Re: [geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix - BBC News
Andrew et. al., Ocean up-take should be our primary point of CO2 capture, which sets up a wealth of downstream critical commodities through proper utilization and sequestration. The technology needed for vast scale mid-oceanic farming of marine biomass is well developed yet the suite of technologies have simply never been assimilated for such a mission. Concerning the statement of: ***You'd have to keep sulphur emissions constant for this to happen, though; *That technical ramp-down strategy is useful. Yet, sulfur/BC are a secondary issue(s) and not fundamentally dependant upon SAI for that balancing act. Concerning the statement of: *Choosing whether to maintain sulphur protection is one of the ways to 'get the camel's nose in the tent', as far as SRM acceptability goes.; *I assume you are using SRM as simply meaning SAI? As I'm sure you recall, the Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) *SRM* regimen has no primary/secondary connection to sulfur/BC. The MCB regimen is a highly predictable form od SRM, controllable on short wave deployment status and does not generate Polar Stratspheric Clouds (PSC) and thus trigger Clathrate Gun Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis (CGH) like effects etc. Yet, MCB, being primarily associated with the hydraulic loop, can thus trump SAIs claim to hydraulic cycle modulation superiority due to the far heavier cost per polar (in-)stability. In many ways, the SAI protocol seems to be a well designed regimen to increase PCS/CGH effects. By all accounts, the SAI protocol is directed at creating a physically '*equitable*' atmosphere which does insure increased vulnerability to PSC/CGH threats. The lack of delta-T in the atmospheric dynamics (a.k.a. an equitable atmosphere), does destabilize many aspects of the climate and creating an equitable atmosphere is the stated goal of the SAI strategy. An equitable atmosphere...*is*...the primary threat vector, *at this time*, presented by global warmingand SAI. As atmospheric moisture is a secondary issue, we need to look to the primary systemic issues (CO2 capture/utilization/sequestration) for central technical points upon which a (*bio*) geoengineering metastrategy http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metastrategy can be built upon. Marine biomass production, on vast scale, with support from protocols such as MCB, biochar, olivine, AWL etc. represents a robust bio-geoengineering regimen which does not increase the PSC/CGH threat level and can help maintain a balanced (non-equitable atmospheric based) planetary climate. *John*, your statement of; ***SRM-type geoengineering is the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway *seems to ignore MCB and that SAI does not offer polar cooling! Also, the Arctic methane issue may be best served by use of the methane within cultivation systems as well as used for ice production. In brief, SAI will warm the polar regions simply due to the expected increase in PSC. Your AMEG group is actually supporting the warming of the polar regions through supporting SAI. Is that the AMEG group's actual intentions? *Doug*, thank you for the plots. I believe a great deal of attention needs to be paid to that type of data as such data may be seen as a strong indicator for net negative global emissions (per RCP 2.6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways). As can easily be deduces from the SAI protocol, it simply does...zero...in getting us to RCP 2.6. I was not able to find the Cao et al, 2011 paper. Can you send a link? *Parminder*, as biologists often remind use, nature often pivots upon the swing of a few percentages within critical relationships. The carbon capture, utilization and sequestration relationships in nature does offer important instructions for us in getting to RCP.2.6. within a self-organizing, complex, adaptive system. The IPCC supported Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) path is seemingy the best fit with such a highly dynamic matrix. *In conclusion;* To quote Dr. Sallie Chisholm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_W._Chisholm on her views concerning geoengineering as it is most popularly defined (SAI?); Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player in what ever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms that are evolving every second-a 'self-organizing, complex, adaptive system'. These types of systems have emergent properties that simply cannot be predicted. We all know this! Yet proponents of geoengineering research leave that out of the discussion.. *Bio-geoengineering*, through marine biomass production/biochar/olivine/bio-energy/MCB etc., does not neglect the above obvious reality, as so well put forth by Dr. Chisholm, as the bio-geoengineering suite of technologies are all flexible enough to keep pace with a self-organizing, adaptive and vastly complex planetary
Re: [geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix - BBC News
