There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However, the field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall, and many aspects remain under-researched.
This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering.
If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain
problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting
of ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering
mid-latitude weather;
3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of
sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming
sufficient to trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on
global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea
level rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming
amplification process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer
disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea
ice summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in
the other papers seem rather irrelevant!
Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed
with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean
acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then
the arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem
irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments
were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
---
David Keith wrote:
Folks,
There is a
set of papers on geoengineering
on line at Environmental Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as
editors
of this special issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
Geoengineering techniques for countering
climate change have been
receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle
climate
change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However,
the field
is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences,
potentially
making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall, and many
aspects
remain under-researched.
This focus issue of Environmental
Research Letters is a collection of research articles,
invited by
David Keith, University
of Calgary, and
Ken
Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different
methods for
engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail
the
arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in
hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held
by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space,
making the ice thicker).
2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management,
my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I
prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a
fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential.
This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and
I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to
keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward
toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2
from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a
significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2
related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is
going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other
alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero
quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my
thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at
http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
Mike
On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we
> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should
> we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> methane and carbon feedbacks.
> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger
> massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming)
> of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise. The retreat
> of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is
> crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
> papers seem rather irrelevant!
> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with
> SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and
> addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other
> papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but
> then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> John
> ---
> David Keith wrote:
>> Folks,
>> There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research
>> Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More
>> papers and a editorial will be added later.
>> Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving
>> much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change
>> is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However,
>> the field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences,
>> potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall,
>> and many aspects remain under-researched.
>> This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of
>> research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken
>> Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods
>> for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
>> highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the
>> arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
Re: [geo] ERL papers on lineThere's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit more so as to bring the level down.
Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel with a flow of biofuel.
A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of organization.
It's all so blindingly obvious
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: Mike MacCracken To: John Nissen ; David Keith Cc: Climate Intervention ; Geoengineering ; Ken Caldeira ; Julian Norman Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
Dear John—A couple of comments:
1.. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space, making the ice thicker). 2.. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
Mike
On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other papers seem rather irrelevant!
Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
---
David Keith wrote:
Folks,
There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However, the field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall, and many aspects remain under-researched.
This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09 07:38:00
To me, SRM geoengineering is also blindingly obvious, though one has to
appreciate the risks in the Arctic, i.e. what we are up against.
Both types of geoengineering are blindingly obvious.
But you and I are agreed on this, aren't we?
Cheers,
John
---
Peter Read wrote:
There's no way that increasing CO2
emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion
people out there that want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners
enjoying on TV
So the answer has to be to get 10
GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit more so as to bring the level
down.
Do that and you can progressively
replace the current flow of fossil fuel with a flow of biofuel.
A welcome prospect to those who
worry about 'peak oil'.
It doesn't need rocket science, just
sensible policy and a bit of organization.
Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping
summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep
summer sea ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin
sea ice in the winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted
through the sea ice and radiated to space, making the ice thicker).
On the issue of the paper just dealing with
solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the
World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World
Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2,
which I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as
the paper was long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on
that area, but I certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as
global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and
then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2 from the
atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a significant
difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2 related
issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is going
to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other
alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to
zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the
rise in forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can
see my thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs athttp://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering.
If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain
problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting
of ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering
mid-latitude weather;
3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of
sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming
sufficient to trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on
global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea
level rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming
amplification process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer
disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea
ice summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in
the other papers seem rather irrelevant!
Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed
with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean
acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then
the arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem
irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments
were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
---
David Keith wrote:
Folks, There is a set of papers
on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research Letters. Ken
Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More papers and
a editorial will be added later.
Hi Mike and everyone else; I have thought of a possible method of
keeping the arctic frozen to prevent melting of the ice pack. Cloud
seeding can increase the size of the snow pack over places where
methane and gigatons of carbon dioxide would otherwise be released by
thawing of the permafrost. It is possible to thicken the ice covering
the permafrost to prevent melting in the spring and lengthen the time
that ice and snow cover the ground in the spring. The biggest problem
will be coming up with funding to do it. Like all other geoengineering
projects we should think about the consequences and side effects of
cloud seeding on that scale.
On Nov 1, 5:39 pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> To me, SRM geoengineering is also blindingly obvious, though one has to appreciate the risks in the Arctic, i.e. what we are up against.
> Both types of geoengineering are blindingly obvious.
> But you and I are agreed on this, aren't we?
> Cheers,
> John
> ---
> Peter Read wrote:There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit more so as to bring the level down.
> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel with a flow of biofuel.
> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of organization.
