Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future
Hansen et.al., in Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implicationshttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.htmlput the inferred planetary energy imbalance at 0.58 +/- 0.15 W/m2, which because the largest term is the measured heat content increase in the oceans calculated by von Schuckman et.al. which was made during the deepest most prolonged solar minimum in the period of accurate solar monitoring leads the group to believe the actual figure averaged over the solar cycle for the planetary imbalance will prove to be greater. I think its about 3/4 of a watt if solar cycle noise is taken out, is the way Hansen describes Earth's energy imbalance in his talks. Hansen points to the Argo float data as the big recent change allowing him to be more confident of what the actual planetary energy imbalance is, as most incoming heat is accumulating in the global ocean. However, although there are some 3,500 floats now out there spread over most of the global ocean, apparently, there are no Argo floats in the Arctic oceanhttp://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/arcticgroup/projects/ipworkshoppresentations/ipworkshop_kikuchi.pdf. Stephen Hudson of the Norwegian Polar Institute recently published in JGR Estimating the Global Radiative Impact of the Sea-Ice-Albedo Feedback in the Arctichttp://www.npolar.no/npcms/export/sites/np/en/people/stephen.hudson/Hudson11_AlbedoFeedback.pdf which came up with the observed loss of sea ice in the Arctic between 1979 and 2007 is approximately 0.1 W/m2 which added the potential for changes in cloud cover as a result of the changes in sea ice makes the evaluation of the actual forcing that may be realized quite uncertain, since such changes could overwhelm the forcing caused by the sea-ice loss itself According to an August 17 2011 press releasehttp://www.npolar.no/en/news/2011/2011-08-16-clouds-halve-the-climatic-effect-of-bare-ocean.htmlposted on the Norwegian Polar Institute website Hudson says, if you consider an Arctic Ocean that is ice-free for one month in summer and has less ice than today for the rest of the year: my calculations show that the warming driven by the disappearance of the ice corresponds to 0.3 W/m2, if you spread it evenly over the whole planet. If you do not consider the cloud cover... the effect is nearly 0.6 W/m2. Flanner et.al. Radiative Forcing and albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere between 1979 and 2008http://aoss-research.engin.umich.edu/faculty/flanner/content/ppr/FlS11.pdf says the total impact of the cryosphere on radiative forcing and albedo feedback has yet to be determined from measurements. Speaking of other albedo effects related to warmer northern temperatures, NSIDC reportedhttp://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/07/rapid-sea-ice-retreat-in-june/in early July that June 2012 was a new record low for Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent. Rutgers University a href=http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/;Global Snow Lab/a reports 2011 as the 17th least extensive cover on record On Sunday, September 16, 2012 1:18:46 PM UTC-7, John Nissen wrote: Unless there's intervention, the contribution of global climate forcing from sea ice loss will rise to about 0.7 Watts/m2 (according to Hudson, AGU 2011 paper) within 8 years (according to PIOMAS exponential trend), adding 70% to net forcing (around 1 Watt/m2 according to Hansen's recent paper on the subject). And that's without methane to contend with. BTW, Peter Wadhams has calculated that this forcing is equivalent to 20 years of CO2 emissions (according to BBC interview), but I've not seen the calculation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/gKlIf6dRvIMJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future
Anderson's latest paper was published online in the September 2012 issue of Nature Climate Change available behind a paywall herehttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/full/nclimate1646.htm. The Editors of Nature Climate Change describe Anderson's views, a bit, in their freely available editorial, iClarion Callhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/full/nclimate1681.html/i, published in the same issue. Anderson often refers to himself as an engineer in his talks, to emphasize that when he talks about what tech fixes are possible now, given his view that civilization very likely has committed itself to destruction already unless it changes more than top level political debate has had on its table for discussion so far, he is referring to things that have been proven out at full scale. He says he loves technology, but refers to things that exist as gleams in the eyes of researchers such as various geoengineering ideas, as tending to resemble what he calls magic. I haven't heard him talk about SRM. He does talk about removing CO2 from the atmosphere and from point sources before it gets into the atmosphere because many if not all projections that civilization can cope with the amount of fossil fuels it seems to think it is going to burn involve massive deployment of CCS. Because CCS has not been deployed at full scale anywhere yet he mentions that this means his analysis of plans to save civilization with it are a tad risky compared to plans that do not