The Geoengineering Quandary

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

Recently appearing on the web - an article, presumably by Michael Tobis,
the geophysicist [1]:

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/49963

Cheers from Chiswick,

John

[1] http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/tobis/
(Correct me if I have the wrong Michael Tobis!)

[Ron Larson]

John (cc Michael and list):

Thanks for the lead to Michael's blog and from Michael's to others.
Fortunately a more favorable treatment of Biochar - including a nice
comment about Sir Richard Branson's support for Biochar.

I hope we can have more discussion on this list of the
appropriateness of calling Biochar a Geoengineering technology. And if
not - what and why not? (given that it has important energy and soils
benefits not shared by any other in the Royal Society list.) My
perception is that Michael did not answer this question.

Ron

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2444 - Release Date: 10/18/09 09:04:00
>
>

[Michael Tobis]

Hello all. I've just signed up.

To answer Ron's question, I think biochar should be called a
"sequestration strategy" and not a "geoengineering strategy".

It is my opinion that there are two very different categories of
proposal covered by the Royal Society report, and often confused under
the rubric of "geoengineering". One is intervention in the carbon
cycle at a global scale, and the other is intervention in the
radiative balance at a global scale.

I have very strongly different views about the two classes of
intervention, and recommend that they not be conflated into a single
category.

Intervention in the carbon cycle is already happening; accordingly
further intervention is necessary, whether by reducing emissions or by
constructing new sequestration paths. Presumably both are necessary.

Intervention in the radiative balance by any other means will be
imperfect. It perhaps merits study as a desperation maneuver, but it
does not seem prudent, to say the least, to deploy it in any
foreseeable circumstances. My own preferred usage is to refer to only
this class of intervention as "geoengineering". As such I am opposed
to geoengineering.

On the other hand, I think every plausible "sequestration strategy"
should be pursued with utmost vigor until something successfully
emerges at scale.

I'm here to advocate for the proposition that these are ethically and
practically very distinct strategies.

This was the main point of my blog article. I'm glad to see it getting
some attention.

best regards
Michael Tobis

[Dan Whaley]

Intervention into the radiative balance is also happening at a global scale.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1169007/Climate-change-goal-Laws-combat-acid-rain-DRIVING-Arctic-warming-claims-Nasa.html

Dan

[John Nissen]

Hi Dan,

This article is a bit confused.  The carbon black (soot) causes warming by reducing albedo, particularly of snow and ice. The sulphate aerosol causes cooling, which is why its removal has accelerated global warming since the 80s.  It has probably accelerated Arctic warming mostly through the polar amplification mechanism.

The strategy for saving the planet must involve caution with respect to anything which further removes sulphate aerosol from the troposphere - and I suggest any removal from the troposphere (e.g. through pollution legislation) should be balanced by addition to the stratosphere, where the aerosol lasts much longer and so is more effective.

So China should have clean coal, to reduce CO2 and black carbon, but some of the removed sulphur should go towards stratospheric aerosol deployment.

Cheers,

John

---

[Andrew Lockley]

Correcting the Daily Mail on science is a bit like shooting fish in a
barrel. However, it does merit a mention that reducing SO2 pollution
doesn't actually 'drive' warming, it merely unmasks underlying warming
effect of anthropogenic GHGs. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that
the polluted soup we live in is in some way the normal order of
things, and that our dangerous fiddling with SO2 is wrecking the
delicate balance of nature.

Having had it's ill-considered say, the paper has thoughtfully closed
the comments thread, so I'll have to content myself with preaching to
the converted!

A

2009/10/19 John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>:

[Dan Whaley]

Clearly, many corrections are in order-- the main point is that direct modifications to radiative balance have been made in lock step (though not always in the same ways or proportions) to modifications to the carbon cycle--- since the beginning of anthropogenic forcing.

The argument that we've been inadvertently doing one but not the other (and therefore "undoing" one is somehow safe, while "doing" the other is not) is not as simply made as one might think.