> It's all so blindingly obvious
> Peter
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:Mike MacCracken
> To:John Nissen;David Keith
> Cc:Climate Intervention;Geoengineering;Ken Caldeira;Julian Norman
> Sent:Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
> Subject:[geo] Re: ERL papers on line
> Dear John—A couple of comments:Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space, making the ice thicker).On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs athttp://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf > Mike
> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other papers seem rather irrelevant!
> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> John
> ---
> David Keith wrote:
> Folks,There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later....
My guess would be that there is too little moisture in the cold air to make
much snow--and clouds are generally low. The challenge is really getting
more moisture into the Arctic--now, warming will do this, but then one gets
rain instead of snow. If, as Caldeira and Wood calculations make clear, if
you can reduce sunlight in the region while rest of world is warm, then will
likely get more snowfall.
Mike
On 11/1/09 5:50 PM, "Neil Farbstein" <pro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hi Mike and everyone else; I have thought of a possible method of
> keeping the arctic frozen to prevent melting of the ice pack. Cloud
> seeding can increase the size of the snow pack over places where
> methane and gigatons of carbon dioxide would otherwise be released by
> thawing of the permafrost. It is possible to thicken the ice covering
> the permafrost to prevent melting in the spring and lengthen the time
> that ice and snow cover the ground in the spring. The biggest problem
> will be coming up with funding to do it. Like all other geoengineering
> projects we should think about the consequences and side effects of
> cloud seeding on that scale.
> On Nov 1, 5:39Â pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> To me, SRM geoengineering is also blindingly obvious, though one has to
>> appreciate the risks in the Arctic, i.e. what we are up against.
>> Both types of geoengineering are blindingly obvious.
>> But you and I are agreed on this, aren't we?
>> Cheers,
>> John
>> ---
>> Peter Read wrote:There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be
>> significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that
>> want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
>> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
>> more so as to bring the level down.Â
>> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
>> with a flow of biofuel.
>> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
>> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
>> organization.
>> It's all so blindingly obvious
>> Peter
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:Mike MacCracken
>> To:John Nissen;David Keith
>> Cc:Climate Intervention;Geoengineering;Ken Caldeira;Julian Norman
>> Sent:Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
>> Subject:[geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>> Dear John‹A couple of comments:Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping
>> summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea
>> ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the
>> winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice
>> and radiated to space, making the ice thicker).On the issue of the paper just
>> dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009
>> and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World
>> Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which
>> I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper was
>> long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I
>> certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel
>> emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is
>> hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an
>> effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal
>> with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from
>> melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only
>> other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to
>> zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
>> forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my thoughts
>> on dealing with short-lived GHGs
>> athttp://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf >> Mike
>> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
>> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we
>> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how
>> should we approach it. Â He considers three problem areas:
>> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
>> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
>> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
>> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
>> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
>> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
>> methane and carbon feedbacks.
>> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
>> trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global
>> warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise.
>> Â The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process,
>> so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Â Do you agree, Mike?
>> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
>> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
>> papers seem rather irrelevant!
>> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with
>> SRM geoengineering. Â If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and
>> addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other
>> papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but
>> then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
>> Cheers from Chiswick,
>> John
>> ---
>> David Keith wrote:Â Â Â Â Â Â
>> Â Folks,There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
>> Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue.
>> More papers and a editorial will be added later....
1. There have been a bunch of hype-rich data-poor announcements recently
that confidently predict very early dates for disappearance of summer
sea ice. There is some good evidence that people are overinterpreting
interannual variability as signal. The following is quite painful: it
was the July 2009 compilation of forecasts every single one of which
overestimated the actual sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a figure with
the 2009 data added as an annotation. See the following for the original
report:
I am deeply concerned about the rapidity of change in the Arctic, indeed
unlike most people who talk about this I spent a fair amount of time
traveling on skis high Arctic, but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know
that uncertainty cuts both ways. I also am keenly aware that people tend
to interpret noise as signal when it goes the way they expect.
2. Several folks on this list talk about the ice-albedo feedback as if
it is not included in models. In fact this feedback is one of the
central reasons for the polar amplification of predicted global warming
and has been in models in various forms since the early 70s. In recent
years the big focus has been improving dynamic (including ocean
currents) sea ice models. Among the things typically not included are
the (very uncertain) effect of warming permafrost on methane emissions,
this is likely not a large omission as it's very hard to have methane
emissions large enough to significantly change radiative forcing over
half-century timescales.
3. It does appear that the IPCC underestimated the possibility of
large-scale loss of the big ice sheets, I have run an expert elicitation
(www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html) on the topic and our
compilation of expert judgments (almost all of whom were in IPCC) shows
that IPCC dramatically underestimated the risk.
4. One can make an argument that albedo geoengineering would be
particularly appropriate for the Arctic both for the obvious reason that
climate change impacts and responses are largest there, and because by
increasing reflectivity geoengineering would be nicely countering the
albedo feedback that decreases reflectivity.