depend on technology that has yet to be developed. His idea of what powering civilization with breeder reactors would mean is massive movement of weapons grade plutonium moving around as fuel supplies. The University of Manchester published this notehttp://www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/news-events/news/bows-and-anderson-discuss-a-new-paradigm-for-climate-changedescribing the latest Anderson and Bows paper. A quote: They * [ Anderson and Bows in their new paper ]* *provocatively suggest the scientific community has contributed to a misguided belief* that incremental adjustments in economic incentives, a carbon tax here, a little emissions trading there and the odd voluntary agreement thrown in for good measure will deliver the necessary reductions in emissions. They proceed to criticize the dominance of a financial mentality and how many within the scientific community underplay the severity of their analysis to ensure their conclusions support the orthodoxy of economic growth. David Roberts at Grist examined Anderson's views earlier this year in a series of posts starting herehttp://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/ . Anderson's opinion that there is a widespread view among his colleagues that civilization is likely committed as of now to changes incompatible with an organized global community apparently contradicts the* McNugget and McBurger theory, ** *which holds that the exponentially expanding numbers of the global middle classes will not necessarily even notice as *all fossil fuels are burned* while they stayed glued to their Xbox screens playing video games ordering fast food as necessary for survival. In at least one version of this theory the fast food never stops arriving and the power to the wall outlets of these bozos never fluctuates. Inquiring minds wonder what will happen when a top flight McNuggetBurger theorist or two happens to be on a panel with Anderson himself, or someone else Anderson would call a colleague who shares the widespread view he speaks of. On Sunday, September 16, 2012 4:35:38 PM UTC-7, Ron wrote: List: 1. I found this 70+ slide Ppt by Kevin Anderson (the attachment to Andrew's posting about 14 hours ago) to be a most interesting presentation. It suffers by having no voice. I have not yet found when or where it was presented. In following up, I found that his (and Alice Bows') 2011 paper on same topics is free at:. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf Also I found that a well-done 27 minute video (showing both him talking and the slides) from 2009 (cited in his Wiki article - as #6) is available at http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/ouce/4degrees/session_10_1_anderson.mp4?CAMEFROM=moxacuk A similar 55 minute video (but with only slides and voice) from 2012 is at: http://vimeo.com/39555673 (newest and longest, so possibly a good place to start) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/UKemNLUlVWYJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future
As a follow-up to the disturbing (but forthright) Tyndall Center presentation, I¹d suggest reading a plan for actually making the changes needed to make a significant difference in the climate change trajectory. My recommendation would be to read the book ³World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse² by Lester R. Brown. It is available as a pdf file at http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/wotebook.pdf Yes, a real challenge, but plausible. What is most needed is leadership and commitment, so at least we make a good try at limiting global warming and the associated problems he talks about, namely water resources, food, and soils. Without even trying the type of effort that is suggested, history will likely be very hard on today¹s (and yesterday¹s‹covering a couple of decades) leaders. Mike MacCracken On 9/16/12 5:18 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: By way of climatic and political background, this may interest some members A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future
Andrew and Mike, Thanks for the recommendations. Without even trying the type of effort that is suggested, history will likely be very hard on today’s (and yesterday’s—covering a couple of decades) leaders. This would seem the root of the problem because the leaders (and the rest of us) won't be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits) of present actions toward CO2. This begs the question how much are humans willing to sacrifice now for future generations? How much do we discount future consequences of present actions? Up until now the answer is alot. I'm not sure this can or will change any time soon, but it would be interesting the hear of any historical examples (or econ theory). Otherwise, as with pond scum, it looks like we are still stuck in the +2B year bio tradition of letting future generations fend for themselves. -Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, September 16, 2012 9:50:16 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future As a follow-up to the disturbing (but forthright) Tyndall Center presentation, I’d suggest reading a plan for actually making the changes needed to make a significant difference in the climate change trajectory. My recommendation would be to read the book “World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse” by Lester R. Brown. It is available as a pdf file at http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/wotebook.pdf Yes, a real challenge, but plausible. What is most needed is leadership and commitment, so at least we make a good try at limiting global warming and the associated problems he talks about, namely water resources, food, and soils. Without even trying the type of effort that is suggested, history will likely be very hard on today’s (and yesterday’s—covering a couple of decades) leaders. Mike MacCracken On 9/16/12 5:18 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: By way of climatic and political background, this may interest some members A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future
