise year by year for at least the
> next 20 years and that will build up accumulative levels close to 500 parts
> per million."
>
>
> The recent US / China agreement supports Rees's contentions. But even if
> Rees is wrong and we do manage to curtail our carbon emissions, a closer
> look at RCP 2.6 shows something much more d

Re: [geo] Chill factor at 'cia' weather query | Daily Mail Online and BBC interview

[Fred Zimmerman]

Fascinating couple of pages about the bromine bomb in Fleming FIXING THE SKY

https://books.google.com/books?id=zmdBon09PY0C&lpg=PA220&ots=WFitxrgPu2&dq=bromine%20bomb&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q=bromine%20bomb&f=false
ᐧ

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Adrian Tuck <
dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk> wrote:

> Anyone interested in some history here might like to look up:-
> John von Neumann, Collected Works, Volume VI, Macmillan, New York, 1963,
> pages 499-525.
> Herman Hoerlin, United States high altitude test experiences, Technical
> Report LA-6405, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1976. Page 35 especially,
> has remarks about affecting weather and climate by injecting condensation
> nuclei in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.
>
> Sidney Chapman, no less, said in 1934 in his presidential address to the
> Royal Meteorological Society that if UV astronomers wanted to make a hole
> in the ozone layer they would need to deploy a catalytic agent.
>
> I remember Michael McElroy speculating about a “bromine bomb” to destroy
> the ozone layer above an enemy’s territory, some time around 1975-6. As far
> as I know though, he had no connection to the intelligence agencies.
>
> As was recognised as long ago as 1958, atmospheric motions and turbulence
> would rapidly degrade any hole made by weapon bursts.
>
>
> Adrian Tuck
>
> 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'.
> Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4.
> http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534
>
> ***
>
>
>
>
> On 15 Feb 2015, at 20:49, Alan Robock  wrote:
>
>  Dear Greg,
>
> Yes, those are the questions.  And I would like to know how much money
> each agency put into the report.  There should be a public record of that.
>
> With respect to Ken's claims:
>
> 1.  There is absolutely no evidence that any US intelligence agency has
> any interest in climate intervention for anything other than
> defense-related informational purposes.
>
> *Why would you expect there to be evidence?  It's the CIA.*
>
> 2.  Furthermore, there is no plausible scenario in which climate
> intervention could be used effectively as a weapon.
>
> *I agree that it would be hard to target, given what we know now.  But if
> cooling the planet gives agriculture in my country an advantage over
> agriculture in your country, there might be pressures to proceed.  Anyway,
> as the research goes on, it might be clearer how to weaponize control of
> climate.  Is that a motivation for supporting research?*
>
> 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 2/15/15, 12:38 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
>
>  Relatedly, I must say I felt a little chill when reviewing the NAS
> report where support from "US intelligence community" was acknowledge
> without providing any specifics as to what agencies.  More importantly,
> there was no subsequent discussion in the report as to the reason the
> intelligence community might be interested in doing this. This support was
> again acknowledged by Marcia McNutt at the AAAS session yesterday without
> any details. At least support by DOE and NOAA, the "US energy/environmental
> community"?, was clearly stated, while Depts. of Agriculture, Interior and
> EPA were conspicuously absent given the heavy emphasis on land ecosystems
> in the report.
> Anyway, it would be nice to know to what extent my research or anyone
> else's in this field is serving the intelligence community and how. I have
> no doubt that there are national security implications for successfully or
> unsuccessfully dealing with climate change, but then should these
> implications be classified, which ones, and who decides? What role does the
> NAS and as well as ordinary US scientists have in this, and are they
> serving US interests or global interests?
>
>  Greg
>
>--
>  *From:* Jamais Cascio 
> 
> *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Ken Caldeira  ; Alan
> Robock  ; Mick West
>  ; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:56 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Chill factor at 'cia' weather query | Daily Mail
> Online and BBC interview
>
>  It’s not a question of whether or not it's a weapon, it’s a question of
> whether or not it’s perceived as a threat.
>
>  At the Berlin event, I told some of you about the CIA Center for Climate
> Change and National Security simulation exercise I was asked to do four or
> five years ago. Wha

Re: [geo] Chill factor at 'cia' weather query | Daily Mail Online and BBC interview

[Fred Zimmerman]

I am less concerned about outcomes for the major parties and their "zones"
in the scenario you describe than for the risk of incidental catastrophe
for largely uninvolved parties in particularly vulnerable areas like
sub-Saharan Africa.   I think this is the concern Cush was hinting at in
his earlier message regarding regional and subregional biomes.   At what
point does it become acceptable to do CE if there is, say, a 10%
possibility that an intervention will result in a catastrophe for one or
two nations?  Remedial funds would not be enough to compensate for the
human loss.
ᐧ

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Respectfully, I disagree.
>
> The status of geoengineering is perhaps more likely to be akin to trade
> sanctions.
>
> Imagine a bipolar world which is divided up purely into a Chinese
> superpower zone and an American superpower zone. There may be various
> skirmishes going on at any one time, as we see in Ukraine. Simultaneously,
> we may see ongoing trade, diplomacy and cooperation in other ways. (This
> pattern is common among 'frenemies'.)
>
> Where the parties have a clearly different CE preference, the concept of
> weaponisation becomes extremely blurred. Using CE becomes a bargaining chip
> like all others. In extremis, such a tool may cause profound food shortages
> in the counterparty's zone, or expose key infrastructure to natural
> disasters.
>
> How could we agree whether that constituted a weapon, or not?
>
> A
> On 15 Feb 2015 16:38, "Ken Caldeira" 
> wrote:
>
>> Based on the history of our intelligence agencies involvement in secret
>> kidnappings and torture, killing noncombatants with drones, spying on our
>> telecommunications, etc, we can take it as a given that secret US
>> governmental organizations will engage in criminal behavior.
>>
>> However, we should be entirely clear:
>>
>> *There is absolutely no evidence that any US intelligence agency has any
>> interest in climate intervention for anything other than defense-related *
>> *informational **purposes.*
>>
>> *Furthermore, there is no plausible scenario in which climate
>> intervention could be used effectively as a weapon.*
>>
>> So, while I share Alan's contempt for the criminal behavior of our
>> secretive governmental agencies, I do not think it is helpful to speculate
>> that in this instance, the agencies are looking for new ways that they
>> might inflict suffering on others.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ken
>>
>> ___
>> 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://kencaldeira.com
>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>>
>> My assistant is Dawn Ross , with access to
>> incoming emails.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Alan Robock 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Mick,
>>>
>>> The Daily Mail article is true.
>>>
>>> But you might also be interested in the more informative BBC interview:
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761
>>>
>>> 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 2/14/15, 10:30 PM, Mick West wrote:
>>>
>>> The Daily Mail story about CIA inquiries concerning covert
>>> geoengineering is interesting because I actually posed a very similar
>>> question to the Geoengineering list three years ago, to which both of you
>>> (Alan and Andrew) responded directly.
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/UzNzNyJIZ2g/Qvs7XFNK5doJ
>>>
>>>  So I was wondering Alan, if is this the Daily Mail's dramatic
>>> retelling of this exchange, or were there actually "CIA" men calling you
>>> asking similar questions?
>>>
>>>  Mick
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andrew Lockley <
>>> andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Poster's note : Robock tweeted this, so it's probably not entirely
 inaccurate. (Members outside the UK may not be aware that the Daily Mail is
 widely derided.)


 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2954051/Chill-factor-CIA-weather-query.html

 Chill factor at 'CIA' weather query

 By Press Association
 00:43 15 Feb 2015,

 A leading American climate scientist has said he felt "scared" when a
 shadowy organisation claiming to represent the CIA asked him about the
 possibility of weaponised weather.

 Professor Alan Robock received a call three years ago from two men
 wanti

Re: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton

[Fred Zimmerman]

Hi -- I agree with this skeptical assessment of certainty, especially with
regard to impacts on regional and subregional climates and biomes critical
to human life & society, but as many on this list argue, the issue i
choosing between

a) BAU emissions with high confidence of major impacts  3-5C warming over
the course of a century, vs.
b) intervention scenarios that have moderately high confidence in reducing
warming & rate of warming to, say, 2-4C warming, coupled with low certainty
about regional and subregional impacts
c) unlikely/optimistic/costly scenarios of rapid emissions
stabilization/reduction/withdrawal

In other words, maybe there is a "law of conservation of uncertainty"-- you
can remove some of it from some parts of the system, but (with current
understanding) never anywhere near all.
ᐧ

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi 
wrote:

> Robert, I partly agree with you but totally disagree when you say, I quote
> : "
> Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough about how the Earth
> system operates in order to take control of it.  This is a religious
> argument that ignores global realities".  This statement is more religious
> than Clive's. There is NOBODY in this earth who knows how best the climate
> system functions for him or her to get hold of it. Our climate predictions
> have long betrayed us that is why we invented the concept of "climate
> change". A complex system like the climate is difficult to master if not
> impossible, especially at the global scale. If you cool temperatures in the
> arctic, you are likely to disturb the known an unknown sub-climatic systems
> in the southern hemisphere and the equatorial region. Our models are
> simplistic and elusive sometimes so that we cannot claim to have mastered
> the climate system. Do not be naive to believe that we can do better now
> because we know it. How can you correlate atmospheric circulation in
> Arizona with precipitations in somaliland? or wind pressure in Butan with
> vegetation change in Brazil? At what confidence level? Here the probability
> is small if not nil.  If we cannot do that, whatever climate intervention
> that will be put in place in a region will improve one aspect of the
> climate in that specific region and worsen other variables therein and
> elsewhere in the globe, depending on the spectra of its impacts.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dr Cush N. Luwesi, PhD
> Lecturer
> Department of Geography
> Kenyatta University
> Nairobi, Kenya
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:14 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton’s analysis of the politics of
>> geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technology advocates he
>> usefully but wrongly describes.  I would really welcome intensive
>> Republican and military and big oil interest in carbon dioxide removal, as
>> that is the only thing with prospect of delivering results on climate
>> security and energy security.
>>
>> Multinational companies have to invest in CDR to protect their stock
>> prices, their reputations and their sources of supply. CDR can deliver a
>> win-win for the climate and the economy. Clive’s scientific dreams falsely
>> assume that the science on warming means the science is also in on workable
>> responses (ie emission reduction).
>>
>> Emission reduction will not happen, and would not stabilise the climate
>> even if it did, since it would only slow the upward CO2 trajectory. We need
>> commercial negative emission technology on a scale bigger than total
>> emissions.  Economic growth powered by coal is a freight train that no one
>> will stop. Emission reduction is as likely as suggesting the French could
>> have stopped Hitler by reforming their tax system.  UN emission targets,
>> even if any are agreed, are nothing but a mirage that will recede as their
>> dates approach.
>>
>> The entire emission reduction strategy is based on false assumptions
>> about science, economics and politics.  The power of the fossil energy
>> industry will easily brush aside carbon taxes and global regulations.  So
>> rather than demonise Newt Gingrich as Hamilton suggests, a better strategy
>> is to reach out to the right wing, to get money, political will and
>> ingenuity to identify and deliver mutual goals on global scale.  The
>> political reality is that anyone perceived as hostile to the oil and coal
>> and gas industry cannot gain the trust of the people who make globally
>> crucial decisions.
>>
>> As Bjorn Lomborg argues, the priority should be R&D to make CDR
>> commercially profitable.  My view is that we can burn coal and oil and gas
>> and then mine the produced carbon using industrial algae farms at sea,
>> delivering profitable commodities to fund scale up.
>>
>> Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough about how the Earth
>> system operates in order to take control of it.  This is a religious
>> argument that ignores global realit

Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News

[Fred Zimmerman]

For an example of what John is talking about, see
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/japanese-agricultural-heritage-systems-recognized.
Japanese traditional agricultural practices are based on maintaining
coherent local biomes as opposed to razing them and creating monocultures.
ᐧ

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:27 PM, John HARTE  wrote:

> Ken, best not to look at it as an either or problem. There are ways to
> increase agricultural sustainability and at the same time store carbon and
> promote biodiversity.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> John Harte
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Ken Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
> My view is that we should be managing land in ways that place extremely
> high emphasis on protecting biodiversity and natural ecosystems while
> meeting human needs, which probably means focusing on agricultural
> intensification and not worrying so much about carbon storage..
>
> For solving the climate problem, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's the
> energy system, stupid."
>
>
>
> ___
> 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://kencaldeira.com
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
> My assistant is Dawn Ross , with access to
> incoming emails.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM, David desJardins 
> wrote:
>
>> Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but
>> large even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if
>> we convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks.
>>
>> But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from
>> the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those
>> trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years,
>> than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome?  That gives you ongoing
>> carbon removal, not just a one-time effect.
>>
>> On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman <
>> geoengineerin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science
>>> that discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land
>>> use/land cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting
>>> particular biomes for interventions.
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple
>>>> metrics
>>>> we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a
>>>> particular biome?  And, are there realistic totals that we could say
>>>> those
>>>> optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Roger D. Aines
>>>>
>>>> Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader
>>>>
>>>> E Programs, Global Security
>>>>
>>>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>>>>
>>>> Mail Stop L-090  Livermore, CA 94551
>>>>
>>>> 925 423-7184
>>>> 925 998-2915 cell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Administrative Contact
>>>>
>>>> Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.gov
>>>>
>>>> 925 423-4964
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, "John Harte"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š  Much of the carbon is
>>>> in
>>>> >the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of
>>>> forest
>>>> >or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody
>>>> plants
>>>> >grow.  World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living
>>>> >biomass.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >John Harte
>>>> >Professor of Ecosystem Sciences
>>>> >ERG/ESPM
>>>> >310 Barrows Hall
>>>> >University of California
>>>> >Berkeley, CA 94720  USA
>>>> >jha...@berkeley.edu
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, "Robert H. Socolow" <
>>>> soco...@princeton.edu>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>

Re: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate

[Fred Zimmerman]

Worth noting perhaps that the NAS has done careful studies of climate
impacts http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877 so one response to
the limitations of the climate intervention study is to suggest that the
climate stabilization/impacts report be read together with the climate
intervention study. This is a familiar lawyerly technique (where there is
doubt, construe all parts of a contract together so as to achieve a
reasonable rather than an absurd reading) which may help in dealing with
policy types.
ᐧ

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mike MacCracken 
wrote:

>  Hi Doug--Well said. The report (well, at least the presentation of the
> report yesterday at the National Academy of Sciences) basically does not do
> a comparative analysis of climate change with and without climate
> intervention—instead seeming to do an analysis only of the relative merits
> of climate intervention on its own or not. Well, that is not the context we
> are in (so actually the analysis, once they get past saying the climate is
> changing, is to forget about the SUV approaching the crosswalk at all (or
> at least, the change is not here now in the Arctic or imminent elsewhere,
> etc.). The really surprising reason given in answer to my question was that
> they said that uncertainties about climate change without intervention were
> too large to really do this—well, those uncertainties are clearly small
> enough to make the decision that we should change over the whole global
> energy system and how unacceptable those consequences would be. And, given
> that the various intervention approaches are not unlike phenomena in the
> world today and intervention would keep the climate where it is now (only
> with a bit different amount of energy change as compared to the seasonal
> changes in forcing that are already treated in simulating the global
> weather changes over the seasons), it is really hard to see how a modest
> program of climate intervention research would not lead to uncertainties
> less than those involved in projections of climate change without
> intervention.
>
> Fine to say that there are social, equity, political, and governance
> issues, but on the issue of uncertainties in the physical science
> calculations, not readily understandable.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
>
>
>
> On 2/11/15, 6:05 PM, "Doug MacMartin"  wrote:
>
> On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his “argument” is it
> that it fails to distinguish between the people choosing to emit CO2, the
> people who might be harmed by CO2, and the people who might eventually
> choose geoengineering; his arguments are only coherent to the extent that
> those are all the same people.
>
> It’s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that
> isn’t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the
> “right answer” is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take
> whatever action you can.
>
> doug
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Doug MacMartin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM
> *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering'
> *Subject:* RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is
> dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
>
> Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar
> geoengineering would be the path we’re currently on… in that sense I agree
> with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn’t
> actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all
> of his argumentative rhetoric.
>
> There’s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts:
>
> As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only
> to limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report,
> and I presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that
> his assertion:
> I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible,
> and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less
> threatening way to get the camel’s nose in the tent
> Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he
> could have actually asked.  (I also object to the word “boosters”, as my
> own perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on
> knowledge).
>
> And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I’ll take the
> painkillers that he apparently doesn’t want.
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM
> *To:* geoengineering
> *Subject:* [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous
> and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
>
> Poster's note : notable as it's a report author.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html
>
> F