I'm not arguing the contrapositive, rather only that we need to be careful about generalizations.

Dan

[John Gorman]

I am surprised that your post didnt get lots of replies -so belatedly -welcome to the group. Another engineer with aditionally a climate qualification!!

 

I think most members of the group are fully aware of the distinction between direct temperature control by blocking some sunlight (SRM or Solar Radiation Management) and CO2 removal from the atmosphere (CRS or Carbon Removal and Storage)

 

These two were the B and C of a recent letter to the IPCC chairman signed by lots of us. The A of the letter was of course emissions reduction but this will take all of this century as you said ("one to two centurys" you  actually said.)

 

It is this question of timescal that makes geoengineering necessary. And even the greatest efforts on CRS wont get us back to preindustrial by 2050.

 

This is why many of us think SRM is necessary. If CRS is really successful then we  may only need SRM for 20 or 30 years but without it where will we be by 2040 or 50? what will the Arctic be?

 

On the meaning of " geoengineering".  there was lots of discussion a year or two back. Now that the reports of the Royal Society, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and the Parliamentary Select Committees are all in print it is too late to change it -at least in the UK.

 

Geoengineering includes SRM or Solar Radiation Management and CO2 removal from the atmosphere (CRS or Carbon Removal and Storage) but not CCS, carbon capture and storage, from for instance power station flues which comes under emissions reduction or "mitigation".

 

regards

 

John Gorman

Chartered Engineer

MIMechE,MIET

[John Nissen]

Thanks John, for responding to Michael on our behalf!

Just a small footnote with some references:

The open letter to Dr Pachauri, IPCC chairman, [1], suggests a three part approach: (A) mitigation, (B) carbon stock management, and (C) heat transfer and radiation management.  Dr Pachauri has responded to say that he will include B and C as "mitigation" in future IPCC work [2]

Cheers,

John

[1] http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html

[2] Email of 24th Sept:

Dear Mr. Nissen,

Thank you for your letter.  I agree with you that the Copenhagen Conference
of the Parties is a very important conference, and that we must act quickly
to address the threat presented by global warming.  I also agree with you
that carbon stock management, heat transfer and radiation management
present promising prospects.  This is why we have included geoengineering
for consideration in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Geoengineering
will be dealt with as a mitigation option.

With kind regards,

R. K. Pachauri
***************************************************************
R K Pachauri, Ph.D
Director-General, TERI
Habitat Place, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: +91 11 24682121 or 2122
Fax: +91 11 24682144 or 2145
www.teriin.org

---

[Glyn Roberts]

Hi all:

I've been listening in for a while. Very interesting discussions, I
learn a great deal and I appreciate those who post, so I feel
compelled to do my part and engage too.

I've read the Royal Society report cover-to-cover and was very
impressed by every aspect of it -- except one. I can't accept 'CRS'
as 'geoengineering'. I think it's a total misnomer and I believe
it's counter-productive.

I saw that Ken Caldeira objected to this categorization as well and
was pleased, but disappointed he didn't get his way for the Royal
Society report.

As with their own conclusions: (to paraphrase)

CRS, "addresses the root cause", & "go forward full speed with 'safe' methods"

SRM, "imperfect global temperature compensation, regional weather
anomalies are likely, more risky" & "go if a climate catastrophe is
imminent".

Public support, "tenuous" & "not well informed"

By calling both approches 'geoengineering' you/we obfuscate the
distinction and bring unnecessary fear to CRS. Fear and skepticism
are stalling important progress.

If someone wants to look up the meaning of 'geoengineering' they'll go
to Wikipedia not the Royal Society. Ironically Wiki's got it right:
"The modern concept of geoengineering is usually taken to mean
proposals to deliberately manipulate the Earth's climate to counteract
the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions."

With all due respect, I myself will use 'SRM' and 'geoengineering'
interchangeably, and I will refer to CRS as something distinct. I
would hope to see a full scale effort to bring CRS technology to
deployment.