Hi Michael, I would like to defend Ken on this matter. SRM-type geoengineering is the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway. We are already cooling the planet with our SO2 emissions associated with coal-fired power stations, but not sufficiently to offset global warming from greenhouse gases. If SO2 emissions were stopped, e.g. because of an economic downturn in China, the planet would warm suddenly; whereas if they were put in the stratosphere they would could cool much more effectively and probably more safely. And if they were put in the stratosphere at mid to high latitude, they might save the Arctic sea ice - the highest priority at present. Cheers, John On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, I find Ken's statement of *The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is solar geoengineering*. is un-supportable, on the face of it, as there are a multitude of 'planet cooling' means and methods available. And, the statement ignores roughly every thing that the IPCC (WG3) supports on the mitigation side of the equation. We need to avoid being tethered to a cult of personality and focus upon that which we can doand do safely. The use of Stratospheric Aerosol (sulfuric acid) Injection is not, under it's current protocol of deployment, safe https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/LJWQD4s2w_U/mVT1_zMxQiUJAnd, Ken knows this to be true. Best, Micahel On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32334528 By Simon Redfern Science writer 16 April 2015 From the section Science Environment Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in different climate change, rather than its elimination, new results suggest. Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate change. But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet. Planetary sunshade Two hundred years ago this month, the huge volcano Mount Tambora erupted in Indonesia, throwing tonnes of gas and ash into the stratosphere. Maybe as much as 100 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide aerosols spread as a blanket around the globe, acting like a planetary sunshade. Global temperatures plummeted, and across America and Europe 1816 became known as the year without a summer. Such global cooling processes, but managed in a geoengineering solution, have been touted by some as a possible mechanism to extricate the planet from its path towards a warmer future. Solar radiation management would use stratospheric sulphate aerosols to dim the Sun. Using a variety of climate models, Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, has investigated the likely consequences of such geoengineering on agriculture across the globe. Mount Pinatubo Mount Pinatubo pumped 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide high into the sky above the Philippines His research shows that while dimming could rapidly decrease global temperatures, high CO2 levels would be expected to persist, and it is the balance between temperature, CO2, and sunlight that affects plant growth and agriculture. Exploring the regional effects, he finds that a stratospherically dimmed world would show increased plant productivity in the tropics, but lessened plant growth across the northerly latitudes of America, Europe and Asia. It is easy to see how there might be geopolitical shifts associated with changes in regional food production across the globe. It's probably the poor tropics that stand to benefit and the rich north that stands to lose, said Prof Caldeira. But what if geoengineered sulphate aerosols were, nonetheless, deployed and then a large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo in the Philippines took place? Three such eruptions occurred in the last century so the scenario seems likely. Bad timing Hannele Korhonen, of the Finnish Meteorological Institute, suggests that the climate impacts could be quite unexpected. Her results indicate increased temperatures in the Southern Ocean and in northerly latitudes, as well as the mid-Pacific, but cooling in African and Asian mid-latitudes. Regional weather patterns would still
Re: [geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix - BBC News
In theory, I would have thought a rapid drop in CO2 emissions should cause global temperatures to drop pretty quickly, as ocean uptake will remove a lot of historical emissions. You'd have to keep sulphur emissions constant for this to happen, though. Choosing whether to maintain sulphur protection is one of the ways to 'get the camel's nose in the tent', as far as SRM acceptability goes. A On 27 Apr 2015 00:12, John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Michael, I would like to defend Ken on this matter. SRM-type geoengineering is the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway. We are already cooling the planet with our SO2 emissions associated with coal-fired power stations, but not sufficiently to offset global warming from greenhouse gases. If SO2 emissions were stopped, e.g. because of an economic downturn in China, the planet would warm suddenly; whereas if they were put in the stratosphere they would could cool much more effectively and probably more safely. And if they were put in the stratosphere at mid to high latitude, they might save the Arctic sea ice - the highest priority at present. Cheers, John On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, I find Ken's statement of *The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is solar geoengineering*. is un-supportable, on the face of it, as there are a multitude of 'planet cooling' means and methods available. And, the statement ignores roughly every thing that the IPCC (WG3) supports on the mitigation side of the equation. We need to avoid being tethered to a cult of personality and focus upon that which we can doand do safely. The use of Stratospheric Aerosol (sulfuric acid) Injection is not, under it's current protocol of deployment, safe https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/LJWQD4s2w_U/mVT1_zMxQiUJAnd, Ken knows this to be true. Best, Micahel On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32334528 By Simon Redfern Science writer 16 April 2015 From the section Science Environment Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in different climate change, rather than its elimination, new results suggest. Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate change. But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet. Planetary sunshade Two hundred years ago this month, the huge volcano Mount Tambora erupted in Indonesia, throwing tonnes of gas and ash into the stratosphere. Maybe as much as 100 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide aerosols spread as a blanket around the globe, acting like a planetary sunshade. Global temperatures plummeted, and across America and Europe 1816 became known as the year without a summer. Such global cooling processes, but managed in a geoengineering solution, have been touted by some as a possible mechanism to extricate the planet from its path towards a warmer future. Solar radiation management would use stratospheric sulphate aerosols to dim the Sun. Using a variety of climate models, Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, has investigated the likely consequences of such geoengineering on agriculture across the globe. Mount Pinatubo Mount Pinatubo pumped 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide high into the sky above the Philippines His research shows that while dimming could rapidly decrease global temperatures, high CO2 levels would be expected to persist, and it is the balance between temperature, CO2, and sunlight that affects plant growth and agriculture. Exploring the regional effects, he finds that a stratospherically dimmed world would show increased plant productivity in the tropics, but lessened plant growth across the northerly latitudes of America, Europe and Asia. It is easy to see how there might be geopolitical shifts associated with changes in regional food production across the globe. It's probably the poor tropics that stand to benefit and the rich north that stands to lose, said Prof Caldeira. But what if geoengineered sulphate aerosols were, nonetheless, deployed and then a large volcanic eruption
RE: [geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix - BBC News
Plot is from Cao et al, 2011. Zeroing emissions does cause CO2 to drop somewhat, but the climate is not yet in equilibrium with current CO2 levels, so the net effect is roughly constant temperature, all else being equal. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:54 PM To: John Nissen Cc: geoengineering; Michael Hayes Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix - BBC News In theory, I would have thought a rapid drop in CO2 emissions should cause global temperatures to drop pretty quickly, as ocean uptake will remove a lot of historical emissions. You'd have to keep sulphur emissions constant for this to happen, though. Choosing whether to maintain sulphur protection is one of the ways to 'get the camel's nose in the tent', as far as SRM acceptability goes. A On 27 Apr 2015 00:12, John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Michael, I would like to defend Ken on this matter. SRM-type geoengineering is the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway. We are already cooling the planet with our SO2 emissions associated with coal-fired power stations, but not sufficiently to offset global warming from greenhouse gases. If SO2 emissions were stopped, e.g. because of an economic downturn in China, the planet would warm suddenly; whereas if they were put in the stratosphere they would could cool much more effectively and probably more safely. And if they were put in the stratosphere at mid to high latitude, they might save the Arctic sea ice - the highest priority at present. Cheers, John On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, I find Ken's statement of The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is solar geoengineering. is un-supportable, on the face of it, as there are a multitude of 'planet cooling' means and methods available. And, the statement ignores roughly every thing that the IPCC (WG3) supports on the mitigation side of the equation. We need to avoid being tethered to a cult of personality and focus upon that which we can doand do safely. The use of Stratospheric Aerosol (sulfuric acid) Injection is not, under it's current protocol of deployment, safe https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/LJWQD4s2w_U/mVT1_zMxQiUJ And, Ken knows this to be true. Best, Micahel On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32334528 By Simon Redfern Science writer 16 April 2015 From the section Science Environment Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in different climate change, rather than its elimination, new results suggest. Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate change. But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet. Planetary sunshade Two hundred years ago this month, the huge volcano Mount Tambora erupted in Indonesia, throwing tonnes of gas and ash into the stratosphere. Maybe as much as 100 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide aerosols spread as a blanket around the globe, acting like a planetary sunshade. Global temperatures plummeted, and across America and Europe 1816 became known as the year without a summer. Such global cooling processes, but managed in a geoengineering solution, have been touted by some as a possible mechanism to extricate the planet from its path towards a warmer future. Solar radiation management would use stratospheric sulphate aerosols to dim the Sun. Using a variety of climate models, Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, has investigated the likely consequences of such geoengineering on agriculture across the globe. Mount Pinatubo Mount Pinatubo pumped 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide high into the sky above the Philippines His research shows that while dimming could rapidly decrease global temperatures, high CO2 levels would be expected to persist, and it is the balance between temperature, CO2, and sunlight that affects plant growth and agriculture. Exploring the regional effects, he finds that a stratospherically dimmed world would show
[geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix - BBC News
Hi folks, I find Ken's statement of *The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is solar geoengineering*. is un-supportable, on the face of it, as there are a multitude of 'planet cooling' means and methods available. And, the statement ignores roughly every thing that the IPCC (WG3) supports on the mitigation side of the equation. We need to avoid being tethered to a cult of personality and focus upon that which we can doand do safely. The use of Stratospheric Aerosol (sulfuric acid) Injection is not, under it's current protocol of deployment, safe https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/LJWQD4s2w_U/mVT1_zMxQiUJAnd, Ken knows this to be true. Best, Micahel On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32334528 By Simon Redfern Science writer 16 April 2015 From the section Science Environment Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in different climate change, rather than its elimination, new results suggest. Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate change. But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet. Planetary sunshade Two hundred years ago this month, the huge volcano Mount Tambora erupted in Indonesia, throwing tonnes of gas and ash into the stratosphere. Maybe as much as 100 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide aerosols spread as a blanket around the globe, acting like a planetary sunshade. Global temperatures plummeted, and across America and Europe 1816 became known as the year without a summer. Such global cooling processes, but managed in a geoengineering solution, have been touted by some as a possible mechanism to extricate the planet from its path towards a warmer future. Solar radiation management would use stratospheric sulphate aerosols to dim the Sun. Using a variety of climate models, Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, has investigated the likely consequences of such geoengineering on agriculture across the globe. Mount Pinatubo Mount Pinatubo pumped 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide high into the sky above the Philippines His research shows that while dimming could rapidly decrease global temperatures, high CO2 levels would be expected to persist, and it is the balance between temperature, CO2, and sunlight that affects plant growth and agriculture. Exploring the regional effects, he finds that a stratospherically dimmed world would show increased plant productivity in the tropics, but lessened plant growth across the northerly latitudes of America, Europe and Asia. It is easy to see how there might be geopolitical shifts associated with changes in regional food production across the globe. It's probably the poor tropics that stand to benefit and the rich north that stands to lose, said Prof Caldeira. But what if geoengineered sulphate aerosols were, nonetheless, deployed and then a large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo in the Philippines took place? Three such eruptions occurred in the last century so the scenario seems likely. Bad timing Hannele Korhonen, of the Finnish Meteorological Institute, suggests that the climate impacts could be quite unexpected. Her results indicate increased temperatures in the Southern Ocean and in northerly latitudes, as well as the mid-Pacific, but cooling in African and Asian mid-latitudes. Regional weather patterns would still change, as they did after Tambora in 1816, with similar widely felt disruption. Deploying solar radiation management methods would lead to a completely new climate state with enhanced greenhouse effect and reduced solar radiation, said Korhonen, adding: There are great uncertainties, related especially to the regional climate impacts of solar radiation management. Commenting on the results, Helene Muri, of the University of Oslo, said: These modelling experiments have highlighted the new risks associated with solar radiation management. The safest option is, of course, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and aim for a more sustainable way of living and managing the planet. It is not at all obvious what the other consequences of