Re: [geo] Re: Washington Post op ed

[Fred Zimmerman]

Do you even need a proposed mechanism? From what I recall, both models and
observations struggle at the poles, and we know that we don't want to go
forward with SAI without a strong understanding of behavior at the poles.
Maybe we should be asking what will we need to do to improve models and
observations so that we have the same confidence at the poles as we do in
other latitudes.
ᐧ

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Oliver Morton 
wrote:

> What's the proposed SAI mechanism enhancing PSC?
>
> On 4 February 2015 at 01:48, Michael Hayes  wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> This level of discussion on SAI seems to be premature. We have yet to see
>> any...any...models concerning the highly predictable increase in Polar
>> Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) production which will be caused by SAI. This is
>> not a trivial precondition to further discussion. As, the triggering of an
>> Arctic Methane Tipping Point, through increasing PSC production, would make
>> SAI simply a dysfunctional option.
>>
>> Please read the following paper concerning the vital need
>> tonot...increase PSCs through SAI.
>>
>> Polar Stratospheric Clouds: A high latitude warning mechanism in an
>> ancient greenhouse world.
>> 
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-8, Andy Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy
>>> politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me:
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-
>>> temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-
>>> 84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/LJWQD4s2w_U/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  O=C=O
>
> Oliver Morton
> Briefings Editor
> The Economist
>
> +44 20 7830 7041
>
> O=C=O
>
> *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended
> recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also
> contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We
> may monitor e-mail to and from our network.*
>
> *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is
> The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number
> 236383 and registered office at 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG. For
> Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com
>  *
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed

[Fred Zimmerman]

Well, yes, but despite the Cold War era fears, nuclear war has not yet
happened in 70 years, not just because of Andrew's "common interest"
argument, but because politicians and military men apparently reached the
conclusion that nuclear bombs were an ineffective way of coercing other
nations to do things.  The same may be true for climate engineering.  I
would not commit myself  to great optimism here, but I would propose that
the history of nuclear weapons does not offer an evidentiary basis to say
Von Neumann was right and "possibilities once actual .. will be exploited."
ᐧ

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Jim Fleming  wrote:

> As argued in 1955:
>
> "Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others
> even more
>
> awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our
> present
>
> involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves:
>
> once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited."
>
> -- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955,
> 106–108.
>
> James R. Fleming
> Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College
> Research Associate, Columbia University
> Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology,
> bit.ly/THQMcd
> Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry  wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to
>> be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain
>> unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been
>> overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential).
>>
>> Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about
>> international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions
>> or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes
>> breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. 
>> Presumably
>> everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a
>> consensus process...
>>
>> So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding
>> SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic
>> situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate
>> internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would
>> still need to happen as fast as possible.
>>
>> If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't put
>> the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in
>> another one.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Olaf Corry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article.
>>>
>>> A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an
>>> incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to
>>> stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will
>>> instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed
>>> loser for all.
>>>
>>> Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy
>>> elsewhere dealing with a major incident.
>>>
>>> A
>>> On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, "Andy Parker"  wrote:
>>>
 Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy
 politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me:
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-
 temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-
 84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are sub

[geo] Nature article on biochars scarcely mentions CDR

[Fred Zimmerman]

There is a feature on biochars in the 15 Jan NATURE that is quite
interesting -- among other things, suggests always using "biochars" instead
of "biochar" because of the variation among the products -- but scarcely
mentions CDR.
http://www.nature.com/news/agriculture-state-of-the-art-soil-1.16699?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

I am interested in thoughts from our biochars enthusiasts.


Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Fox_Hedgehog.html
ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Keystone pipeline veto importance?

[Fred Zimmerman]

The McGlade paper is indeed very important and well worth reading since it
works backwards from the 2-degree target to provide what amounts to a
regional "hit list" for declaring carbon resources unburnable (see Table 1
in the paper).  Most of the Canadian oil and gas resources are found to be
unburnable in this exercise, which provides a principled basis for opposing
Keystone 2XLT and Canadian extraction projects in general rather than just
being against Keystone because it's easy to be against sited projects or in
the hopes of annoying the energy industry to death (two rationales cited
earlier in this thread).

Needless to say, there are huge political and economic implications to
recommending conscious regional skewing of asset stranding.
ᐧ

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Charles H. Greene  wrote:

> For those who want scientific justification for rejecting the KXL
> pipeline, here is a very important paper that just came out in Nature.
>
> Chuck Greene
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] NASA ROSES RFP - topics & workshops

[Fred Zimmerman]

Is anyone here considering geoengineering workshopsunder this proposal?

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId=%7B5DEA2E76-2217-DB11-CCEC-41F55DC09F0C%7D&path=open

This program element solicits proposals for topical workshops, symposia,
conferences, and other
scientific/technical meetings (herein referred to as "events") that advance
the goals and
objectives of only the following SMD Divisions: Earth Science and Planetary
Science.
Proposals are not limited to traditional in-person meetings of scientists
but may also include
requests for support of other methods of bringing together members of the
scientific
communities relevant to NASA, such as online discussion forums and
web-based collaboration
portals, especially in support of a traditional event. Proposals for
multiple related events should
be well justified.

Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] policy Qs re CDR-ATM

[Fred Zimmerman]

(atmospheric, terrestrial, marine - non industrial point source)

I am filling out a questionnaire of sorts and am interested in community
inputs on the following questions.

* What are the policy initiatives that have hindered the flow of investment
dollars to CDR? [am looking for active obstacles rather than passive
barriers such as lack of interest]

* What countries are the leaders in CDR research, development, investment,
and technologies?


I have my own ideas about the answers but am looking for sanity check.

Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] GM biogeoengineering risks

[Fred Zimmerman]

I am writing up a  brief precis of this topic (GMO for CDR) but as I read
through this thread I'm not seeing any citations to journal articles.  Can
someone provide me with citations to a few key papers?
ᐧ

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> I'm very concerned about two GM technologies, which don't seem to have
> attracted the concentrated attention of geoengineers and earth scientists.
>
> Firstly, the creation of root nodules to host N2-fixing bacteria on
> non-leguminous plants. This can fundamentally alter the nitrogen cycle, and
> indirectly the carbon cycle.
>
> Secondly, the switching of C3/C4 photosynthetic apparatus. This can
> fundamentally alter the carbon cycle.
>
> Both of these have the capability to create new plant types with
> fundamentally higher primary productivity. Because these may outcompete
> wild species, they may be uncontrollable once released.
>
> I'm generally unconcerned about GM, but these technologies are potentially
> severely dangerous.
>
> In my opinion, they clearly fall into the realm of (potential)
> geoengineering, and I'd be pleased if people on this list could devote a
> little time to discussing these risks.
>
> If you're looking for a more direct link, the biofuels / biochar / BECCS
> angle provides an obvious entry point to the debate.
>
> A
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Abstract: Antarctic Pumpdown---a New Geoengineering Concept for Capturing and Storing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (2014 AGU Fall Meeting)

[Fred Zimmerman]

Prof. Beget --

1) can you please explain the scale of operations that would be required to
achieve climatically significant reductions?

2) is there a termination scenario where SRM/CDR efforts including MEA are
abruptly terminated (say, because of political disorder), warming
accelerates, the captured MEA gets wet, and the captured CO2 is released
again?

Fred Z
ᐧ

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Ronal W. Larson 
wrote:

> Andrew,  Professor Beget, and List:
>
> I can’t answer either of Andrew’s questions - but the idea seems to be
> novel - and should be quite cheap to test many places.
>
> Prof.  Beget:   The Antarctic environment would be needed to understand
> the moisture/lifetime issues, but a small test on the right altitudes for
> creating a “snow”,  the rate of fall, etc should be relatively easy with a
> small plane in Alaska.  Have you done any testing yet?
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> Poster's note : maybe I'm missing something, but this seems neither safe
> nor practical to me
>
> https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/preliminaryview.cgi/Paper28515.html
>
> 2014 AGU Fall Meeting
> December 15 - 19, 2014
>
> Menu
>
> Antarctic Pumpdown---a New Geoengineering Concept for Capturing and
> Storing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
>
> James E Beget, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, United States
>
> Abstract:
>
> Growing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing
> global temperatures. This is projected to impact human society in negative
> ways. Multiple geoengineering approaches have been suggested that might
> counteract problems created by greenhouse warming, but geoengineering
> itself can be problematic as some proposed methods would pose environmental
> risks to the oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere. I propose a new approach
> that would remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in the
> cryosphere. Carbon dioxide would be captured by seeding the atmosphere over
> a designated small region of central Antarctica with monoethanolamine
> (MEA), a well known compound commonly used for CO2capture in submarines and
> industrial processes. Monoethanolamine captures and retains carbon dioxide
> until it encounters water. Because MEA crystals are stable when dry, they
> would fall from the atmosphere just in the local area where the seeding is
> done, and they would be naturally buried by snowfalls and preserved in the
> upper parts of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, where thawing does not occur.
> The carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by this process could reside
> safely in this geologic reservoir for thousands of years, based on known
> flow characteristic of the ice sheet. Also, carbon dioxide stored in this
> way could be recovered in the future by drilling into the ice sheet to the
> frozen storage zone. The CO2 Antarctic Pumpdown (CAP) concept could
> potentially be used to stabilize or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in
> the atmosphere, and then to store the carbon dioxide safely and
> inexpensively in a stable geologic reservoir
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: GM biogeoengineering risks

[Fred Zimmerman]

transcriptomics
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcriptomics>, metabolomics
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolomics>, proteomics
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteomics> and high-throughput
>techniques <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-throughput_screening> are
>used to collect quantitative data for the construction and validation of
>models.[8]
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-Romualdi09-8>
>
>
>- As the application of dynamical systems theory
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_systems_theory> to molecular
>biology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology>. Indeed, the
>focus on the dynamics of the studied systems is the main conceptual
>difference between systems biology and bioinformatics
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics>.[*citation needed
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>*]
>
>
>- As a socioscientific
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-scientific_issues> phenomenon
>defined by the strategy of pursuing integration of complex data about the
>interactions in biological systems from diverse experimental sources using
>interdisciplinary tools and personnel.[9]
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-9>
>
>
> As to the call for exercising great concern over GMO work, even those
> within that field of work support high levels of caution. Elevating that
> level of caution to the global scale is neither inconsistent nor
> hypocritically self serving. It is simply logical and consistent with many
> aspects of the precautionary principle as it relates to climate
> engineering.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> *Michael Hayes*
> *360-708-4976 <360-708-4976>*
> *The IMBECS Protocol Draft
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub>
>  *
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Fred Zimmerman <
> geoengineerin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the spirit of making this discussion more realistic with regard to
>> broader consumption, let me put the obvious argument on the table, which is
>> that climate engineering and GMO are Promethean brothers in spirit (I say
>> this without prejudice since I am supportive of both) and inspire
>> skepticism from many of the same people.  Accordingly, calls by the CE
>> community that climate threats from hypothetical future genetic engineering
>> techniques Should Be Viewed With Great Concern are going to be perceived by
>> many outsiders as at least inconsistent and at worst hypocritically
>> self-serving.  As the saying from the American South goes, "that dog won't
>> hunt."
>>
>> Just sayin': I wouldn't go there.
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Michael Hayes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would agree that modeling for long-term climate impacts should be a
>>> logical first step in designing/approving GMOs. Regretably, that simply has
>>> not been done in the past.
>>>
>>> The first GMO to be released was an engineered (non-ina or ice
>>> nucleation-active) form of * Pseudomonas syringae
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonas_syringae> *which some believe
>>> has reduced cloud formation rates in the areas where the organism has been
>>> released. Regrettably, there was no attention paid to the potential impact
>>> the released GMO would have at the cloud production level and so there was
>>> no cloud related studies done before the release of the GMO and thus post
>>> release changes in cloud formation rates can not be compared with
>>> pre-release conditions. And, few people even know/care about the potential
>>> changes and thus no further study of the effects will likely go forward.
>>>
>>> However, if the GMO version of *P. syringae* eventually crowds out the
>>> * ina* gene equipped species (i.e. natural variant), at the global
>>> scale, a reduction in global cloud cover and thus natural SRM can easily be
>>> predicted. It is only a question of how much.
>>>
>>> Also, we have a number of remarkable C4 species which, if modified, can
>>> rapidly change global scale environmental factors. One species which has
>>> the potential to run amok is the giant bamboo
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDOMwFX5Hg>. If such a warm climate
>>> plant were to be modified for a cold climate, snow ball Earth would be a
>>> shoe in due to the vast amount of CO2 removal such a GMO

Re: [geo] Why is geoengineering so tempting? Doda | Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

[Fred Zimmerman]

ᐧ
The finding in the last sentence is important especially given that the
impacts of climate change are likely to be felt most heavily by developing
countries.  That's an important aspect of the equity arguments around
geoengineering that is not perhaps given enough weight in ethical
discussions on the topic.  What may be a manageable climate impact for an
OECD country may be a complete disaster for a poor nation with low
resilience.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Together these results show how the temptation to use geoengineering can
> be different for developing and advanced countries.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Open : A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal and open oceans

[Fred Zimmerman]

Many interesting developments in here.

1) We're getting better at real time observation of algal blooms thanks to
multi sensor multi band and multi platform devices (ARGO + satellite is a
potent combination) but not there yet.

2) Of particular note for the geoengineering community is the importance of
supporting long-term decadal planning to ensure continuity of global remote
sensing services:

[there was a]10-year gap between CZCS and SeaWiFS
> (Fig. 4). This lack of data affected the possibility of answering many
> environmental questions, one of which was whether the volcanic
> eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 caused large
> phytoplankton blooms. The 10 cubic kilometers of material ejected
> by Mount Pinatubo contained trace metals (Gabrielli et al., 2008),
> especially iron, that were spread by the winds over the world’s
> oceans. These atmospheric depositions are likely to have generated
> large-scale phytoplankton blooms, but no ocean color satellite records
> for those events exist.