Finally, I think we should actually call it GHG Removal Technology
(GRT) because CO2 is only one piece.

best regards,

Glyn

[Michael Tobis]

On nomenclature:

1) Given the tripartite organization of IPCC: mitigation, adaptation,
and impacts, it's reasonable to include geoengineering under
mitigation.

2) The Royal Society report which I referenced:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/10/geoengineering-quandary.html

does include point-source carbon capture and sequestration.

3) I think the CRS vs SRM nomenclature is sufficient for technical
purposes; however it is likely to fail to be understood by the public
due to abbreviation overload. "Carbon management" and "sunlight
management" might be clearer.

===

On the advisability of CRS and CCS:

It is absolutely necessary. Development and prototyping is urgent.

===

On the advisability of SRM:

I really doubt it. The aspect of the problem where SRM makes most
sense is the sea level issue. There are likely hystereses there and a
relatively abrupt failure is plausible especially in West Antarctica,
but the time scale of that event is very hard to pin down.

I am new here and could be wrong about this, but I have the suspicion
that people advising this approach don't have a strong grasp of
geophysical fluid dynamics. Large scale regional perturbations will
have global effects. The science is probably not robust enough to
predict what those would be with great confidence.

Some interesting issues are raised here:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/10/so-2-stinks-well-it-really-does-and-it.html

The fact that the two classes of idea have been lumped together risks
that the (at best) highly speculative SRM ideas are interfering with
consideration of the evidently sound CRS/CCS ideas.

mt

[Andrew Lockley]

I think the wiki definition given above encompasses both SRM and
carbon sequestration. Of course, it's a quote - not a wiki original.

I think that it's important to regard GHG capture/treatment as
geoengineering. For example, using lasers to break up CFCs in the
atmosphere is definitely engineering in my book. Properly, I think
the group of techniques should be known as GHG remediation, as per
wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_remediation

A

2009/10/21 Glyn Roberts <glynlr...@gmail.com>:

[Glyn Roberts]

Thanks Andrew and Michael:

I like GHG Remediation. Perfect.

Sunlight Management: it strikes me that we all love sunlight, but we
don't like radiation, so "solar radiation management" may sound less
offensive to those who don't have a particularly sophisticated
scientific bent.

I recognize that we probably don't have the luxury of redefining the
language of geoengineering in this forum, but I think it's healthy to
look at trigger words from the perspective of a skeptical, hostile
public.

From this view 'geoengineering' seems like a term to avoid in any
public dialog. (Whereas within academia and the climate science
community it's probably the right term to encompass the full gamut of
engineering methods.)

I suspect that the term 'geoengineering' triggers one of two repulsion
reflexes:

Dr. Frankenstein wants to play God again
or
The 'moral hazard' dilemma, where any engineered solution represents a
dangerous "get out of jail free card" that will destroy our
willingness to take tough mitigation action.

The former (Dr. F) is well served (but not necessarily solved) with a
transparent process & a visible governance framework.

I have some comments on the 'moral hazard' argument (forgive me if the
group has previously beaten this horse to death)

It's clear from humanities response to the climate crisis so far that
insufficient action can be expected for some time come. It will
probably remain that way until climate change manifests itself in far
more painful ways. Unfortunately since earth's climate system is
non-linear, with nasty positive feedback triggers lurking, the risk is
quite high that when the pain tipping-point is finally reached we will
have gone well past the point where even 100% mitigation (zero
emissions) will be sufficient to stop a major collapse of ecosystems
and wide-spread human catastrophe. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse"
shows how we have repeated that error throughout history.

The morel dilemma principle potentially changes the mitigation actions
of those that believe ALL of the following statements:

A. Climate change is real, it will cause human catastrophe in the near future.
B. I commit to doing my part by making appropriate changes to my
lifestyle and the way I apply my democratic choices.
C. Geoengineering is possible but it will not be used
D. However if geoengineering were to be used it renders mitigation superfluous.

My experience is that few people believe all four of these statements.

I'd love to hear other opinions!

best regards,

Glyn Roberts