-David
________________________________
From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk] Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
To: David Keith
Cc: climateintervention@googlegroups.com;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike
MacCracken
Subject: Re: [geo] ERL papers on line
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering.
If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain
problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of
ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude
weather;
3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of
sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient
to trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on
global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea
level rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming
amplification process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer
disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea
ice summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in
the other papers seem rather irrelevant!
Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed
with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean
acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then
the arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant
to the point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments were directed
at SRM geoengineering alone.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
---
David Keith wrote:
Folks,
There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special
issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been
receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle
climate change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen
this December. However, the field is controversial as the methods may
have unforeseen consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in
some regions or reducing rainfall, and many aspects remain
under-researched.
This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of
research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and
Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different
methods for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in
this issue highlight various methods of climate engineering but they
also detail the arguments for and against climate engineering as a
concept.
It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut
emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we
have made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping
CO2 into the air.
I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making
substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions
and you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with
transportation where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel
substitution. Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal
with CO2 capture, and (in the right locations) central-station solar
thermal could all be built today at costs that we in the rich world
could easily afford. (see enclosed).
Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New
England Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in
transaction costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much
money, and if I was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on
roofs), I think it's reasonable that one could completely decarbonized
the US electric power system in a few decades.
I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts
in the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't
claim any special ability to judge political outcomes.
It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse
technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
When someone like Peter Read (see below) says "there is no way
increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon" I
think he really means is that his political judgment is that the
commitment to doing so will not be made.
However when people and the political community hear technical people
say can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and
that is untrue and destructive.
It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut
emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the
scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we
decided not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in
effect, we cared more about current consumption than we did about
preserving our grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one
in which our civilization developed.
I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the
risk of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That
risk grows with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be
eliminated by emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
-David
________________________________
From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
Sent: November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
To: mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
Cc: Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed
any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the
lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a
bit more so as to bring the level down.
Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil
fuel with a flow of biofuel.
A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
organization.
Cc: Climate Intervention
<mailto:climateintervention@googlegroups.com> ; Geoengineering
<mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ; Ken Caldeira
<mailto:kcalde...@stanford.edu> ; Julian Norman
<mailto:Julian.Nor...@iop.org>
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
Dear John-A couple of comments:
1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea
ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice
around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the
winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea
ice and radiated to space, making the ice thicker). 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar
radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World
Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World
Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2,
which I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as
the paper was long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on
that area, but I certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as
global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and
then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2 from the
atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a significant
difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2 related issues
such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is going to take
geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other alternative is
really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero quickly as
their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in forcing due
to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my thoughts on
dealing with short-lived GHGs at http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
Mike
On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters,
David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for
geoengineering. If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle
certain problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem
areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more
intense tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated
melting of ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering
mid-latitude weather;
3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence
of sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming
sufficient to trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the
potential to trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive
feedback on global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger
rapid sea level rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the
warming amplification process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer
disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing
Arctic sea ice summer disappearance) makes the arguments against
geoengineering in the other papers seem rather irrelevant!
Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be
addressed with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as
ocean acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar,
then the arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem
irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments
were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
---
David Keith wrote:
Folks,
There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at
Environmental Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of
this special issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have
been receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to
tackle climate change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in
Copenhagen this December. However, the field is controversial as the
methods may have unforeseen consequences, potentially making
temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall, and many aspects
remain under-researched.
This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a
collection of research articles, invited by David Keith, University of
Calgary, and Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and
evaluate different methods for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only
do the letters in this issue highlight various methods of climate
engineering but they also detail the arguments for and against climate
engineering as a concept.
Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce
methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has
significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions.
Why not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries.
About the only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and
the like and rice crops.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut
> emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have
> made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into
> the air.
> I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making
> substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
> Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and
> you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation
> where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution.
> Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture,
> and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be
> built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see
> enclosed).
> Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England
> Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction
> costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I
> was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's
> reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power
> system in a few decades.
> I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in
> the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any
> special ability to judge political outcomes.
> It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse
> technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
> When someone like Peter Read (see below) says “there is no way increasing
> CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon” I think he really
> means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will
> not be made.
> However when people and the political community hear technical people say
> can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is
> untrue and destructive.
> It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut
> emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the
> scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided
> not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared
> more about current consumption than we did about preserving our
> grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our
> civilization developed.
> I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk
> of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows
> with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by
> emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
> -David
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] *On Behalf Of *Peter Read
> *Sent:* November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
> *To:* mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
> *Cc:* Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
> There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed
> any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle
> they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
> more so as to bring the level down.
> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
> with a flow of biofuel.
> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
> organization.
> *To:* John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> ; David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca>
> *Cc:* Climate Intervention <climateintervention@googlegroups.com> ;
> Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ; Ken Caldeira<kcalde...@stanford.edu>; Julian
> Norman <Julian.Nor...@iop.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
> Dear John—A couple of comments:
> 1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand
> in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
> actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held
> by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space,
> making the ice thicker).
> 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation
> management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report
> that I prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had
> a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential.
> This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and
> I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to
> keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward
> toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2
> from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a
> significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2
> related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is
> going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other
> alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero
> quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
> forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my
> thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at *
> http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf*
> Mike
> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If
> we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how
> should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of
> ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude
> weather;
> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> methane and carbon feedbacks.
> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
> trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on
> global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level
> rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification
> process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you
> agree, Mike?
> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the
> other papers seem rather irrelevant!
> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed
> with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean
> acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the
> arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the
> point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM
> geoengineering alone.
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> John
> ---
> David Keith wrote:
> Folks,
> There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
> Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special
> issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
> Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving
> much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change
> is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
> However, the field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen
> consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or
> reducing rainfall, and many aspects remain under-researched.
> This focus issue of *Environmental Research Letters* is a collection of
> research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken
> Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods
> for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
> highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the
> arguments for and against climate engineering as
It does snow in the arctic. I'm sure. I was thinking along the lines
of catching moisture when thew temperature is low enough to snow and
adding extra snow with cloud seeding. Whenever it snows there is
obviously moisture in the air. Basically I though we could make it
snow harder and longer during natural snowfalls.
On Nov 1, 7:53 pm, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> My guess would be that there is too little moisture in the cold air to make
> much snow--and clouds are generally low. The challenge is really getting
> more moisture into the Arctic--now, warming will do this, but then one gets
> rain instead of snow. If, as Caldeira and Wood calculations make clear, if
> you can reduce sunlight in the region while rest of world is warm, then will
> likely get more snowfall.
> Mike
> On 11/1/09 5:50 PM, "Neil Farbstein" <pro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Hi Mike and everyone else; I have thought of a possible method of
> > keeping the arctic frozen to prevent melting of the ice pack. Cloud
> > seeding can increase the size of the snow pack over places where
> > methane and gigatons of carbon dioxide would otherwise be released by
> > thawing of the permafrost. It is possible to thicken the ice covering
> > the permafrost to prevent melting in the spring and lengthen the time
> > that ice and snow cover the ground in the spring. The biggest problem
> > will be coming up with funding to do it. Like all other geoengineering
> > projects we should think about the consequences and side effects of
> > cloud seeding on that scale.
> > On Nov 1, 5:39Â pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >> To me, SRM geoengineering is also blindingly obvious, though one has to
> >> appreciate the risks in the Arctic, i.e. what we are up against.
> >> Both types of geoengineering are blindingly obvious.
> >> But you and I are agreed on this, aren't we?
> >> Cheers,
> >> John
> >> ---
> >> Peter Read wrote:There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be
> >> significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that
> >> want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
> >> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
> >> more so as to bring the level down.Â
> >> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
> >> with a flow of biofuel.
> >> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
> >> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
> >> organization.
> >> It's all so blindingly obvious
> >> Peter
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From:Mike MacCracken
> >> To:John Nissen;David Keith
> >> Cc:Climate Intervention;Geoengineering;Ken Caldeira;Julian Norman
> >> Sent:Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
> >> Subject:[geo] Re: ERL papers on line
> >> Dear John‹A couple of comments:Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping
> >> summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea
> >> ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the
> >> winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice
> >> and radiated to space, making the ice thicker).On the issue of the paper just
> >> dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009
> >> and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World
> >> Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which
> >> I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper was
> >> long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I
> >> certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel
> >> emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is
> >> hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an
> >> effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal
> >> with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from
> >> melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only
> >> other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to
> >> zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
> >> forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my thoughts
> >> on dealing with short-lived GHGs
> >> athttp://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf > >> Mike
> >> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> >> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we
> >> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how
> >> should we approach it. Â He considers three problem areas:
> >> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> >> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> >> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
> >> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> >> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> >> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> >> methane and carbon feedbacks.
> >> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
> >> trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global
> >> warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise.
> >> Â The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process,
> >> so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Â Do you agree, Mike?
> >> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> >> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
> >> papers seem rather irrelevant!
> >> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with
> >> SRM geoengineering. Â If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and
> >> addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other
> >> papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but
> >> then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
> >> Cheers from Chiswick,
> >> John
> >> ---
> >> David Keith wrote:Â Â Â Â Â Â
> >> Â Folks,There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
> >> Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue.