Continuity of the global satellite record cannot be taken for granted and
in fact is regularly imperiled everytime a satellite fails or a mission is
delayed or cancelled.  It would be good if some of the visionaries and
venture capitalists who watch this space threw their weight behind backing
civil scientific space missions.  Without the satellite record for climate
science, geoengineering is guessing in the dark.
ᐧ

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note : useful for OIF monitoring
>
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966111420?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&ccp=y
>
> Progress in Oceanography
> April 2014, Vol.123:123–144, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2013.12.008
> Open Access,
>
> A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques
> for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal
> and open oceans
>
> David Blondeau-Patissier
> James F.R. Gower
> Vittorio E. Brando
>
> Abstract
>
> The need for more effective environmental monitoring of the open and
> coastal ocean has recently led to notable advances in satellite ocean color
> technology and algorithm research. Satellite ocean color sensors’ data are
> widely used for the detection, mapping and monitoring of phytoplankton
> blooms because earth observation provides a synoptic view of the ocean,
> both spatially and temporally. Algal blooms are indicators of marine
> ecosystem health; thus, their monitoring is a key component of effective
> management of coastal and oceanic resources. Since the late 1970s, a wide
> variety of operational ocean color satellite sensors and algorithms have
> been developed. The comprehensive review presented in this article captures
> the details of the progress and discusses the advantages and limitations of
> the algorithms used with the multi-spectral ocean color sensors CZCS,
> SeaWiFS, MODIS and MERIS. Present challenges include overcoming the severe
> limitation of these algorithms in coastal waters and refining detection
> limits in various oceanic and coastal environments. To understand the
> spatio-temporal patterns of algal blooms and their triggering factors, it
> is essential to consider the possible effects of environmental parameters,
> such as water temperature, turbidity, solar radiation and bathymetry.
> Hence, this review will also discuss the use of statistical techniques and
> additional datasets derived from ecosystem models or other satellite
> sensors to characterize further the factors triggering or limiting the
> development of algal blooms in coastal and open ocean waters.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] no geoengineering awardees in Climate CoLab

[Fred Zimmerman]

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300209

Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] 6 commercially viable ways to remove CO2 - Schuiling

[Fred Zimmerman]

my apologies for the intemperate tone. Please allow me to revise and extend
my remarks as follows.

I have no claim to special expertise but living in the US we are regularly
treated to pictures of huge Western wildfires that lay waste to wide
swathes of land, destroy hundreds of homes, often cause significant
casualties, and require days to bring under control (not extinguish) with
the efforts of hundreds or thousands of workers and special equipment --
all that without adding the requirement to bring a particular substance to
the task.  These are just the wildfires that make the news because they
impinge on heavily populated areas.

Also, I am somewhat familiar with world fires data.  If you look at
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MOD14A1_M_FIRE, and
play the Quicktime video there, you will note that there are a whole bunch
of fires burning all the time (these are 1 km pixels I believe) and that
they tend to be burning in tropical and boreal areas that are relatively
far from Fire Departments.

Finally, what reason is there to believe that forest ecosystems would still
function as we would wish  if we make a dramatic intervention in the
duration and heat behavior of fires?

Given all these practical objections, does it really seem fair to
characterize fire fighting with serpentite as a "commercially feasible"
method?  My objection is more to the title, which seems like overreaching,
than to the idea itself. I may perhaps be overly sensitive to the title
because there is a lot of controversy about the cost feasibility of
emissions control and cost claims have policy implications. Overly
optimistic cost claims tend to induce skepticism in otherwise sympathetic
listeners.

Frankly, I think it would be so difficult to scale serpentite use to truly
global levels that there is no great harm in using it to put out
human-critical fires, so, I'm not really opposed to the idea (which seems
clever, and, if nothing else, a boon for serpentite mine owners), just
cautious about marketing it as a big part of the solution.

Cordially,

Fred
ᐧ

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) 
wrote:

>  Mr.Zimmerman,
>
> You made a rather crunching remark about my proposal to quench forest
> fires with serpentinite slurries instead of water. I would appreciate a
> more detailed criticism. My paper on it (serpentinite slurries against
> forest fires) has just been accepted for publication in Int.J.Forestry, and
> the Dutch Fire brigades were very enthusiastic when they witnessed my
> quenching test, and I would like to know why the reviewers of the paper and
> the Dutch fire brigades were so far off the mark according to you, Olaf
> Schuiling
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Fred Zimmerman
> *Sent:* woensdag 1 oktober 2014 18:58
> *To:* Andrew Lockley
> *Cc:* geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] 6 commercially viable ways to remove CO2 - Schuiling
>
>
>
> Title vastly oversells commercial feasibility of the blue-sky notions
> described below. One need only inspect the item on putting out forest fires
> with serpentite--reads as if authors have no appreciation whatsoever of the
> scale of forest fires, how difficult they are to put out, and the fact that
> they play crucial role in vital ecosystem services.
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]ᐧ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> attached
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] 6 commercially viable ways to remove CO2 - Schuiling

[Fred Zimmerman]

Title vastly oversells commercial feasibility of the blue-sky notions
described below. One need only inspect the item on putting out forest fires
with serpentite--reads as if authors have no appreciation whatsoever of the
scale of forest fires, how difficult they are to put out, and the fact that
they play crucial role in vital ecosystem services.
ᐧ

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> attached
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Fwd: [geo] Open : A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal and open oceans

[Fred Zimmerman]

Many interesting developments in here.

1) We're getting better at real time observation of algal blooms thanks to
multi sensor multi band and multi platform devices (ARGO + satellite is a
potent combination) but not there yet.

2) Of particular note for the geoengineering community is the importance of
supporting long-term decadal planning to ensure continuity of global remote
sensing services:

[there was a]10-year gap between CZCS and SeaWiFS
> (Fig. 4). This lack of data affected the possibility of answering many
> environmental questions, one of which was whether the volcanic
> eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 caused large
> phytoplankton blooms. The 10 cubic kilometers of material ejected
> by Mount Pinatubo contained trace metals (Gabrielli et al., 2008),
> especially iron, that were spread by the winds over the world’s
> oceans. These atmospheric depositions are likely to have generated
> large-scale phytoplankton blooms, but no ocean color satellite records
> for those events exist.


Continuity of the global satellite record cannot be taken for granted and
in fact is regularly imperiled everytime a satellite fails or a mission is
delayed or cancelled.  It would be good if some of the visionaries and
venture capitalists who watch this space threw their weight behind backing
civil scientific space missions.  Without the satellite record for climate
science, geoengineering is guessing in the dark.
ᐧ

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note : useful for OIF monitoring
>
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966111420?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&ccp=y
>
> Progress in Oceanography
> April 2014, Vol.123:123–144, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2013.12.008
> Open Access,
>
> A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques
> for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal
> and open oceans
>
> David Blondeau-Patissier
> James F.R. Gower
> Vittorio E. Brando
>
> Abstract
>
> The need for more effective environmental monitoring of the open and
> coastal ocean has recently led to notable advances in satellite ocean color
> technology and algorithm research. Satellite ocean color sensors’ data are
> widely used for the detection, mapping and monitoring of phytoplankton
> blooms because earth observation provides a synoptic view of the ocean,
> both spatially and temporally. Algal blooms are indicators of marine
> ecosystem health; thus, their monitoring is a key component of effective
> management of coastal and oceanic resources. Since the late 1970s, a wide
> variety of operational ocean color satellite sensors and algorithms have
> been developed. The comprehensive review presented in this article captures
> the details of the progress and discusses the advantages and limitations of
> the algorithms used with the multi-spectral ocean color sensors CZCS,
> SeaWiFS, MODIS and MERIS. Present challenges include overcoming the severe
> limitation of these algorithms in coastal waters and refining detection
> limits in various oceanic and coastal environments. To understand the
> spatio-temporal patterns of algal blooms and their triggering factors, it
> is essential to consider the possible effects of environmental parameters,
> such as water temperature, turbidity, solar radiation and bathymetry.
> Hence, this review will also discuss the use of statistical techniques and
> additional datasets derived from ecosystem models or other satellite
> sensors to characterize further the factors triggering or limiting the
> development of algal blooms in coastal and open ocean waters.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fwd: Researchers paint a new picture of carbon in land ecosystems

[Fred Zimmerman]

Does this mean that carbon sequestration by preservation and afforestation
in boreal forests has more bang for the buck than in tropical forests?

Also, does this mean that there is an unexpected benefit of SRM influence
on hydrological system--longer carbon residence times?

Fred

*Researchers paint a new picture of carbon in land ecosystems [26 September
2014]*
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-picture-carbon-ecosystems_1.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13731.html
...The average global carbon turnover time is 23 years, according to a new
report published in Nature by an international research team headed by Nuno
Carvalhais and Markus Reichstein from the Max Planck Institute for
Biogeochemistry in Jena. ***In the tropics, it takes just 15 years before a
carbon atom is released back into the atmosphere; in higher latitudes, it
takes 255 years. *** Surprisingly, the analysis revealed that precipitation
is at least as important as temperature in determining the turnover time.
The researchers also established that overall more carbon than was
previously thought is stored in land ecosystems - especially in soil.

..."The length of time that a carbon atom remains in the ecosystem is
crucial to the carbon balance," says Markus Reichstein, who heads the
Biogeochemical Integration Department at the MPI in Jena. The terrestrial
balance in the global carbon cycle is an important factor in climate
models. However, the way in which land ecosystems will respond to global
warming is one of the greatest uncertainties of current climate forecasts.

...The researchers' analyses show that carbon turnover time decreases when
precipitation increases.

...The study revealed one unexpected correlation in the savannahs: even in
tropical grasslands, carbon turnover time decreases the more precipitation
falls. This was certainly unexpected, as more trees grow in these regions
due to greater moisture there. "As wood has a long life, we would actually
expect that carbon then stays longer in the system," says Reichstein. One
possible explanation for the apparent paradox is that fires are more
frequent in heavily wooded areas, releasing the carbon faster.

Lisa Emmer
lem...@isciences.com
Research Analyst
ISCIENCES, L.L.C.


ᐧ

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

[Fred Zimmerman]

I am interested in recent plausible cost estimates of methods to remove CO2
from the atmosphere whether they are chemical, mechanical, biotic, or other.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

>  OK, then do the attached (with $ estimates) count? "Chemical engineering
> processes" potentially cover a lot of ground, including biochemical,
> geochemical, and electrochemical CO2 removal (?) I assumed that DAC only
> referred to abiotic CO2 removal where conc CO2 was the end product.
> Greg
>
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* Andrew Lockley 
> *To:* Greg Rau 
> *Cc:* geoengineering 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 30, 2014 11:50 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
>
> Mechanical / chemical engineering processes, eg as per Keith, Lackner,
> etc.
> A
>  On 30 Aug 2014 18:37, "Rau, Greg"  wrote:
>
>  What qualifies as "DAC CDR"?
>
>  Greg
>  ------
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
> on behalf of Fred Zimmerman [geoengineerin...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2014 7:02 PM
> *To:* Mark Capron
> *Cc:* charlie.zen...@gmail.com; geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
>
>   There are summaries of cost estimates in several of the articles
> referenced in this thread. There are values reported at pretty much every
> stop between $45 and $1000/ton.  I am not sure that I find any of the
> estimates convincing as yet.  I wonder if the size of global demand
> (whether industrial or governmental) is a bigger problem than cost.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:56 PM,  wrote:
>
>  Charlie,
>
>  You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart
> <http://http//oceanforesters.org/References.html>,
> http://oceanforesters.org/References.html.  The chart is at the bottom of
> the page.  Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years.  His
> "2012 A comparative assessment..." (link near top of the same page) was
> published in the same journal with "Negative carbon via Ocean
> Afforestation."
>
>  Mark E. Capron, PE
> Ventura, California
> www.PODenergy.org
>
>
> Original Message 
> Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
> From: Charlie Zender 
> Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>
> Fred,
>
>  It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a
> table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view.
>
>  Best,
> Charlie
>
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Hi --
>
>  I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am
> wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the
> flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al.
>
>
>   Fred Zimmerman
> Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
> "a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>--
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> 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 gro

Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

[Fred Zimmerman]

There are summaries of cost estimates in several of the articles referenced
in this thread. There are values reported at pretty much every stop between
$45 and $1000/ton.  I am not sure that I find any of the estimates
convincing as yet.  I wonder if the size of global demand (whether
industrial or governmental) is a bigger problem than cost.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:56 PM,  wrote:

> Charlie,
>
> You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart
> <http://http://oceanforesters.org/References.html>,
> http://oceanforesters.org/References.html.  The chart is at the bottom of
> the page.  Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years.  His
> "2012 A comparative assessment..." (link near top of the same page) was
> published in the same journal with "Negative carbon via Ocean
> Afforestation."
>
> Mark E. Capron, PE
> Ventura, California
> www.PODenergy.org
>
>
>   Original Message 
> Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
> From: Charlie Zender 
> Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>
> Fred,
>
> It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a
> table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view.
>
> Best,
> Charlie
>
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>> Hi --
>>
>> I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am
>> wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the
>> flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al.
>>
>>
>> Fred Zimmerman
>> Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
>> "a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Hi --

I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am
wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the
flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al.


Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] programmatic summary of David Keith article on air-liquid contractor

[Fred Zimmerman]

Fooling around with a summarization tool. Below is what it did with David
Keith's article on his air-liquid contactor (Holmes & Keith 2012).  The
first thing I notice is that the abstract from the article would be more
useful!

I am interested in thoughts on what the summarizer could have done better
on this article.

http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/148.Holmes.Keith.ContactorForLargeScaleCapture.e.pdf

Additional results are available at
http://www.pagekicker.com/index.php/catalog/document-analysis-results/70129.html

* The core simplification of this cost model is that, for a slab geometry
contactor, the shell cost is roughly independent of the depth of the
packing.
* For example, the cost of a contactor shell with a 20 × 200 m frontal area
does not change significantly as the thickness of the packing is varied from
3 to 15 m. As discussed in §2e, the CO2 mass flux into the liquid is always
proportional to the concentration of CO2 in the overlying air so that it
can be expressed as a liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient KL (with units
of velocity) times the CO2 mass density in the air [5].
* Because the flux of CO2 into a liquid hydroxide solution under conditions
relevant to AC is proportional to the mixing ratio of CO2 in the overlying
gas, the mass transfer coefficient therefore has the units of velocity.
* We find that the cost of air contacting can be of the order of $60 per
tonne CO2 with a contactor design that results in a capture fraction of 80
per cent.
* Finally, we note that the fourfold discrepancy between our estimate of
contactor cost and that in the recent APS DAC report is due to
fundamentally different design choices, insufficient optimization in the APS
design and our choice of lower-cost contactor internals.



Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Gawker on chemtrails

[Fred Zimmerman]

Here's a List of All the Evidence That Proves Chemtrails Exist
http://thevane.gawker.com/heres-a-list-of-all-the-evidence-that-proves-chemtrails-1618590928/+DaynaEvans

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] ice sheets as a source of highly reactive nanoparticulate iron

[Fred Zimmerman]

Ice sheets as a significant source of highly reactive nanoparticulate iron
to the oceans : -klou.tt/mkqd672op59d <http://t.co/HCumOJNF68>

Ice sheets as a significant source of highly reactive nanoparticulate iron
to the oceans

   - Jon R. Hawkings
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-1>
   ,
   - Jemma L. Wadham
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-2>
   ,
   - Martyn Tranter
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-3>
   ,
   - Rob Raiswell
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-4>
   ,
   - Liane G. Benning
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-5>
   ,
   - Peter J. Statham
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-6>
   ,
   - Andrew Tedstone
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-7>
   ,
   - Peter Nienow
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-8>
   ,
   - Katherine Lee
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-9>
   - & Jon Telling
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#auth-10>


   - Affiliations
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#affil-auth>
   - Contributions
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#contrib-auth>
   - Corresponding author
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#corres-auth>

Nature Communications  5, Article number: 3929  doi:10.1038/ncomms4929
Received  26 August 2013 Accepted  22 April 2014 Published  21 May 2014
Article tools

   - PDF
   - Citation
   <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/ris/ncomms4929.ris>
   - Reprints
   
<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGR&publication=Nature+Communications&title=Ice+sheets+as+a+significant+source+of+highly+reactive+nanoparticulate+iron+to+the+oceans&contentID=10.1038%2Fncomms4929&volumeNum=5&issueNum=&numPages=&pageNumbers=pp%24%7BnPage.startPage%7D&orderBeanReset=true&publicationDate=2014-05-21&author=Jon+R.+Hawkings%2C+Jemma+L.+Wadham%2C+Martyn+Tranter%2C+Rob+Raiswell%2C+Liane+G.+Benning%2C+Peter+J.+Statham>
   - Rights & permissions
   
<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPG&publication=Nature+Communications&title=Ice+sheets+as+a+significant+source+of+highly+reactive+nanoparticulate+iron+to+the+oceans&contentID=10.1038%2Fncomms4929&volumeNum=5&issueNum=&numPages=&pageNumbers=pp%24%7BnPage.startPage%7D&publicationDate=2014-05-21&cc=by&author=Jon+R.+Hawkings%2C+Jemma+L.+Wadham%2C+Martyn+Tranter%2C+Rob+Raiswell%2C+Liane+G.+Benning%2C+Peter+J.+Statham>
   - Article metrics
   <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/metrics>

Abstract

   - Abstract•
   - Introduction
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#introduction>
   •
   - Results
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#results>
   •
   - Discussion
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#discussion>
   •
   - Methods
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#methods>
   •
   - Additional information
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#additional-information>
   •
   - References
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#references>
   •
   - Acknowledgements
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#acknowledgments>
   •
   - Author information
   
<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html#author-information>

The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets cover ~\n10% of global land surface,
but are rarely considered as active components of the global iron cycle.
The ocean waters around both ice sheets harbour highly productive coastal
ecosystems, many of which are iron limited. Measurements of iron
concentrations in subglacial runoff from a large Greenland Ice Sheet
catchment reveal the potential for globally significant export of labile
iron fractions to the near-coastal euphotic zone. We estimate that the flux
of bioavailable iron associated with glacial runoff is 0.40–2.54 Tg per
year in Greenland and 0.06–0.17 Tg per year in Antarctica. Iron fluxes are
dominated by a highly reactive and potentially bioavailable nanoparticulate
suspended sediment fraction, similar to that identified in Antarctic
icebergs. Estimates of labile iro

Re: [geo] Ocean waves influence sea ice extent

[Fred Zimmerman]

Why not try to increase the duration and intensity of polar storms?  We've
already got a good start on that with the massive ongoing global effort to
increase the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.

Seriously, it baffles me that sometimes it seems that the response here to
every new piece of climate science is to figure out if there's a way we can
use it in geoengineering.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Any ideas on this? Some possibilities:
> Drill holes in ice to allow water to slosh through.
> Binding ice together with straw, etc.
> Inject air under the ice
>
> Ocean waves influence sea ice extent
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27591369
>
> Ocean waves influence sea ice extent
> 29 May 2014 11:51
> By Jonathan Amos
>
> Science correspondent, BBC News
>
> The team placed sensors on the floes to track the disturbance caused by
> ocean waves
> Large ocean waves can travel through sea ice for hundreds of kilometres
> before their oscillations are finally dampened, scientists have shown.
>
> The up and down motion can fracture the ice, potentially aiding its
> break-up and melting, the researchers told Nature magazine.
>
> They say storm swells may have a much bigger influence on the extent of
> polar sea ice than previously recognised.
>
> The New Zealand-led team ran its experiments off Antarctica.
>
> They placed sensors at various distances from the edge of the pack ice,
> and then recorded what happened when bad weather whipped up the ocean
> surface.
>
> For smaller waves, less than 3m in height, the bobbing induced in the
> floes quickly decayed. But for waves over 3m, the disturbance sent
> propagating through the pack ice was sustained for up to 350km.
>
> "At the ice edge, it's quite noisy," explained study lead author Alison
> Kohout, from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
> Research in Christchurch.
>
> "You have lots of waves coming from all directions with a full spectrum of
> frequencies. But as the waves move into the ice, this all gets cleaned up
> to produce one beautiful, smooth wave of constant frequency," she told BBC
> News.
>
> "The ice floes bend with the waves, and over time you can imagine that
> this creates fatigue and eventually the ice will fracture. Interestingly,
> the fractures tend to be perpendicular to the direction of the waves, and
> to be of even widths."
>
> "The fractures tend to be perpendicular to the direction of the waves, and
> to be of even widths"
> Computer modellers have been trying to simulate the recent trends in polar
> sea ice - without a great deal of success.
>
> They have failed to capture both the very rapid decline in summer ice
> cover in the Arctic and the small, but nonetheless significant, growth in
> winter ice in the Antarctic.
>
> Dr Kohout and colleagues say their experiments offer some clues -
> certainly in the south.
>
> When they compared observed Antarctic marine-ice edge positions from 1997
> to 2009 with likely wave heights generated by the weather during that
> period, they found a strong link.
>
> For example, where storminess was increased, in regions like the
> Amundsen-Bellingshausen Sea, ice extent was curtailed.
>
> In contrast, where wave heights were smaller, such as in the Western Ross
> Sea, marine ice was seen to expand.
>
> One very noticeable aspect of the recent growth in Antarctic winter sea
> ice has been its high regional variability.
>
> The team says that if models take more account of wave heights then they
> may better capture some of this behaviour.
>
> The recent growth in Antarctic sea ice has been a highly regional
> phenomenon
> The group did try to look for a similar relationship in storminess and ice
> extent in the Arctic but found there to be insufficient data to draw any
> firm conclusions.
>
> The geography at the poles is quite different. The Arctic is in large part
> an ocean enclosed by land, whereas the Antarctic is a land mass totally
> surrounded by ocean. Many of the ice behaviours and responses are different
> as a result.
>
> "I think what's interesting for us in the Arctic is that the 'fetch' is
> increasing - the distance from the shores to the ice edge is increasing,"
> commented Prof Julienne Stroeve from University College London and the US
> National Snow and Ice Data Center.
>
> "That would allow the wind to work more on the ocean to produce larger
> waves that can then propagate further into the ice pack.
>
> "[Another recent paper has already suggested] that wave heights are going
> to change with increasing distance from the ice edge to the land, and that
> could have more of an impact on ice break-up."
>
> jonathan.amos-inter...@bbc.co.uk and follow me on Twitter: @BBCAmos
>
> BBC © 2014
>
> --
> 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+uns

[geo] HAARP is no more

[Fred Zimmerman]

http://www.adn.com/2014/05/14/3470442/air-force-prepares-to-dismantle.html?sp=/99/100/&ihp=1

Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] geoengineering for comfort

[Fred Zimmerman]

Let's assume that we geoengineer and mitigate our way out of the current
climate crisis. An optimistic scenario might be a 550 ppm overshoot
followed by 450 stabilization.  With a warming equilibrium achieved, what
could we do with SRM or CDR or some other technique that would dramatically
improve the quality of human life without screwing something else up?
 Can we regreen the Sahel or the Australian outback?   Can we reduce the
frequency and intensity of extreme weather?  etc., etc.


Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: technical potential of ocean bioenergy?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Thanks Michael.  I agree that the ocean environment offers many unique
benefits as a location for carbon farming but I think it is also important
to remember that there are also uniquely inconvenient aspects too  The
recent loss of Malaysia Airlines 370 has highlighted that there are many
areas of the world oceans that are simply very very remote.  If it takes a
jet 8 hours to fly to the algae farm, probably not the best location for
operations, even if robotically managed!  There are many other constraints
that might reduce the available hectarage (sp?)-- competing food and
fishery uses, biodiversity protection, EEZs, prevailing surface winds ,
etc., etc. -- and the nature of the marine environment creates unique
vulnerabilities  as well.  It would be a good exercise to use a GIS and
carry out a first order assessment of suitable areas as some of our
colleagues have done for other technologies such as marine cloud
brightening.  Fred


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Michael Hayes  wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> Beyond the few papers/projects/concepts which have been mentioned in this
> forum (Trent 
> <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/>/Capron<http://www.podenergy.net/Ocean_Afforestation.html>
> /Bhaskar 
> <https://www.youtube.com/user/nualgi>/Tulip<http://rtulip.net/ocean_based_algae_production_system_provisional_patent>),
> there seems to be no further work (that I've found) which specifically
> attempts to work out the details of* oceanic based cultivation on a vast
> scale*. To gain some understanding of the biomass cultivation potential
> of the marine environment one has to look within the current* land based
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel>* algal cultivation 
> industry<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel>and transpose that work 
> into/onto the marine environment. Many of the
> environmental/production limiting factors found within the land based algal
> cultivation industry (or 
> BECCS<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage>in
>  general) become moot when transposed onto the marine environment.
> Further, when considering the marine environment one needs to understand
> that there are calm oceanic deserts (of vast scale) which are conducive to
> the cultivation of a multitude of species (on a vast scale). Also, the
> design and construction of the production 'rafts' are well within the
> marine engineering arts and thus the physical barriers to production on a
> vast scale is minimal.
>
> Invention is often based upon the transposition of patterns found within
> one field into another field. Regrettably, until further work is
> funded/developed, you will need to use your inventive side to understand
> the potential of the marine environment as a
> fuel/food/feed/fertilizer/freshwater/polymer (etc.) source.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Monday, April 21, 2014 6:41:06 AM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>> I have just been skimming through the IPCC AR5 appendix on bioenergy and
>> I see helpful estimates of technical bioenergy potential for land but don't
>> see any estimates of technical potential for marine bioenergy -- are there
>> any good papers on that topic?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> Fred Zimmerman
>> Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
>> "a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] technical potential of ocean bioenergy?

[Fred Zimmerman]

I have just been skimming through the IPCC AR5 appendix on bioenergy and I
see helpful estimates of technical bioenergy potential for land but don't
see any estimates of technical potential for marine bioenergy -- are there
any good papers on that topic?

Fred


Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Open access paper on BECS in Climatic Change (Blanford et al 2014)

[Fred Zimmerman]

If I remember correctly, terrestrial primary productivity is greater than
oceanic primary productivity. So isn't it a mistake also to regard the
oceans as a sort of reserve larder of biocapacity simply because they are
larger in area/volume than the terrestrial biosphere?

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Michael Hayes  wrote:

> Greg, Ron and David et. al.,
>
>
> nical uncertainties of a global BECCS scenario becomes moot. To review the
> subject of BECCS without contemplating the use of marine resources (ie. 70%
> of the planet) would seem to be less than rigorous. The "*(limited
> evidence, medium agreement)"* quantifier/qualifier appears to be based
> wholly upon the assumption that BECCS is strictly terrestrial,* It is
> not. The largest form of natural BECCS is oceanic, not terrestrial.*
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fwd: Volcanic eruptions explain recent warming hiatus

[Fred Zimmerman]

What do we think of this?


 Volcanic eruptions explain recent warming hiatus

Published 3 March 2014



*Volcanic eruptions in the early part of the twenty-first century have
cooled the planet, according to a study led by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. This cooling has partly offset the warming produced by
greenhouse gases, explaining why, despite continuing increases in
atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, and in the total heat content of
the ocean, global-mean temperatures at the surface of the planet and in the
troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth's atmosphere) have shown
relatively little warming since 1998. Scientists note that human-induced -
that is, greenhouse gasses emissions-related -- change typically causes the
troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. In contrast, large
volcanic eruptions cool the troposphere and warm the stratosphere.*

[image:
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/standard/eruption.jpg]

Erupting volcanoes release huge amounts of greenhouse gases // Source:
commons.wikimedia.org

Volcanic eruptions in the early part of the twenty-first century have
cooled the planet, according to a
studyled
by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory  (LLNL). This cooling
partly offset the warming produced by greenhouse gases.

Despite continuing increases in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, and
in the total heat content of the ocean, global-mean temperatures at the
surface of the planet and in the troposphere (the lowest portion of the
Earth's atmosphere) have shown relatively little warming since 1998. This
so-called "slow-down" or "hiatus" has received considerable scientific,
political and popular attention. The volcanic contribution to the slow-down
is the subject of a new paper appearing in the 23 February edition of the
journal *Nature
Geoscience*
.

An LLNL release
reportsthat
volcanic eruptions inject sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere. If
the eruptions are large enough to add sulfur dioxide to the stratosphere
(the atmospheric layer above the troposphere), the gas forms tiny droplets
of sulfuric acid, also known as "volcanic aerosols."

These droplets reflect some portion of the incoming sunlight back into
space, cooling the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere.

"In the last decade, the amount of volcanic aerosol in the stratosphere has
increased, so more sunlight is being reflected back into space," said
Lawrence Livermore climate scientist Benjamin
Santer,
who serves as lead author of the study. "This has created a natural cooling
of the planet and has partly offset the increase in surface and atmospheric
temperatures due to human influence."

>From 2000 to 2012, emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have
increased -- as they have done since the Industrial Revolution. This
human-induced change typically causes the troposphere to warm and the
stratosphere to cool. In contrast, large volcanic eruptions cool the
troposphere and warm the stratosphere. The researchers report that early
twenty-first century volcanic eruptions have contributed to this recent
warming hiatus, and that most climate models have not accurately accounted
for this effect.

"The recent slow-down in observed surface and tropospheric warming is a
fascinating detective story," Santer said. "There is not a single culprit,
as some scientists have claimed. Multiple factors are implicated. One is
the temporary cooling effect of internal climate noise. Other factors are
the external cooling influences of twenty-first century volcanic activity,
an unusually low and long minimum in the last solar cycle, and an uptick in
Chinese emissions of sulfur dioxide.

"The real scientific challenge is to obtain hard quantitative estimates of
the contributions of each of these factors to the slow-down."

The release notes that the researchers performed two different statistical
tests to determine whether recent volcanic eruptions have cooling effects
that can be distinguished from the intrinsic variability of the climate.
The team found evidence for significant correlations between volcanic
aerosol observations and satellite-based estimates of lower tropospheric
temperatures as well as the sunlight reflected back to space by the aerosol
particles.

"This is the most comprehensive observational evaluation of the role of
volcanic activity on climate in the early part of the 21st century," said
co-author Susan
Solomon,
the Ellen Swallow Richards professor of atmospheric chemistry and climate
science at MIT. "We assess the contributions of volcanoes on temperatures
in the troposphere - the lowest layer of the atmos

Re: [geo] Detecting geoengineering effects

[Fred Zimmerman]

Money quote:

 The perspective article shows, for example, that a three-month experiment
> in the equatorial zone would need to cause an increase in sunlight
> reflection that is three times as large as what occurred when Mount
> Pinatubo erupted in 1991 to exceed the background variability and be
> detected.


I remember hearing David Keith express high confidence that we would be
able to detect SRM, this seems to take a different view.  Thoughts?