List: 1. I found this 70+ slide Ppt by Kevin Anderson (the attachment to Andrew's posting about 14 hours ago) to be a most interesting presentation. It suffers by having no voice. I have not yet found when or where it was presented. In following up, I found that his (and Alice Bows') 2011 paper on same topics is free at:. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf Also I found that a well-done 27 minute video (showing both him talking and the slides) from 2009 (cited in his Wiki article - as #6) is available at http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/ouce/4degrees/session_10_1_anderson.mp4?CAMEFROM=moxacuk A similar 55 minute video (but with only slides and voice) from 2012 is at: http://vimeo.com/39555673 (newest and longest, so possibly a good place to start) 2. His argument consistently is that holding global temperature increase to 2 degrees is almost impossible - and that we certainly don't want 4 degrees, which we are heading for. Not at all encouraging - and he makes a convincing case on what is likely to be accomplished - based on past experience. He is an excellent presenter. 3. I have not looked at any of the above in great depth - but believe he barely discusses SRM. CDR was mentioned in one of the above - but not biochar. I read and heard almost no discussion on wind, solar PV, biomass, or other RE technologies. My tentative conclusion is that has underestimated how much longer the recent large annual growth rate of RE technologies can be continued. I believe the average annual growth rate for the Wind and Photovoltaics technologies for the past 5 years has been about 30% and 50%. Should those rates continue, we can certainly fill the energy bucket by 2030 or sooner. However, he discounts the ability to move as fast as 10% per year in reducing CO2 emissions. I think it can be larger if the need for an early CO2 peak is taken seriously. In the biochar area of CDR, I think that the price projections given at www.coolplanetbiofuels will provide even faster growth and a very short doubling time. They can start soon since the biofuel version can be identical to the fossil. Anderson has no discussion I think on land availability and productivity; his is a higher level modeling. 4. I like that much of these presentations are on the complexities of handling Annex-1 and non-Annex-1 countries differently. We need more like this. Ron - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: mmacc...@comcast.net, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:58:32 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future Andrew and Mike, Thanks for the recommendations. Without even trying the type of effort that is suggested, history will likely be very hard on today’s (and yesterday’s—covering a couple of decades) leaders. This would seem the root of the problem because the leaders (and the rest of us) won't be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits) of present actions toward CO2. This begs the question how much are humans willing to sacrifice now for future generations? How much do we discount future consequences of present actions? Up until now the answer is alot. I'm not sure this can or will change any time soon, but it would be interesting the hear of any historical examples (or econ theory). Otherwise, as with pond scum, it looks like we are still stuck in the +2B year bio tradition of letting future generations fend for themselves. -Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, September 16, 2012 9:50:16 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future As a follow-up to the disturbing (but forthright) Tyndall Center presentation, I’d suggest reading a plan for actually making the changes needed to make a significant difference in the climate change trajectory. My recommendation would be to read the book “World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse” by Lester R. Brown. It is available as a pdf file at http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/wotebook.pdf Yes, a real challenge, but plausible. What is most needed is leadership and commitment, so at least we make a good try at limiting global warming and the associated problems he talks about, namely water resources, food, and soils. Without even trying the type of effort that is suggested, history will likely be very hard on today’s (and yesterday’s—covering a couple of decades) leaders. Mike MacCracken On 9/16/12 5:18 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: By way of climatic and political background, this may interest some members A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email