> >> More papers and a editorial will be added later....
> >> read more »
> >> Â image_gif_part
> >> < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
Ice cover is not the only issue--ice thickness also matters for it takes an
extensive, pretty solid (i.e., very small or no leads) ice cover about a
meter thick or more (with a bit of snow on top) to insulate the winter
atmosphere from the ocean and allow ice surface temperatures to drop down to
-40 or lower so that the really cold winter air masses that create the
winter weather that we have depended on can form.
Best, Mike
On 11/2/09 10:08 AM, "David Keith" <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> 1. There have been a bunch of hype-rich data-poor announcements recently that
> confidently predict very early dates for disappearance of summer sea ice.
> There is some good evidence that people are overinterpreting interannual
> variability as signal. The following is quite painful: it was the July 2009
> compilation of forecasts every single one of which overestimated the actual
> sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a figure with the 2009 data added as an
> annotation. See the following for the original report:
> I am deeply concerned about the rapidity of change in the Arctic, indeed
> unlike most people who talk about this I spent a fair amount of time traveling
> on skis high Arctic, but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know that uncertainty
> cuts both ways. I also am keenly aware that people tend to interpret noise as
> signal when it goes the way they expect.
> 2. Several folks on this list talk about the ice-albedo feedback as if it is
> not included in models. In fact this feedback is one of the central reasons
> for the polar amplification of predicted global warming and has been in models
> in various forms since the early 70s. In recent years the big focus has been
> improving dynamic (including ocean currents) sea ice models. Among the things
> typically not included are the (very uncertain) effect of warming permafrost
> on methane emissions, this is likely not a large omission as it's very hard to
> have methane emissions large enough to significantly change radiative forcing
> over half-century timescales.
> 3. It does appear that the IPCC underestimated the possibility of large-scale
> loss of the big ice sheets, I have run an expert elicitation
> (www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html > <http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html> ) on the topic and our
> compilation of expert judgments (almost all of whom were in IPCC) shows that
> IPCC dramatically underestimated the risk.
> 4. One can make an argument that albedo geoengineering would be particularly
> appropriate for the Arctic both for the obvious reason that climate change
> impacts and responses are largest there, and because by increasing
> reflectivity geoengineering would be nicely countering the albedo feedback
> that decreases reflectivity.
> -David
> From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
> Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
> To: David Keith
> Cc: climateintervention@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken
> Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike MacCracken
> Subject: Re: [geo] ERL papers on line
> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we
> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should
> we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> methane and carbon feedbacks.
> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger
> massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming)
> of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise. The retreat
> of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is
> crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
> papers seem rather irrelevant!
> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with
> SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and
> addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other
> papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but
> then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> John
> ---
> David Keith wrote:
> Folks,
> There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research
> Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More
> papers and a editorial will be added later.
> Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving
> much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change is
> not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However, the
> field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences,
> potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall, and
> many aspects remain under-researched.
> This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of research
> articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken Caldeira,
> Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods for
> engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
> highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the
> arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
I would like to draw also attention to terrestrial snow cover. Snow has increased due to less ice covered Arctic Ocean during the summers and autumn. This insulates air more from the ground. On the other hand, the amount of ground heat has increased as the soil beneath snow is warmer than in the past. The warmed grounds radiate, put out more heat, during the cold winter time where the snow coverage remains average thickeness.
Thermal inertia of soil may be less than that of sea water and there is certainly little mixing, but some areas have active ground water that may produce variable heat output. Both the thickeness and area have increased, but so has the volatility of snow. The record Northern Hemisphere snow cover of February 2008 was quickly followed by record melts.
As per the above, the terrestrial variability has become greater, more chaotic due to multiple variables having a greater say to the stability of the snow cover. The microbial activities have also kicked in a positive feedback in soil heat budget in some areas where a tipping point in this respect has been reached, the decay releasing also heat in systems.
> Ice cover is not the only issue--ice thickness also matters for it takes an
> extensive, pretty solid (i.e., very small or no leads) ice cover about a
> meter thick or more (with a bit of snow on top) to insulate the winter
> atmosphere from the ocean and allow ice surface temperatures to drop down to
> -40 or lower so that the really cold winter air masses that create the
> winter weather that we have depended on can form.
> Best, Mike
> On 11/2/09 10:08 AM, "David Keith" <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> > A couple of points on sea ice:
> > 1. There have been a bunch of hype-rich data-poor announcements recently that
> > confidently predict very early dates for disappearance of summer sea ice.