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


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Salter  wrote:

> Hi All
>
> The site
>
> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/pdf/nclimate2076.pdf
>
> has an interesting paper on the detection problem.
>
> Stephen
> --
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University
> of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.ukTel +44
> (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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] Iron Limitation Modulates Ocean Acidification Effects on Southern Ocean Phytoplankton Communities

[Fred Zimmerman]

How much acidification is required to affect npp?
On Nov 28, 2013 4:04 PM, "Ken Caldeira" 
wrote:

> Of course, even under rather extreme assumption, changes in planktonic
> productivity can do little to slow the rising tide of ocean acidification.
> (see Cao and Caldeira, 2010 for a relevant study)
>
> The main threat from ocean acidification is not to net primary
> productivity, but rather to biodiversity.
>
>
> ___
> 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 Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:00 AM, M V Bhaskar wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0079890
>> Iron Limitation Modulates Ocean Acidification Effects on Southern Ocean
>> Phytoplankton Communities
>>
>>
>>- Clara J. M. Hoppe,
>>- Christel S. Hassler,
>>
>>
>>- Christopher D. Payne,
>>
>>
>>- Philippe D. Tortell,
>>
>>
>>- Björn Rost,
>>
>>
>>- Scarlett Trimborn
>>
>>
>>- Published: Nov 20, 2013
>>- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079890
>>
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> The potential interactive effects of iron (Fe) limitation and Ocean
>> Acidification in the Southern Ocean (SO) are largely unknown. Here we
>> present results of a long-term incubation experiment investigating the
>> combined effects of CO2 and Fe availability on natural phytoplankton
>> assemblages from the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Active Chl *a* fluorescence
>> measurements revealed that we successfully cultured phytoplankton under
>> both Fe-depleted and Fe-enriched conditions. Fe treatments had significant
>> effects on photosynthetic efficiency (Fv/Fm; 0.3 for Fe-depleted and 0.5
>> for Fe-enriched conditions), non-photochemical quenching (NPQ), and
>> relative electron transport rates (rETR). pCO2 treatments significantly
>> affected NPQ and rETR, but had no effect on Fv/Fm. Under Fe limitation,
>> increased pCO2 had no influence on C fixation whereas under Fe
>> enrichment, primary production increased with increasing pCO2 levels.
>> These CO2-dependent changes in productivity under Fe-enriched conditions
>> were accompanied by a pronounced taxonomic shift from weakly to heavily
>> silicified diatoms (i.e. from *Pseudo-nitzschia* sp. to *Fragilariopsis* 
>> sp.).
>> Under Fe-depleted conditions, this functional shift was absent and thinly
>> silicified species dominated all pCO2 treatments (*Pseudo-nitzschia* sp.
>> and*Synedropsis* sp. for low and high pCO2, respectively). Our results
>> suggest that Ocean Acidification could increase primary productivity and
>> the abundance of heavily silicified, fast sinking diatoms in Fe-enriched
>> areas, both potentially leading to a stimulation of the biological pump.
>> Over much of the SO, however, Fe limitation could restrict this possible CO
>> 2 fertilization effect."
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Bhaskar
>>
>>  --
>> 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.
>

-- 
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] Communication of geoengineering :Kravitz interview - What Is Geoengineering And How Does It Work?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Andrew,I for one applaud Ben's refusal to be drawn on governance issues --
surely we don't all need to talk about governance every time we give an
interview -- and I feel similarly positive about his willingness to use
scientific terminology! Also, remember when evaluating interviews that the
subjects sometimes have only a modest degree of control over the words that
appear once the journalist is done tightening the material for publication.
This is a short interview, I would not be surprised if there was additional
discussion that did not make it into "print".


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


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Poster's note : I found Ben's interview style interesting. For clarity, I
> think Ben is one of the finest minds in geoengineering research, and don't
> mean to criticise his professional competence or personal integrity
> whatsoever. However, a few things strike me when reading the text:
>
> 1) When considering experimentation, Ben omits consideration of the
> Russians' small scale aerosol injection experiments, or our extensive,
> practical understanding of many CDR technologies.
> 2) He does not mention that ship tracks etc. inform our understanding of
> real-world processes, without needing dedicated experiments.
> 3) He generally refuses to be drawn on governance issues, and the military
> and security aspects of geoengineering. In particular, he doesn't mention
> the body of literature developed by other researchers on those issues.
> 4) He uses scientific terminology (eg hydro cycle, sequestration, etc. )
> in the interview.
> 5) He claims that stopping emissions is a permanent solution to climate
> change. This doesn't address the issue of historic emissions, and may
> confuse some readers.
>
> http://www.countercurrents.org/ithp031013.htm
>
> What Is Geoengineering And How Does It Work?
>
> By ITHP Staff
> 03 October, 2013
>
> It shouldn't come as a surprise that planet Earth is heating up. Though
> many of us would applaud the idea of getting out our shorts and tank tops a
> few days early, we'd quickly change our minds after examining the
> consequences of global warming. Scientists looking for ways to combat
> increasing temperatures are now exploring new innovative possibilities of
> cooling the planet through modern technology.One such scientist is Ben
> Kravitz. Dr. Kravitz is part of a group of scientists researching
> geoengineering and hoping to prevent the future negative effects of global
> warming. ITHP got to interview Dr. Kravitz about his work in climate
> modeling and research. Enjoy.
>
> What is geoengineering and how does it work?
>
> That's actually a more difficult question than it sounds. But before I
> begin answering that, I want to be perfectly clear. The only research
> anyone has done on geoengineering has been using computer models or inside
> lab space.There are two broad categories of geoengineering research, which
> are known as Solar Reduction Methods (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal
> (CDR). These two technologies are really different, and they're really only
> related in that they are ways people might intervene to reduce the effects
> of global warming. SRM tries to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches
> the planet. There are several proposed ideas, such as putting reflectors in
> space, making Earth's surface brighter, or putting a layer of sulfate
> aerosols in the stratosphere. (The last one on that list is what large
> volcanic eruptions do, and we know that volcanic eruptions can cool the
> surface.) CDR attempts to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by
> preventing its emission or by extracting it from the atmosphere and
> sequestering it. There are other technologies that don't really fall neatly
> into either category. My expertise is in SRM, so that's what I'll focus
> on.The problem with all of those technologies is they're purely technical.
> They don't say what geoengineering is supposed to do or how much
> geoengineering would be done. Should geoengineering cool the planet by a
> certain number of degrees? Should it change the hydrological cycle? Should
> it restore sea ice? Should it prevent ocean acidification? All of these
> questions (and a lot more) need to be answered by society, not by
> scientists, before a technology or set of technologies is chosen, should
> society decide it wants to pursue geoengineering.Another problem that
> should be addressed is how geoengineering should be used. SRM is not a
> permanent "fix" for climate change. It's imperfec

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

[Fred Zimmerman]

Very interesting.  I wonder if this same financial logic could be applied
to determine the expenditure that would make it profiitable to keep the
coal in the ground.  In other words, there are 2795 GT of fossil fuel
assets who "want" to be mined and burned for the maximum possible return.
 There is a value to driving up the scarcity, but a countervailing risk
that the fossil fuel assets will become less valuable due to technological
innovation or social change. "Burn em or lose em" (fuels and $$,
respectively). Surely very big numbers.


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


On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Hawkins, Dave  wrote:

> Apropos the potential influence of the budget meme on investors, Goldman
> Sachs has this to say in a recent investor research report:
>
> Restricting global temperatures below the IPCC’s recommended 2 degree
> Celsius requires limiting carbon emissions to 886 Gt of
>
> CO2 between 2000 and 2050. Some 35% of this “carbon budget” has already
> been ‘burnt’, leaving 576 Gt to 2050. Globally, proven
>
> fossil fuel reserves have the potential to emit 2795 GtCO2 (Carbon
> Tracker), which is five times the permissible amount. In theory, a
>
> significant proportion of proven reserves are therefore ‘unburnable’. In
> practice, for these assets to be unburnable, a ‘cost’ needs to
>
> be applied to carbon which makes it uneconomic to use existing reserves.
> Clearly we are a long way from a pricing mechanism that
>
> either prevents proven fossil fuel reserves from being utilitised (by
> making carbon neutral fuels more commercial viable), or that
>
> pays for carbon abatement strategies (such as widespread deployment of
> carbon capture & storage). However, this theoretical
>
> exercise does frame the potential downside risk for equity markets
> ascribing an asset value to carbon intensive reserves.
>
> The potential tail-risk of a future prohibitive cost applied to carbon is
> amplified by forward-looking capex with long lead times. Our
>
> Oil & Gas team estimates that US$275 bn in capex will be spent on the Top
> 380 projects in the sector in 2013, and the years since
>
> the final investment decision (FID) stretch to as much as 9.6 years per
> 100 kbl/d of production for Canadian Oil Sands. Given that 200
>
> listed energy producers own 745 Gt of potential carbon assets, 30% more
> than the total global carbon budget (Carbon Tracker),
>
> asset values could be substantially impaired should carbon be priced to
> prevent breaching the 2 degree threshold.
>
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
> on behalf of Knutti Reto [reto.knu...@env.ethz.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 11:07 AM
> To: kcalde...@gmail.com; Fred Zimmerman
> Cc: geoengineering
> Subject: RE: [geo] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2
> emissions budget concept
>
> Dear Ken, dear all,
>
> The fact that temperature stays nearly constant once emissions drop to
> zero was already in IPCC 2007.
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-35.html
> http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-31.html
>
> The drafts of these were around for anyone to review in probably as early
> as 2005. I’m not sure we should fight about who was first to point this
> out, but it certainly was there for a while. I would argue most of us have
> simply not realized the significance and implications of that result
> (including myself as an author of that chapter).
>
> Another interesting point is that you can plot temperature against
> cumulative carbon from the AR4 and even the TAR results, and a similar
> linear relationship holds (at least until temperature peaks). This is shown
> in Fig. 12.45 in the new report.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Reto
>
> --
> Reto Knutti
> Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
> ETH Zurich
> Universitätstrasse 16 (CHN N 12.1)
> CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
> reto.knu...@env.ethz.ch<mailto:reto.knu...@env.ethz.ch>
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir
> Phone: +41 44 632 35 40
> Fax: +41 44 632 13 11
> --
>
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2013 15:55
> To: Fred Zimmerman
> Cc: geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2
> emissions budget concept
>
> Fred,
>
> I think we preceded Meinshausen et al (2009

[geo] IPCC WGI glossary definitionn of geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

Not sure if this was included in the latest flurry of messages about
definitions, but if it was, Andrew, pls. hold back.

The glossary to WGI (Annex III) offers the following definition of
geoengineering:

Geoengineering refers to a broad set of methods and technologies that aim
to deliberately
alter the climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of climate
change. Most, but not all, methods seek to
either (a) reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system
(Solar Radiation Management)
or (b) increase net carbon sinks from the atmosphere at a scale
sufficiently large to alter climate (Carbon
Dioxide Removal). Scale and intent are of central importance. Two key
characteristics of geoengineering
methods of particular concern are that they use or affect the climate
system (e.g., atmosphere, land or ocean)
globally or regionally and/or could have substantive unintended effects
that cross national boundaries.
Geoengineering is different from weather modification and ecological
engineering, but the boundary can be
fuzzy (IPCC, 2012, p. 2).

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[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 brea

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

[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<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html>)
(PDF <http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/meinshausen09nat.pdf>) (
Supplementary<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/extref/nature08017-s1.pdf>
)

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’<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/30/2699121/real-budget-crisis-co2/>
>
> BY JOE ROMM <http://thinkprogress.org/person/joe/> ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
> AT 5:17 PM
>
> Time<http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/18/the-final-showdown-why-the-coming-budget-crisis-may-be-the-worst/#ixzz2gO6QlW5t>:
> “Why the Coming Budget Crisis May Be the Worst”
>
> UK 
> Guardian<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change>:
> “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<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/24/478771/my-nature-piece-dust-bowlification-grave-threat-it-poses-to-food-security/>
>  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<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/27/2691471/ipcc-report-warming-extreme-weather/>.
> 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<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/27/2691471/ipcc-report-warming-extreme-weather/>
> .
>
> The UK Guardian, in its IPCC 
> piece<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change>
>  (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

Re: [geo] system modeling of all geoengineering approaches (SRM and CDR)

[Fred Zimmerman]

Well, maybe what that says is that we should simply consider SRM in the
same context as mitigation and adaptation proposals. Everything winds up
coming out of the same RF/carbon budget. We need a global systems solution
anyway.


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


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Ken Caldeira <
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:

> As per my earlier email seeking a new definition of "geoengineering", what
> is the point of lumping all SRM and CDR techniques together and not
> considering the entire range of mitigation (and possibly adaptation)
> proposals?
>
> Many CDR techniques (e.g., BECCS, DAC) have far greater similarity with
> conventional mitigation approaches than they do with spraying aerosols in
> the stratosphere.
>
> see:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/xsD3wqMahbc
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Fred
>>
>> John Shepherd (cc) did a graphical analysis of this issue, which I found
>> very helpful.
>>
>> I've cc'd him, and maybe he can provide the graph.
>>
>> A
>> On Sep 24, 2013 2:54 PM, "Fred Zimmerman" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We spend a lot of time discussing the merits of individual approaches to
>>> geoengineering and arguing for prioritizing one or the other.
>>>
>>> Assuming hypothetically that
>>>
>>> 1) all methods, all flavors of SRM/CDR are "approved" by a governance
>>> authority
>>> 2) all methods, all flavors are assigned values for "years to
>>> deployment" and "RF per year" and "cost per unit of RF"
>>>
>>> has anyone done an exercise modeling the optimum mix across all
>>> methods/all flavors? if some methods/flavors are disapproved?  if values
>>> are modified?
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Fred Zimmerman
>>> Geoengineering IT!
>>> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
>>> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>  --
>> 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] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context

[Fred Zimmerman]

My quick reactions:

0) A good definition overall.

1) I observe that discussions in this group and in political advocacy about
geoengineering are spending a great deal of energy defining certain things
"in" and "out" of geoengineering. I think it is something of a time sink.
In the end the labels will be assigned by a mix of formal and informal
processes. We can attempt to control the formal processes by promulgating
improved definitions, but in the end our efforts will be less than fully
dispositive.  To be sure, we should make sure that there are good
definitions available to the diplomats, but the amount of time spent on
definitions now should be limited by the knowledge that the ultimate
language chosen in governance instruments will be strongly affected by
political horse-trading and Brownian motion.

2) Instead of "greater than de minimis" I suggest the equally lawyerly
"material".

3) I am uncomfortable with limiting the scope to crossboundary activities.
 There are several continental-scale countries that could do things that
have a great deal of impact. it seems wrongheaded to give those countries
more maneuvering room than everyone else.

4) I am curious whether you plan to adopt this definition in future
"Science of Geoengineering" surveys?

Fred

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Here is my attempt at what I think would be a useful definition of
> "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context,
> intended as a starting point for discussion.
>
>  -
>
> "Geoengineering" refers to activities intended to modify climate that have
> greater than *de minimis* effect on an international commons or across
> international borders through environmental mechanisms other than an
> intended reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas
> concentrations.
>
>   --
>
> The idea is to get proposals that bear no novel risks and great similarity
> to mitigation efforts out of the definition of "geoengineering".  Under
> such a definition, stratospheric aerosol injections and ocean fertilization
> would be geoengineering. Under most circumstances, things like
> afforestation, biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and
> direct air capture (DAC) would not be considered geoengineering.
>
> Note that specific afforestation activities could be considered
> geoengineering under this definition if, for example, increased
> evapotranspiration from the forest decreased river flow and took water away
> from downstream nations, but afforestation that did not have such
> properties would not be considered geoengineering.
>
>  Under some definitions, neither biomass energy nor CCS alone would
> constitute "geoengineering", nor would a biomass energy plant releasing CO2
> to the atmosphere situated next to a coal plant employing CCS. Under such
> definitions, if the pipes were switched, and the CO2 went from the biomass
> energy plant to the CCS facility and the coal CO2 released to the
> atmosphere, this would constitute "geoengineering".
>
> If someone were to invent a machine to remove power-plant sulfate aerosols
> from the troposphere, and this machine has no transborder effect that does
> not derive from this intended activity, that it would not be
> "geoengineering" under this proposed definition. Such activities would be
> considered to be similar to reducing sulfur emissions from power plants.
> However, if this machine also emitted something that would have a more-than-
> *de-minimis* unintended environmental effects on other nations or on an
> international commons, then it would consitute geoengineering.
>
>  
>
> Ocean fertilization and ocean alkanization would be included, but BECCS
> and DAC using industrial methods would not be included unless they create
> greater than *de minimis* environmental effects on an international
> commons or across international border through mechanisms other than their
> intended effect of reducing excess anthropgenic CO2 concentrations.
>
>  
>
> I add the qualifier “environmental” to "environmental mechanism" to
> eliminate consideration of, for example, economic effects on other
> countries that would be a consequence of, for example, the effect of carbon
> removal on carbon prices under a cap and trade system.
>
> The importance of "excess anthropogenic ... concentrations" is that to be
> excess in must be greater than natural background, so cases are included
> where people might want to reduce CO2 or aerosols lower than natural
> levels. Use of BECCS or DAC to reduce concentrations beyond natural levels
> would be considered “geoengineering”
>
> Note that "modify climate" includes cases where the intent is to produce a
> novel climate and not just “restore” climate to earlier conditions.
>
> This definition also addresses issues associated with urban heat islands.
> If the effects (beyond *de minimis*) are purely national, then ef

[geo] system modeling of all geoengineering approaches (SRM and CDR)

[Fred Zimmerman]

We spend a lot of time discussing the merits of individual approaches to
geoengineering and arguing for prioritizing one or the other.

Assuming hypothetically that

1) all methods, all flavors of SRM/CDR are "approved" by a governance
authority
2) all methods, all flavors are assigned values for "years to deployment"
and "RF per year" and "cost per unit of RF"

has anyone done an exercise modeling the optimum mix across all methods/all
flavors? if some methods/flavors are disapproved?  if values are modified?


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] 'Super grass' could vastly reduce agriculture emissions, say scientists

[Fred Zimmerman]

Hyped.  N2O is a fraction of other RFs (0.18 w/m2 from 1750-2000 per Hansen
2005) and the proposed expansion a) is admittedly (!) a monoculture (!)
strategy and b) only affects a fraction of the agriculture N2O.


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


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Poster's note : whether this is geoengineering or not is a moot point. I
> guess it could be used as such.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/p/3tzhg/tf
>
> 'Super grass' could vastly reduce agriculture emissions, say scientists
>
> Brachiaria grasses inhibit the release of nitrous oxide, which has a more
> powerful warming effect than carbon dioxide or methane
>
> Brachiaria grass has been shown to inhibit nitrification, helping to
> reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
>
> Jonathan Watts in Rio de Janeiro
>
> Scientists will call for a major push this week to reduce the amount of
> greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture through the use of a modified
> tropical grass.
>
> Brachiaria grasses have been found to inhibit the release of nitrous
> oxide, which has a more powerful warming effect than carbon dioxide or
> methane, leading them to be called a super grass.The authors of several new
> papers on this grass, which is already used in pastures across much of
> Latin America, say enhanced strains, wider usage and improved management
> will provide the most effective means of tackling climate change through
> agriculture, which accounts for about a third of all greenhouse gases.
>
> Nitrous oxide – largely from livestock production – makes up 38% of
> agriculture emissions, but this share could be substantially reduced, they
> say.
>
> "On a conservative estimate, we assume that at least half of the gases can
> be saved in livestock production in tropical environments," said Michael
> Peters, of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture. "I think this
> is the best strategy you can have in agriculture to mitigate greenhouse gas
> emissions."
>
> The papers, which will be presented at an International Grasslands
> Congress in Sydney this week, claim that additional benefits will also
> include higher productivity, less need for fertiliser, lower levels of
> nitrate pollution in waterways and considerable carbon capture.Brachiaria
> grasses originated in Africa, but have been most extensively used for
> grazing in Brazil, Colombia, Nicaragua and parts of Australia and
> south-east Asia.During the past decade, scientists have discovered the
> chemicals that enable the plant to bind nitrogen into the soil, thus making
> it more productive and less "leaky".
>
> They are now breeding different strains of brachiaria to maximise these
> nitrogen-inhibiting properties and encouraging wider use of the grass in
> pastures and in rotation with crops such as soy and corn.
>
> Although the authors hope it can be used in an additional 100m hectares,
> the brachiaria is not a solution for all countries as it does not grow well
> in temperate climes.There are potential downsides. The extra productivity
> could provide an additional economic incentive for the clearance of forests
> and – as with all monocultures – the proposed expansion of brachiaria
> pastureland poses a challenge to biodiversity.But the scientists say the
> benefits outweigh the risks."There will be positive impacts on the economy
> and at the same time benefits for the environment," Peters said.
>
> --
> 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] OIF albedo data - can you help?

[Fred Zimmerman]

I am not sure you're getting my point. My question is about the total
surface area that is affected by the heightened albedo, not the albedo
increase itself (which is what you're asking about). Most albedo schemes
rely on moderate increases of albedo over very large surfaces continually
exposed to sun. It is not clear to me that the surface area of plankton
blooms is very large relative to total ocean surface exposed over time. In
that case, even a very bright albedo increase would not be a significant
increase in forcing -- like having "cool roofs" only in countries that
begin with "M" and on Thursdays!

If this is not helpful you needn't send it through to the group--just
thinking in response.


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


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Fred,
>
> With the albedo values I've estimated from photographs, the
> intervention would be capable of offsetting a significant fraction of
> radiative forcing.  However, there's very no evidence that this
> estimated albedo correlates closely with actual albedo.  Accordingly,
> I'd need accurate measurements to do viable calculations - and that's
> the basis of my request to the group.
>
> A
>
> On 20 August 2013 14:03, Fred Zimmerman 
> wrote:
> > Have you done the back of the envelope numbers on surface area? My first
> > reaction was skepticism about the total surface area of "Bloomsdays"
> (blooms
> > as % of ocean surface area / all available days).  Most of the area and
> most
> > of the earth is not covered in plankton blooms.That calculation might
> tell
> > you that the bloom albedo value necessary for significant radiative
> forcing
> > too great to be plausible, which would save you the trouble of doing
> imagery
> > analysis.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Fred Zimmerman
> > Geoengineering IT!
> > Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
> > GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Andrew Lockley <
> andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm trying to find some data on ocean albedo with/without phytoplankton
> >> blooms. This is in order to assess whether the albedo impact of Ocean
> Iron
> >> Fertilization is likely to be significant on the Earth's radiation
> budget.
> >>
> >> The current data sources I have suffer from a couple of issues.
> >>
> >> 1. Uncalibrated albedo - Many photos of blooms are available online, but
> >> these don't have an absolute brightness scale. I.E. pure white on the
> photo
> >> doesn't constitute 100% reflectivity. Accordingly, it's little better
> than
> >> guesswork to determine what the actual albedo is from this source.
> >> 2. Blooms not distinguished - I've seen accurately measured albedo
> ranges,
> >> but these don't specifically attempt to distinguish between bloom and
> >> non-bloom conditions. Accordingly, there's no way to determine from this
> >> data what the difference is when a bloom is present.
> >>
> >> So I'm stuck. Does anyone have albedo data, or know where I could get it
> >> from? Ideally, I suppose this would be from an OIF ship, but it strikes
> me
> >> as likely that other people will have gathered data in the course of
> >> unrelated research.
> >>
> >> I'm really keen to run the numbers on this, but without this data I'm
> not
> >> able to proceed. Any ideas/help/sources/advice/datasets gratefully
> received
> >> .
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> A
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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] New WMO Report on Weather Mod Plus Geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

It's worth noting that while the report accurately describes that there are
a wide variety of activities intended to modify weather (as distinguished
from "weather modification activiites") in China, the US, and the world,
nothing in this report challenges or requires revisiting the conclusion
that numerous independent academy-level review boards have drawn every
decade or so over the last sixty years, namely, that the efficacy of
activities intended to modify weather cannot be statistically demonstrated.


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


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Josh Horton wrote:

> This may interest some of you - a recent (brief) WMO report on weather
> modification including some discussion of GE.
>
>
> http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf
>
> Josh
>
> --
> 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] OIF albedo data - can you help?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Have you done the back of the envelope numbers on surface area? My first
reaction was skepticism about the total surface area of "Bloomsdays"
(blooms as % of ocean surface area / all available days).  Most of the area
and most of the earth is not covered in plankton blooms.That calculation
might tell you that the bloom albedo value necessary for significant
radiative forcing too great to be plausible, which would save you the
trouble of doing imagery analysis.




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


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Andrew Lockley
wrote:

> I'm trying to find some data on ocean albedo with/without phytoplankton
> blooms. This is in order to assess whether the albedo impact of Ocean Iron
> Fertilization is likely to be significant on the Earth's radiation budget.
>
> The current data sources I have suffer from a couple of issues.
>
> 1. Uncalibrated albedo - Many photos of blooms are available online, but
> these don't have an absolute brightness scale. I.E. pure white on the photo
> doesn't constitute 100% reflectivity. Accordingly, it's little better than
> guesswork to determine what the actual albedo is from this source.
> 2. Blooms not distinguished - I've seen accurately measured albedo ranges,
> but these don't specifically attempt to distinguish between bloom and
> non-bloom conditions. Accordingly, there's no way to determine from this
> data what the difference is when a bloom is present.
>
> So I'm stuck. Does anyone have albedo data, or know where I could get it
> from? Ideally, I suppose this would be from an OIF ship, but it strikes me
> as likely that other people will have gathered data in the course of
> unrelated research.
>
> I'm really keen to run the numbers on this, but without this data I'm not
> able to proceed. Any ideas/help/sources/advice/datasets gratefully received
> .
>
> Thanks
>
> A
>
> --
> 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] sperm whales and oif

[Fred Zimmerman]

*Reference: *Proc Roy SocB http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0863
Sperm whale poo offsets carbon by fertilising the oceans with
iron<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/06/16/sperm-whale-poo-offsets-carbon-by-fertilising-the-oceans-with-iron/>
By Ed Yong <http://discovermagazine.com/authors?name=Ed+Yong> | June 16,
2010 8:00 am

[image: 
Sperm_whales]<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/files/2010/06/Sperm_whales.jpg>

While the world wrangles over ways of reducing carbon emissions, some
scientists are considering more radical approaches to mitigating the
effects of climate change. Dumping iron dust into the world’s oceans is one
such strategy. Theoretically, the iron should act as
fertiliser<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization>,
providing a key nutrient that will spur the growth of photosynthetic
plankton. These creatures act as carbon dioxide pumps, removing the
problematic gas from the air and storing the carbon within their own
tissues. When the plankton die, they sink, trapping their carbon in the
abyss for thousands of years.

It may seem like a fanciful idea, but as with much of our technology,
nature beat us to it long ago. Trish Lavery from Flinders University has
found that sperm whales fertilise the Southern Ocean in exactly this way,
using their own faeces. Their dung is loaded with iron and it stimulates
the growth of plankton just as well as iron dust does.

Sperm whales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_whale> are prodigious
divers, descending to great depths in search of prey like squid. When
they’re deeply submerged, they shut down all their non-essential bodily
functions. Excretion is one of these and the whales only ever defecate when
they reach the surface. By happy coincidence, that’s where photosynthetic
plankton (phytoplankton) make their home – in the shallow column of water
where sunlight still penetrates. So by eating iron-rich prey at great
depths and expelling the remains in the shallows, the whales act as giant
farmers, unwittingly seeding the surface waters with fertiliser.

There are approximately 12,000 sperm whales left in the Southern Ocean. By
modelling the amount of food they eat, the iron content of that food, and
how much iron they expel in their faeces, Lavery calculated that these
whales excrete around 50 tonnes of iron into the ocean every year.  And
based on the results of our own iron fertilisation experiments, the duo
calculated that every year, this amount of iron traps over 400,000 tonnes
of carbon in the depths, within the bodies of sinking plankton.

Previously, scientists assumed that whales (and their carbon dioxide-rich
exhalations) would actually weaken the Southern Ocean’s ability to act as a
CO2 pump. But according to Lavery, this isn’t true. She worked out that the
whales pump out just 160,000 tonnes of carbon through their various
orifices. All of these figures are probably conservative underestimates but
even so, they suggest that sperm whales remove around 240,000 more tonnes
of carbon from the atmosphere than they add back in. They are giant,
blubbery carbon sinks.

However, their true potential will go largely unfulfilled thanks to our
harpoons. Many sperm whales have been killed by industrial whalers, and the
population in the Southern Ocean has declined by some 90%. On the bright
side, the Southern Ocean’s population represent just 3% of the global
total, so this species may have an even greater role as a warden for carbon
than Lavery has suggested. Other seagoing mammals probably have a part to
play too, provided that they feed at depth and excrete near the surface.
Several other toothed whales do this, and some filter-feeding ones may do
too.

*Reference: *Proc Roy Soc B http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0863

*Image *by Cianc<http://www.flickr.com/photos/cianc/298211739/in/photostream/>

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] reflections on summer school at Harvard

[Fred Zimmerman]

ted writer - he reminds me (in an inverse way) of those studies
   of Alzheimer's patients where they show that thought density of journals at
   age 20 is a good predictor of susceptibility to Alzheimer's in later age.
Morton's writing style has a very high thought density or level of useful
   brain convolutions! In this title he puts his fingers on something I find
fascinating about geoengineering, which is the question whether this would
   be a brutal and hopefully one-time emergency intervention, or whether it is
   instead a natural evolution in the progress of the species towards
   conscious ongoing management of Earth's habitability (e.g. the work by
   Rockstrom, Hansen et al. to identify safe planetary boundaries for climate
   change).

Enough for the moment; too short on time to expound further and probably at
the useful limit for email anyway. Please no one be offended by my
paraphrase of your thoughts or words!

Cordially,

Fred Z.




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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Fwd: industrial base for large artillery in SRM schemes

[Fred Zimmerman]

It seems to me that there may be some unduly optimistic assumptions about
the availability and efficiency of the industrial base for building large
artillery pieces.  Granted the maturity of the technology it may be so
mature as to be problematic.  As a military history hobbyist it strikes me
that artillery is not exactly the nimblest or most modernized section of
the global defense industrial complex.

No one has built a large naval cannon (203 mm or above) since 1945. For
land artillery most countries standardized on 203 or 240mm as maximum
barrel diameter and subsequent development has traded off payload for
increased range and accuracy (special shells can perform with the accuracy
and range of missiles).

The key resources for artillery construction are hardened steel and skilled
industrial craftsmen, for which there is much competition in the durable
goods areas of the global economy. Plus, this is defense procurement. All
that says to me ... .



Fred Zimmerman
Research Scientist
ISciences LLC
+1.734-214-9810 (office)
+1.734-531-6062 (home office)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences

[Fred Zimmerman]

This is not to express any animus, or to quarrel with the basic point that
models need to improve in accuracy, but it is absolutely bizarre that
authors of a  study about modelling accuracy

estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work are
required to improve regional temperature simulations, while
30–50 years may be required for sufficiently accurate regional
precipitation simulations,


arrive at this estimate by

Assuming improvements have a linear trend in time


(p.8 of the full text).

This is such a silly prediction as to undercut the entire study (which may
be quite reasonable otherwise).  Who knows what computer technology and
modellers will be capable of in ten years, let alone fifty?  How can they
justify the assumption that improvements in accuracy will be linear?  There
is a painful irony in using this simple-minded model of technology
improvement to assess the prospects for technology improvement...


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


On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Simon Driscoll wrote:

>  And although not directly geoengineering (as such), an article came out
> recently that may be of interest for those looking into any kind of impacts
> of geoengineering related to temperature, precip, agriculture, and so on,
> using CMIP5 models (or even CMIP3 models):
> Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for
> agricultural impact research Julian Ramirez-Villegas1,2,3, Andrew J
> Challinor2,3, Philip K Thornton1,4 and Andy Jarvis1,2
>
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024018/
>
> Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for
> climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since
> impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is
> crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for
> agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model
> Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the
> majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess
> 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate
> observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in
> model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact
> estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean
> temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect
> to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict
> larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%.
> Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular
> attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30%
> of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for
> diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean
> climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for
> diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we
> estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve
> regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation
> simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude
> with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact
> studies.
>
>
>  
>
> 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:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
> on behalf of Simon Driscoll [drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* 01 August 2013 19:58
> *To:* Fred Zimmerman; geoengineering
> *Subject:* RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
>
>   Hi Fred,
>
>  "action with some degree of error is preferable to the likely
> consequences of inaction"
>
>  as a general rule to apply everywhere, of course, that statement does
> not hold at all - and very obviously so.
>
>  I can't speak on behalf of the author of course, but I suppose he would
> say something along the following lines, which I agree with:
>
>  *Thinking *about action or inaction is often better than *not thinking*about 
> action or inaction. There are, of course, many specific
> cases/hypothetical scenarios in all arenas where action is definitely
> preferable and many cases where action is definitely not preferable. To
> make the jump from thinking about action or inaction (vs. not 

Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation

[Fred Zimmerman]

 Do forests sequester carbon with the same physical security and long time
span as the deep ocean or geologic structures?  My impression from what
I've read is that forests can come and go on centennial scales.