> > There is some good evidence that people are overinterpreting interannual
> > variability as signal. The following is quite painful: it was the July 2009
> > compilation of forecasts every single one of which overestimated the actual
> > sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a figure with the 2009 data added as an
> > annotation. See the following for the original report:
> > I am deeply concerned about the rapidity of change in the Arctic, indeed
> > unlike most people who talk about this I spent a fair amount of time traveling
> > on skis high Arctic, but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know that uncertainty
> > cuts both ways. I also am keenly aware that people tend to interpret noise as
> > signal when it goes the way they expect.
> > 2. Several folks on this list talk about the ice-albedo feedback as if it is
> > not included in models. In fact this feedback is one of the central reasons
> > for the polar amplification of predicted global warming and has been in models
> > in various forms since the early 70s. In recent years the big focus has been
> > improving dynamic (including ocean currents) sea ice models. Among the things
> > typically not included are the (very uncertain) effect of warming permafrost
> > on methane emissions, this is likely not a large omission as it's very hard to
> > have methane emissions large enough to significantly change radiative forcing
> > over half-century timescales.
> > 3. It does appear that the IPCC underestimated the possibility of large-scale
> > loss of the big ice sheets, I have run an expert elicitation
> > (www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html > > <http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html> ) on the topic and our
> > compilation of expert judgments (almost all of whom were in IPCC) shows that
> > IPCC dramatically underestimated the risk.
> > 4. One can make an argument that albedo geoengineering would be particularly
> > appropriate for the Arctic both for the obvious reason that climate change
> > impacts and responses are largest there, and because by increasing
> > reflectivity geoengineering would be nicely countering the albedo feedback
> > that decreases reflectivity.
> > -David
> > From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
> > Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
> > To: David Keith
> > Cc: climateintervention@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken
> > Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike MacCracken
> > Subject: Re: [geo] ERL papers on line
> > Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> > Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we
> > are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should
> > we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
> > 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> > tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> > 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
> > that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> > 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> > aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> > methane and carbon feedbacks.
> > I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger
> > massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming)
> > of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise. The retreat
> > of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is
> > crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
> > If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> > summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
> > papers seem rather irrelevant!
> > Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with
> > SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and
> > addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other
> > papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but
> > then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
> > Cheers from Chiswick,
> > John
> > ---
> > David Keith wrote:
> > Folks,
> > There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research
> > Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More
> > papers and a editorial will be added later.
> > Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving
> > much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change is
> > not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However, the
> > field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences,
> > potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall, and
> > many aspects remain under-researched.
> > This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of research
> > articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken Caldeira,
> > Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods for
> > engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
> > highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the
> > arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
Thank you, David, for your thoughtful reply and the excellent points
you make, which culminate in an acknowledgement of the argument for
albedo geoengineering to save the Arctic sea ice, as I have been
proposing. Your support is most welcome.
Re your point 1, the proposal does not assume a particular estimate for
date of disappearance of Arctic sea ice. There are two arguments
here. The first is that it better to apply the geoengineering before
the positive feedback grows any stronger. (As Mike puts it, it is
better to put out a small fire rather than wait until the whole
building is aflame.) The second argument is to take the precautionary
principle, and consider the soonest time for disappearance within the
possible range of times. Here the very uncertainty that you highlight
is giving us a significant probability of ice summer disappearance
within a few years, even if the most likely date (aka median date) may
be a few decades away.
Re point 2 and the models, the typical models give a "climate
sensitivity" factor, which is essentially linear and assumes tipping
points are not reached. However, with the Arctic sea ice we may be
seeing tipping already in progress, due to non-linear effects and
positive feedbacks which are notoriously difficult to model.
Furthermore, the Arctic sea ice may never have totally disappeared in
any interglacial period of the past 2 million years; and the maximum
temperature of recent interglacial periods will soon be exceeded. So
we are moving into uncharted waters. Thus the assumption that global
warming will proceed linearly with CO2 (i.e. with constant climate
sensitivity factor) seems debatable. Therefore there is all the more
reason to try and save the Arctic sea ice.
Re point 2 and the methane, again one could argue for a precautionary
approach. Some scientist estimate that there is enough methane to more
than double GHG forcing if it were released. Halting the Arctic
warming would greatly reduce the risk.
Re point 3, it is good to see that experts from IPCC now acknowledge
that they grossly underestimated the risk of dramatic sea level rise
from Greenland ice sheet instability. That seems as good a reason as
any for urgent albedo geoengineering.
From your point 4, you do seem to be supportive of the
proposal for albedo geoengineering to try and save the Arctic sea ice.
As you say, it seems sensible to counter an albedo reduction (as ice
turns to water) with an
albedo gain (through SRM geoengineering).