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


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:

> Fred,
>
>
>
> Once a forest is mature it is in equilibrium, and no incremental carbon is
> sequestered. However, the growth to maturity takes carbon out of the
> atmosphere. Hence this is a one time sequestration effort that lasts as
> long as the forest. If  a forest fire came, and the forest were
> subsequently regrown, one would still have removed the amount of carbon
> contained in the forest. (I’m ignoring any secondary effect of char). Hence
> I think this alternative can be compared to any other one time means of
> sequestering carbon.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>
> University of Alberta
>
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
>
> cell: 928 451 4455
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Fred Zimmerman
> *Sent:* July-31-13 1:58 PM
> *To:* Andrew Lockley; geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an
> option for climate change mitigation
>
>
>
> I am trying to understand the CDR logic with regard to biomass
> "sequestration."  Let's say we run these jatorpha carbon farms for 40
> years.  The resulting "woody biomass" will release its CO2 back into the
> atmosphere after X years or a big fire, whichever occurs first,  in a dry
> coastal area... Essentially, we would be paying 42-63 EUR/tonne CO2 to push
> the CO2 X years into the future, where X is not that big a number (compared
> to oceanic or geologic sequestration).  I don't see our descendants
> thanking us profusely for this particular effort, am I missing something?
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Fred Zimmerman
>
> Geoengineering IT!
>
> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
>
> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/237/2013/esd-4-237-2013.html
>
> Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change
> mitigation
>
> K. Beckermet et al
>
> Abstract
>
> We present a comprehensive, interdisciplinary project which demonstrates
> that large-scale plantations of Jatropha curcas – if established in hot,
> dry coastal areas around the world – could capture 17–25 t of carbon
> dioxide per hectare per year from the atmosphere (over a 20 yr period).
> Based on recent farming results it is confirmed that the Jatropha
> curcas plant is well adapted to harsh environments and is capable of
> growing alone or in combination with other tree and shrub species with
> minimal irrigation in hot deserts where rain occurs only sporadically. Our
> investigations indicate that there is sufficient unused and marginal land
> for the widespread cultivation of Jatropha curcas to have a significant
> impact on atmospheric CO2 levels at least for several decades. In a system
> in which desalinated seawater is used for irrigation and for delivery of
> mineral nutrients, the sequestration costs were estimated to range from
> 42–63 EUR per tonne CO2. This result makes carbon farming a technology that
> is competitive with carbon capture and storage (CCS). In addition,
> high-resolution simulations using an advanced land-surface–atmosphere model
> indicate that a 10 000 km2 plantation could produce a reduction in mean
> surface temperature and an onset or increase in rain and dew fall at a
> regional level. In such areas, plant growth and CO2 storage could continue
> until permanent woodland or forest had been established. In other areas,
> salinization of the soil may limit plant growth to 2–3 decades whereupon
> irrigation could be ceased and the captured carbon stored as woody biomass.
>
> Citation:
>
> Becker, K., Wulfmeyer, V., Berger, T., Gebel, J., and Münch, W.: Carbon
> farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation,
> Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 237-251, doi:10.5194/esd-4-237-2013, 2013.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails 

Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation

[Fred Zimmerman]

I am trying to understand the CDR logic with regard to biomass
"sequestration."  Let's say we run these jatorpha carbon farms for 40
years.  The resulting "woody biomass" will release its CO2 back into the
atmosphere after X years or a big fire, whichever occurs first,  in a dry
coastal area... Essentially, we would be paying 42-63 EUR/tonne CO2 to push
the CO2 X years into the future, where X is not that big a number (compared
to oceanic or geologic sequestration).  I don't see our descendants
thanking us profusely for this particular effort, am I missing something?


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


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/237/2013/esd-4-237-2013.html
>
> Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change
> mitigation
>
> K. Beckermet et al
>
> Abstract
>
> We present a comprehensive, interdisciplinary project which demonstrates
> that large-scale plantations of Jatropha curcas – if established in hot,
> dry coastal areas around the world – could capture 17–25 t of carbon
> dioxide per hectare per year from the atmosphere (over a 20 yr period).
> Based on recent farming results it is confirmed that the Jatropha
> curcas plant is well adapted to harsh environments and is capable of
> growing alone or in combination with other tree and shrub species with
> minimal irrigation in hot deserts where rain occurs only sporadically. Our
> investigations indicate that there is sufficient unused and marginal land
> for the widespread cultivation of Jatropha curcas to have a significant
> impact on atmospheric CO2 levels at least for several decades. In a system
> in which desalinated seawater is used for irrigation and for delivery of
> mineral nutrients, the sequestration costs were estimated to range from
> 42–63 EUR per tonne CO2. This result makes carbon farming a technology that
> is competitive with carbon capture and storage (CCS). In addition,
> high-resolution simulations using an advanced land-surface–atmosphere model
> indicate that a 10 000 km2 plantation could produce a reduction in mean
> surface temperature and an onset or increase in rain and dew fall at a
> regional level. In such areas, plant growth and CO2 storage could continue
> until permanent woodland or forest had been established. In other areas,
> salinization of the soil may limit plant growth to 2–3 decades whereupon
> irrigation could be ceased and the captured carbon stored as woody biomass.
>
> Citation:
>
> Becker, K., Wulfmeyer, V., Berger, T., Gebel, J., and Münch, W.: Carbon
> farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation,
> Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 237-251, doi:10.5194/esd-4-237-2013, 2013.
>
> --
> 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] What kind of observing system do we need in place to take maximal advantage of the next big volcano?

[Fred Zimmerman]

1.  In a major eruption many predeployed sensors may not survive (IIRC this
occurred at Mt. St. Helen's).  Nearby cities, airports, universities may be
totally incapacitated. High-res satellite imagery will be available almost
immediately via the civil vendors. At Fukushima, rhe arrival of specialized
sensors took 24 to 96 hours for approvals, loading, transit, and
deployment.  Planning can reduce these vulnerabilities, but getting the
right sensors collecting at the right locations *promptly* is always going
to be a challenge.

2. Some of the major pain points in information gathering after Fukushima
were human-behaivor driven, i.e. the confused and obfuscatory reporting
emanating from the plant operators.  The Italian seismologist case
illustrates that in the aftermath of a major volcanic event officials would
not be completely irrational to exhibit some "CYA" behavior about access to
disaster area and government observations.  If I remember correctly, there
was also some "will to disbelieve" lag involved in gathering data related
to the Icelandic ejections that disrupted jet travel a coujple of years ago.

3. If a major eruption occurs 5 or 10 years from now, all the following
will be inescapably present in much larger quantities: drones, cellphones,
autonomous floats & divers, citizen observers, 3-D printers, wireless
appliances, and on and on,. Scientists should be thinking about how to take
advantage of these developments.


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


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

> With respect to learning more about potential consequences of solar
> geoengineering, what kinds of observing systems do we need in place to
> take maximal advantage of the next big volcano?
>
> What would we want to have in space (and why)?
>
> What would we want to have in airplanes (and why)?
>
> What would we want on the ground (and why)?
>
> How would these assets be utilized when there is no big volcano?
>
> Are there any high-quality reports or studies that address this issue?
>
> -
>
>
> --
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
> *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.*
> *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html*
>
> Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snant...@carnegiescience.edu
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
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] Volcano monitoring (SO2) apps of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument

[Fred Zimmerman]

olcano monitoring applications of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument

   1. Brendan T.
McCormick<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/search?author1=Brendan+T.+McCormick&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   
1<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#aff-1>
   
,*<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#corresp-1>
   ,
   2. Marie 
Edmonds<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/search?author1=Marie+Edmonds&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   
1<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#aff-1>
   ,
   3. Tamsin A.
Mather<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/search?author1=Tamsin+A.+Mather&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   
2<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#aff-2>
   ,
   4. Robin 
Campion<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/search?author1=Robin+Campion&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   
3<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#aff-3>
   ,
   5. Catherine S. L.
Hayer<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/search?author1=Catherine+S.+L.+Hayer&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   
4<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#aff-4>
   ,
   6. Helen E. 
Thomas<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/search?author1=Helen+E.+Thomas&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   
5<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#aff-5>
and
   7. Simon A. 
Carn<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/search?author1=Simon+A.+Carn&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
   
5<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#aff-5>

+<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#>Author
Affiliations

   1. 1COMET+, National Centre for Earth Observation, Department of Earth
   Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, UK
   2. 2COMET+, National Centre for Earth Observation, Department of Earth
   Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3AN, UK
   3. 3Service de Chimie Quantique et Photophysique, Universite Libre de
   Bruxelles, 50 Ave Roosevelt, CP160/02, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
   4. 4COMET+, National Centre for Earth Observation, Environmental Systems
   Science Centre, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AL, UK
   5. 5Department of Geological and Mining Sciences and Engineering,
   Michigan Technological, University, Houghton, Michigan, USA


   1. 
↵<http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract#xref-corresp-1-1>
   *Corresponding author (e-mail: mccormi...@si.edu)

Abstract

The Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) is a satellite-based ultraviolet (UV)
spectrometer with unprecedented sensitivity to atmospheric sulphur dioxide
(SO2) concentrations. Since late 2004, OMI has provided a high-quality
SO2 dataset
with near-continuous daily global coverage. In this review, we discuss the
principal applications of this dataset to volcano monitoring: (1) the
detection and tracking of large eruption clouds, primarily for aviation
hazard mitigation; and (*2) the use of OMI data for long-term monitoring of
volcanic degassing. This latter application is relatively novel, and
despite showing some promise, requires further study into a number of key
uncertainties.* We discuss these uncertainties, and illustrate their
potential impact on volcano monitoring with OMI through four new case
studies. We also discuss potential future avenues of research using OMI
data, with a particular emphasis on the need for greater integration
between various monitoring strategies, instruments and datasets.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2013/07/11/SP380.11.abstract&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm1IcTWYtVsxHO6_Fpk2TUBl5YN0oA&oi=scholaralrt

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Fred Zimmerman]

I feel impelled to provide a complementary view.  The very concept of
"homogocene" is paradoxically anthropocentric. I feel sorry for the rats,
cane toads, sheep, grasses, mosquitoes, who are "homogenizing" previously
separated biomes. They are simply doing what they are supposed to do:
adapting, spreading out,  thriving.  They are only invasive in our frame of
reference, i.e they are robust, hardy generalists that happen to be
interfering with ecosystem services that we like. The criticism that we are
reshaping the entire biosphere to our needs could just as easily be applied
to other major "order of life" innovations like aerobic bacteria, viruses,
etc.


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


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Oliver Tickell
wrote:

>  An interesting thought, but of course there is much more to it than
> botanical gardens. Commercial introductions, seeds in shoes, gardeners,
> military usage ... and then of course all the animals, from rats to cane
> toads to sheep to anopheles mosquitos ... and let's not forget the fungi,
> such as the phytophera now causing havoc. Oliver.
>
>
> On 14/07/2013 01:05, Russell Seitz wrote:
>
> In writing of " homogocene issues " Oliver Morton  has floated a variation
> of the theme of  the 'anthropocene ' that might  take on a life of its own
> .
>
>  Though Greek-Latin portmanteau words are deservedly suspect , there has
> long been a need for an adjective to designate and reify a very important
> ecological consequence of the age of exploration--  the nonchalant
>  homogenization of the biosphere that arose from the  intercontinental
> exchange of flora via the botanical gardens of the imperial powers of the
> 18th and 19th centuries.
>
>  By darwin's day, every nation had one , and they collectively
> transferred such no-longer-exotics as rhododendrons, eucalypts and
> arucaria,  to name but a few, together with their symbionts and soil fauna,
> from  uninhabited regions and obscure refugia to the four corners of the
> earth.
>
>  There's no getting around it-  the Homogocene is to the Anthropocene as
> the  Pleistocene is to the Holocene
>
>
>
>>   --
> 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.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Re: The governonsense of climate engineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

If a single advocacy group with $1M can derail an idea, it's probably not
worth doing. If large-scale GE occurs, it will be because of a consensus
backed by multiple governments, international organizations, and, yes,
environmental advocacy groups. At this point it's better to just do the
research and lay the groundwork for the major dispositive studies that will
be undertaken at some point in the future when the frog feels the heat of
the water a bit more acutely.


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


On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Michael Hayes  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> If the need for a formalized and science backed GE advocacy is left
> un-answered much longer, it may simply take GE off the table completely.
> ETC pulls in over $1M of donations per year on this one issue and its staff
> of journalist are well aware of the value in selling hype to those they
> solicit money from. And, *money does buy legitimacy*, is there any
> surprise here?
> Going up against such a group as ETC will be like nailing Jello to the
> wall (messy, not pretty and endlessly repetitive) and no academic
> institution will want to waddle into that feted mud pit.
> I recommend that a non-profit group be formed for proper GE advocacy as
> soon as possible. I believe this was proposed in this forum over 2 years
> ago. The upcoming changes to the London Protocol will be an important test
> for the future of GE as a field of study. A de facto control over the
> future of this issue is being erected and it is not based upon science. It
> is based upon yellow journalism and the fear that sells such garbage.
> It takes 4 people to form a 501 (c)(3) and around $3K. The organization
> could be in place and operational well before the LP is changed. With 501
> (c)(3) standing, those that are concerned about catastrophic climate change
> can have their voices heard with equal authority as those that support ETC.
> We have to face the fact that an "idea" can not compete with a well
> funded 
> group<http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/report/ETC01%2020120831%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20ML%20electronic.pdf>who
>  has no true obligation to the truth or the future of our planet. Their
> only verifiable obligation is to paying the bills needed to stay in
> business!! The "idea" needs its own well funded support group or it will be
> ether defeated, severly minimized or simply used as a money press for those
> like ETC.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
> On Friday, July 5, 2013 3:31:38 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote:
>
>> http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/**the-governonsense-of-climate-**
>> engineering/<http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/the-governonsense-of-climate-engineering/>
>>
>> At the environmental policy forum “The International Governance of
>> Climate Engineering”, held by The Institute for European Studies in
>> Brussels on June 28, opinions differed on how European policymakers should
>> react to the emerging field of climate engineering. Climate engineering
>> refers to the deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter the
>> effects of climate change (e.g. through blocking/reducing solar radiation
>> in the upper atmosphere or enhancing the uptake of carbon dioxide through
>> ocean ‘fertilization’).Ralph Bodle, Senior Fellow at the Ecologic Institute
>> of Berlin first presented his report, which suggested that the Convention
>> on Biological Diversity (CBD) might serve as a overarching but not
>> supervisory central institution for all climate engineering matters. Jacob
>> Werksman, the Principal Advisor of the European Commission’s DG Climate
>> Action disagreed, stating that the CBD was dominated by NGOs and developing
>> countries but not respected by countries that are not part of the CBD, such
>> as the US. He suggested the UNFCCC because of a more global membership and
>> it’s great ability to create new institutions. The argument against
>> introducing this discussing in the UNFCCC is the risk of a moral hazard
>> where there will always be some countries trying to use the opportunity of
>> geo-engineering to do less mitigation. The same can be expected for the
>> public opinion: why invest in climate mitigation of some technological fix
>> saves us from all the effort?Jacob Werksman was keen to stress that for
>> those reasons the EC did not have an explicit position on climate
>> engineering. It did not want to undermine the already difficult
>> negotiations in the UNFCCC and it did want to underline the multiple
>> co-benefits of a climate mitigation policy – on work and hea

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

[Fred Zimmerman]

Isn't Oliver's definition:

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


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

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


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

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] FB group: summer schools on climate geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

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

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



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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Re: good list of geoengineering patents?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Just to clarify  reason for asking about patents:

I agree with most of what Gene says below. Patent law has become an
embarrassment and serves mainly as a mechanism for trolls to exact unearned
taxes from those who are doing useful things.