Best wishes,
John
--
David Keith wrote:
A couple of
points on sea ice:
1. There
have been a bunch of hype-rich
data-poor announcements recently that confidently predict very early
dates for
disappearance of summer sea ice. There is some good evidence that
people are
overinterpreting interannual variability as signal. The following is
quite
painful: it was the July 2009 compilation of forecasts every single one
of
which overestimated the actual sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a
figure with
the 2009 data added as an annotation. See the following for the
original
report:
I am deeply
concerned about the rapidity
of change in the Arctic, indeed unlike most people who talk about this
I spent
a fair amount of time traveling on skis high Arctic,
but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know that uncertainty cuts both
ways. I
also am keenly aware that people tend to interpret noise as signal when
it goes
the way they expect.
2. Several
folks on this list talk about
the ice-albedo feedback as if it is not included in models. In fact
this
feedback is one of the central reasons for the polar amplification of
predicted
global warming and has been in models in various forms since the early
70s. In
recent years the big focus has been improving dynamic (including ocean
currents) sea ice models. Among the things typically not included are
the (very
uncertain) effect of warming permafrost on methane emissions, this is
likely
not a large omission as it's very hard to have methane emissions large
enough
to significantly change radiative forcing over half-century timescales.
3. It does
appear that the IPCC
underestimated the possibility of large-scale loss of the big ice
sheets, I
have run an expert
Re: [geo] ERL papers on linePPS I don't seem to have access to Climate Intervention - maybe the moderator would kindly relay this message to that list
Hi David
Re "One paper that compares the two is Frank S. Zeman and David W. Keith (2008). Carbon Neutral Hydrocarbons. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A), 366: 3901-3918, see #103 on the link above." I have now read this with interest and not a little admiration.
However, in reaching its conclusion that the costs of carbon neutral fuels are little different whether the CO2 is captured biologically or mechanically I feel that certain factors were left out of account
1 The Econ 101 principle of comparative advantage is overlooked, with the assumption that biomass would be produced in North America where labour and land are both costly and climatic conditions worse than in low latitude regions. I would cut biomass costs by 75 per cent
2 Almost all major manufacturers supply flexifuel versions which enable smooth transition from gasoline to ethanol, or any mixture, to be easily achieved and removing the technical hurdle for bio-ethanol suggested in the second paragraph
3 There is no particular advantage for a sequestering lifetime of 1e8 years versus 1e3 years for biochar. If we get through the next 100 years our grandchildren will fix residual problems
4 Under 2(b) on biomass systems it is not noted that the risks are even handed -- while competition with food for land would be envisaged by Malthusians, most of us working in the field envisage synergy between the production of food and biofuel and between the production of biofuel and conventional harvested wood products.
5 Although it is noted in the same section that estimates of biomass costs vary widely, all the figures mentioned relate to regions of North America that have no comparative advantage in its production
6 Searchinger's results mentioned in the following paragraph regarding indirect effects have been substantially discredited as reliant on extreme assumptions. He himself has implicitly recanted through his co-authorship of a recent Tilman et al article in Science that distinguishes btween bioenergy "done right" and bioenergy "done wrong".
7 In section 2(c), the liquid fuel product of cellulosic conversion should be taken with the use of ligneous residues as fuel for electric power that makes such systems energy self-sufficient as in Brazilian ethanol production; or alternatively as raw material for biogas with final return of digested biomass residuals to the soil for maintenance of soil organic matter
8 In section 3(a) it is neglected that the use of gasoline entails the co-production of heating fuel oils owing to issues of refinery balance. Since nobody extracts crude for any reason other than high value transportation fuel fractions, indirect emissions from fuel oil use should be added to the direct emissions from transportation fuels
9 In section 4, non-economic considerations, the potential for synergy between food and fuel, the disregard of flexifuel, and repeat reference to Searchinger's unreliable results give a biassed overall impression.
10 However, I am glad to see that carbon accrual through reforestation is noted in your paper as absent from both his and Fargione's papers. As noted in my previous message the rotation period involved in commercial forestry enable inter-temporal separation of (on average for, say, a 20 year rotation) a decade, between biological absorption and heavy expenditures on CCS, thus cutting costs of bio-based negative emission systems by about 40 per cent on a d.c.f. basis.
Correction of your published results to allow for the aspects mentioned above would, I trust you agree, leave bioenergy based systems a clear technological winner, as implied by my previous, perhaps overly bald, remark about the blindingly obvious.
Cheers
Peter
PS I entirely agree with your comment on the need to separate factual material from opinion. But I trust you accept that my comment was based on the reality of 5 billion people living in under developed conditions.
----- Original Message ----- From: David Keith To: Peter Read ; mmacc...@comcast.net ; John Nissen
Cc: Climate Intervention ; Geoengineering ; Ken Caldeira ; Julian Norman Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:27 AM
Subject: [geo] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL thread plus Ken's bet)
It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into the air.
I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution. Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture, and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see enclosed).
Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power system in a few decades.
I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any special ability to judge political outcomes.
It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
When someone like Peter Read (see below) says "there is no way increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon" I think he really means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will not be made.