However, the body of patent law on a topic is a necessary legal reference
point for those who are actually building useful enterprises.

Also, as a post a few weeks ago mentioned, IP law about GE may assume
heightened significance in the absence of a coherent governance regime.

I appreciate Jim Lee's efforts to create a reasonabl(ish) list as a
starting point and thank him forsharing it with the list.

Andrew Lockley asked a few weeks ago "where do we need to spend money" --
maybe one answer is that a competent and neutral(ish) body needs to
commission a survey or registry of IP related to GE.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM,  wrote:

> Most of the patents are out of date and/or US patents. All will be out of
> date by the time anyone is ready to geoengineer the climate. US patents
> alone won't cut it since solutions will cross boundaries. Geoengineers
> should focus on science and solutions and not look to get rich on their
> inventions except in a prestige sense. Why anyone would want to patent
> geoengineering solutions except for prestige is beyond me. Good
> publications would be much more important.
>
> --
> *From: *"Chris Vivian" 
> *To: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:10:36 AM
> *Subject: *[geo] Re: good list of geoengineering patents?
>
>
> Fred,
>
> This list of patents was referred to by Clive Hamilton. I don't know how
> good it is.
>
> http://rezn8d.net/2013/04/14/climate-engineering-patents/
>
> Chris.
>
> On Monday, 24 June 2013 21:31:49 UTC+1, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> has anyone got a good list of major geoengineering patents?
>>
>> ---
>> Fred Zimmerman
>> Geoengineering IT!
>> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
>> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> 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] Re: good list of geoengineering patents?

[Fred Zimmerman]

Yes, it is a bad list. So far it appears that there is no scientifically
credible "list" and that this is a gap.

There are also definitional issues:should we call something a
"geoengineering" patent if it is for a device that could be used either at
local or at global scales?  Should the term "geoengineering patent" be
reserved for large-scale methods?


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


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Mick West  wrote:

> It's not good at all. It does contain quite a few geoengineering patents,
> but it also contains a load of patents for speculative or unrelated things
> influenced by the "chemtrail" and "HAARP is a super weapon" conspiracy
> theories.
>
> Unfortunately any search for "geoengineering patents" brings up a slew of
> similar lists.
>
> Mick West
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Chris Vivian wrote:
>
>> Fred,
>>
>> This list of patents was referred to by Clive Hamilton. I don't know how
>> good it is.
>>
>> http://rezn8d.net/2013/04/14/climate-engineering-patents/
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>> On Monday, 24 June 2013 21:31:49 UTC+1, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>>> has anyone got a good list of major geoengineering patents?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Fred Zimmerman
>>> Geoengineering IT!
>>> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
>>> GE NewsFilter: 
>>> http://geoengineeringIT.net:**8080<http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080>
>>>
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>  --
> 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] good list of geoengineering patents?

[Fred Zimmerman]

has anyone got a good list of major geoengineering patents?

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] The importance of feldspar for ice nucleation

[Fred Zimmerman]

 The article concludes:

Finally, recent work suggests that human activity has led to a substantial
> increase in atmospheric dust concentrations and that the sources of this
> dust have 
> changed9<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref9>
> , 
> 26<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref26>.
> Because potential dust sources around the world have very different
> feldspar 
> contents18<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12278.html#ref18>,
> changes in the location of dust sources may have consequences for the
> concentration of ice nuclei in the atmosphere and the associated aerosol
> indirect effect.


The article also notes that at higher temperatures (above 258K) biogenic
nuclei apparently become more important. BIogenic ice nuclei may also be
heavily influenced by anthropocene activity. So I suspect a complex story
here of "unconscious" geoengineering that is not well observed much less
well understood.  Way too early to start shooting feldspar into the
atmosphere! ;-)


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


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> It would be interesting to model the feedback loops between cloud
> properties and feldspar dust production.
>
> The lower and more sporadic rainfall becomes, the more dust is produced (I
> assume).
>
> I don't know what the magnitude or sign is on this feedback , but someone
> probably can tell us.
>
> That answer will largely determine the potential for the effect to be
> manipulated for geoengineering use.
>
> A
>
> --
> 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] flashcard deck on The Science of Geoengineering

[Fred Zimmerman]

I have created a flashcard deck on the science of geongineering that is
available at https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/582330702.  Anki is a free,
open source flashcard program that is available on the web and on all major
platforms including Windows, Linux, Mac, iOs, and Android. if you create a
web account at ankiweb.net you can search under "shared decks" and view it
online.

I created this deck for my own reference -- I do this when I want to commit
things to my active memory -- but am making it available for others as a
resource. Since there is probably minimal overlap between the Anki and
geoengineering communities, probably best to think of this as a bit of STEM
outreach.Some of the propositions in the deck are very basic - it is
good to have some easy cards mixed in with hard ones.  I will be updating
this as time goes on, the Caldeira survey article provided a good way to
get started.

The content follows Caldeira et al. "The Science of Geoengineering" and
makes a number of direct (and attributed) quotations.  Most quotations are
only one sentence long and some of them have been paraphrased, snippeted,
or rearranged so as to fit the flashcard style of learning. (see
http://alexvermeer.com/anki-decks/)

I am open to suggestions from domain experts who would like to expand upon
or refine the treatment of geoengineering in this deck (I know that a
number of people on the list have raised issues about the Caldeira survey
article).  Please send your suggestions to me offline. I am looking for
1-10 "bullet points" and factoids per major topic with simple, easy to
remember, and ideally quantified findings or key things to know.

 E.g. "the maximum carbon storage capacity of X is Y... (Doe 2013)."
"The CDR technique foo is considered to have two major advantages:" A and
B." (Roe 2012).
 "Disadvantages of foo include P and Q."  (Face of Bo 2012).


Cheers,

Fred


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] Aladdin Diakun Gives Public Lecture On Geoengineering And IP Law | Global Catastrophic Risk Institute

[Fred Zimmerman]

This is an interesting approach which brings to mind a few thoughts.

1. Heaven help us if we are relying on IP law for governance.  IP is a
woefully distorted regime that in practice has little to do with its
ostensible objectives.  It is also not well accdepted outside the OECD.

2.  There are  a great many other international phenomena that are poorly
governed and lack coherent topic-specific regimes.  Are they all governed
by IP too? Or do other bodies of law operate? How are we to decide which
body of law applies to a particular inchoate regime?

3.  Common law legal systems already have well developed mechanisms for
"generating" law where it is not provided by legislation by elaborating
from existing examples ("common law").

4.  So-called customary international law is roughly the same thing.
(International lawyers, feel free to correct and amplify my remarks.)
 Examples of practice generate principles or rules of international law
even in the absence of specific written law. Thus, e.g., the precautionary
principle.

5. The author's conclusions are basically unremarkable.  "Let's not let IP
govern geoengineering." Even the people who have filed patents say they
don't want IP to drive geoengineering.  (And I take them at their word
absent evidence to the contrary).


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


On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Key point : Aladdin argued that IP law is a de facto form of governance
> when there is no other meaningful legal regime, as is the case for
> geoengineering
>
>
> http://gcrinstitute.org/aladdin-diakun-gives-public-lecture-on-geoengineering-and-ip-law/
>
> On Thursday 16 May, GCRI hosted an online lecture by Aladdin
> Diakunentitled ‘Towards the Effective Governance of Geoengineering: What
> Role for Intellectual Property?’ Aladdin is an MA Candidate at
> the Balsillie School of International Affairs who is researching how IP law
> can serve as a form of de facto governance of geoengineering.The UK Royal
> Society defines geoengineering as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation
> of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.”
> With the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere recently having
> reached 400ppm—higher than any point in at least 800,000 years—and
> international climate change governance having shown scant progress,
> geoengineering is increasingly discussed as a climate change strategy. One
> branch of geoengineering is carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which includes
> technologies like carbon capture and storage, afforestation, and ocean
> fertilization, the latter of which was controversially tested when an
> American entrepreneur dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate into the coastal
> waters of British Columbia in 2012. The other branch of geoengineering is
> solar radiation management (SRM), which, rather than removing CO2 from the
> atmosphere, lowers the planet’s temperature by reflecting sunlight via
> techniques like cloud seeding, landscape modification (e.g. painting all
> roofs white), and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).These forms of
> geoengineering could help combat the effects of climate change, but they
> also pose a global catastrophic risk (GCR). For example, pretend that the
> United States decides to artificially lower Earth’s temperature using SAI.
> As described in a recent paper by Seth Baum, Tim Maher, and Jacob
> Haqq-Misra, if a pandemic, nuclear war, or some other global catastrophe
> interferes with our ability to continue using SAI, then global temperatures
> would rapidly increase to their natural levels, potentially resulting in a
> second global catastrophe. SAI also neglects other negative effects of
> runaway greenhouse gas emissions, like ocean acidification.While no
> countries propose that we deploy the more exotic forms of geoengineering
> right now, there is a growing call to research geoengineering and develop
> international norms so that we make smart decisions down the road.So what
> do patents have to do with all of this?Many people’s experience with
> patents primarily consists of watching Samsung and Apple trade punches in
> court over whether Apple invented rounded black rectangles or square app
> icons. But under the radar, geoengineering patents are already flying off
> the shelves, most of which are for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and
> direct sequestration technologies, although there are also patents for
> ocean fertilization, stratospheric aerosol injection, and other
> geoengineering technologies.Aladdin argued that IP law is a de facto form
> of governance when there is no other meaningful legal regime, as is the
> case 

Re: [geo] Making Science Public » Mitigation, adaptation, geoengineering: Patterns of discourse, patterns of mystery

[Fred Zimmerman]

What this shows is that  keyword occurrence in news coverage is a lagging
indicator that is overwhelmed by periodic procedural stories such as COP
and is not sensitive in a timely way to the recent upsurge in interest in
geoengineering.  This is what happens when you choose available metrics.
 One would need much more granular data from much different set of sources
to capture what is actually happening in near real time.


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


On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> Click the link! This makes no sense without the graphs!
>
>
> https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/06/05/mitigation-adaptation-geoengineering-patterns-of-discourse-patterns-of-mystery/
>
> Mitigation, adaptation, geoengineering: Patterns of discourse, patterns of
> mystery
>
> This blog relates more to an ESRC project on climate change than to the
> Leverhulme project on climate change and scepticism, but I think there is a
> tangential link. As part of the ESRC project, we are interested in finding
> patterns in climate change communication and policy over time and across
> countries. In that context I wanted to examine patterns of discourse (and
> in the first instance ‘simple’ word usage), related to three major
> strategies discussed in the context of the management of climate
> change: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and
> geoengineering. My hypothesis was that mitigation has been discussed for
> the longest time but may have gradually been superseded by discourses of
> adaptation, and more recently proposals to use geoengineering as a solution
> of last resort. So I set out to see what patterns were out there and
> whether they would confirm my hypothesis or not. And the more I looked the
> more confused I became.First I looked at Google Trends and got the
> following results (on 1 June, 2013) (blue represents climate change
> adaptation, red climate change mitigation and yellow geoengineering). The
> first surprise was that the highest volume in interest was in climate
> change adaptation and that this interest emerged before interest in climate
> change mitigation. The pattern for geoengineering conforms more to my own
> impressions, with a first real peak shortly after the publication of
> the Royal Society report, followed by other peaks probably related to
> the SPICE project etc.I then turned to Google Ngram viewer (also 1 June,
> 2013) which charts the volume of words or phrases used in google books over
> time. When I searched English language publications, I found that the
> volume of hits for climate change mitigation was higher than for climate
> change adaptation*, which was more what I had expected, but there were
> peaks in unexpected places. I expected a peak in 2006 and 2007, that is in
> the years when climate change coverage peaked according to many
> researchers, such as Max Boykoff (followed by another peak prompted by the
> climategate affair).Things became more interesting when I chose American
> English and British English to carry out the searches. As shown in an
> article by Nerlich, Forsyth and Clarke, the UK and the US really are two
> nations divided by a common language, especially when it comes to
> discussing climate change. British English discourse about climate change
> mitigation peaked after the 1997 Kyoto protocol, with another peak around
> 2002; and climate change adaptation has been trying to catch up with
> mitigation since 2007. By contrast, American English interest in
> geoengineering peaked in 1992 but trends around climate change adaptation,
> climate change mitigation and geoengineering have been rather flat ever
> since.We (that is, one of my PhD students, Ruijing Li and I) then examined
> news coverage using Lexis Nexis. We searched this news database with the
> search terms adaption/mitigation/geoengineering  and climate change or
> global warming**  (on a high similarity setting) and focusing on English
> Language News. We expected to see some fluctuations, but what we found was
> just a steady and then almost exponential rise after 2006 of the use of
> adaptation and mitigation (in the context of climate change or global
> warming), with geoengineering not really getting a look in. Surprisingly,
> there was more discussion of adaption rather than mitigation from the very
> start of the climate change debate in 1988 (Jaspal and Nerlich,
> 2012).During her searches Ruijing found that there were some ‘seasonal’
> fluctuations. These turned out to be less mysterious than we originally
> thought, as they are linked to regular COP meetings at the end of each
> year (and a nice peak in 2009) 

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Fred Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Lewis  wrote:

>
>
> I'm one of those who tend to believe civilization can only go so far down
> a path of thoughtless interference with the planetary systems. I haven't
> tried to assemble anything like a case that might convince a scientist.
>
>

There have been some reasonable scientific efforts to establish the limits
of interference.  The 2C, 4C, and 350 ppm targets are all based on what I
would call plausible SWAGs or one or two step estimations that are tied to
models of reality (not just arbitrary numbers).   A more sophisticated and
multidimensional approach was attempted by Rockstrom et al. See
http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/rockstrom-etc-liverman-2009-nature.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html the full
text is at

 A safe operating space for humanity
*Nature* *461*, 472-475 (24 September 2009) | doi:10.1038/461472a;
Published online 23 September 2009

See associated Correspondence: Cribb, Nature 476, 282 (August
2011)

Johan 
Rockström1
,2 ,
Will 
Steffen1
,3 ,
Kevin 
Noone1
,4 ,
Åsa 
Persson1
,2 ,
F. Stuart Chapin,
III5,
Eric F. 
Lambin6,
Timothy M. 
Lenton7,
Marten 
Scheffer8,
Carl 
Folke1
,9 ,
Hans Joachim 
Schellnhuber10
,11 ,
Björn 
Nykvist1
,2 ,
Cynthia A. de 
Wit4,
Terry 
Hughes12,
Sander van der 
Leeuw13,
Henning 
Rodhe14,
Sverker 
Sörlin1
,15 ,
Peter K. 
Snyder16,
Robert 
Costanza1
,17 ,
Uno 
Svedin1,
Malin 
Falkenmark1
,18 ,
Louise 
Karlberg1
,2 ,
Robert W. 
Corell19,
Victoria J. 
Fabry20,
James 
Hansen21,
Brian 
Walker1
,22 ,
Diana 
Liverman23
,24 ,
Katherine 
Richardson25,
Paul 
Crutzen26
&
Jonathan A. 
Foley27
Topof 
page
Abstract

Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be
transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable
environmental change, argue Johan Rockström and colleagues.


   - New approach proposed for