However when people and the political community hear technical people say can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is untrue and destructive.
It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared more about current consumption than we did about preserving our grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our civilization developed.
I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
Sent: November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
To: mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
Cc: Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit more so as to bring the level down.
Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel with a flow of biofuel.
A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of organization.
It's all so blindingly obvious
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike MacCracken
To: John Nissen ; David Keith
Cc: Climate Intervention ; Geoengineering ; Ken Caldeira ; Julian Norman
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
Dear John-A couple of comments:
1.. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space, making the ice thicker). 2.. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the
The one point where we disagree is about how climate sensitivity is
introduced into models. There is no "knob" for climate sensitivity in a
GCM. There are many processes which are strongly nonlinear from the
initiation of convection to parameterizations of sea ice and snow
reflectivity. Climate sensitivity is the way we talk about (and measure)
the overall response of the model to perturbations such as changes in
CO2 or insolation. This is not a claim that models get it all right or
that they have the sensitivity right. But it's wrong to say that models
don't have the nonlinearities you described. They do, and they have for
decades. It may be that they don't have them in the right way or the
overall sensitivity is too high, on the other hand it may be the over
all sensitivity is too low.
While it's clear that there are many relatively sharp "tipping points"
when it comes to particular climate impacts (e.g., the temperature and
precipitation regime at which a particular species of tree does or does
not thrive, or the conditions that make and I sheet grow or shrink), but
there is substantial evidence that the climate system as a whole both in
reality and in models response relatively linearly to perturbations and
that it may be that very strong nonlinearities "tipping points" are not
particularly important in understanding the risks of climate change at
large-scale. Obviously this is a point on which people have different
views, but there many people in the core the climate modeling community
who would share the view I just gave despite the hype about "tipping
points".
The most important tipping point seems to involve the North Atlantic
overturning circulation, and that may have had something to do with
mediating the instabilities between glacial interglacial states, however
it is less reason to believe that this instability will operate between
the current climate and warmer climates. We had this conversation the
MIT meeting and Dave Battisti expressed exactly this view.
This is not in any way to minimize climate risks, the simple fact of
very large uncertainty in the overall climate sensitivity combined with
the uncertainties in nonlinearities in many of the impacts means that
there is a significant chance of dramatic even for some of us
"catastrophic" climate impacts with the current CO2 trajectory. It's
just a statement that you don't need to overdo the idea of tipping
points to see this.
Yours,
David
________________________________
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: November 2, 2009 4:10 PM
To: David Keith
Cc: climateintervention@googlegroups.com;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike
MacCracken
Subject: [geo] Re: Sea ice: beware of hype, uncertainty cut's both ways
Thank you, David, for your thoughtful reply and the excellent points you
make, which culminate in an acknowledgement of the argument for albedo
geoengineering to save the Arctic sea ice, as I have been proposing.
Your support is most welcome.
Re your point 1, the proposal does not assume a particular estimate for
date of disappearance of Arctic sea ice. There are two arguments here.
The first is that it better to apply the geoengineering before the
positive feedback grows any stronger. (As Mike puts it, it is better to
put out a small fire rather than wait until the whole building is
aflame.) The second argument is to take the precautionary principle,
and consider the soonest time for disappearance within the possible
range of times. Here the very uncertainty that you highlight is giving
us a significant probability of ice summer disappearance within a few
years, even if the most likely date (aka median date) may be a few
decades away.
Re point 2 and the models, the typical models give a "climate
sensitivity" factor, which is essentially linear and assumes tipping
points are not reached. However, with the Arctic sea ice we may be
seeing tipping already in progress, due to non-linear effects and
positive feedbacks which are notoriously difficult to model.
Furthermore, the Arctic sea ice may never have totally disappeared in
any interglacial period of the past 2 million years; and the maximum
temperature of recent interglacial periods will soon be exceeded. So
we are moving into uncharted waters. Thus the assumption that global
warming will proceed linearly with CO2 (i.e. with constant climate
sensitivity factor) seems debatable. Therefore there is all the more
reason to try and save the Arctic sea ice.
Re point 2 and the methane, again one could argue for a precautionary
approach. Some scientist estimate that there is enough methane to more
than double GHG forcing if it were released. Halting the Arctic warming
would greatly reduce the risk.
Re point 3, it is good to see that experts from IPCC now acknowledge
that they grossly underestimated the risk of dramatic sea level rise
from Greenland ice sheet instability. That seems as good a reason as
any for urgent albedo geoengineering.
From your point 4, you do seem to be supportive of the proposal for
albedo geoengineering to try and save the Arctic sea ice. As you say,
it seems sensible to counter an albedo reduction (as ice turns to water)
with an albedo gain (through SRM geoengineering).
Best wishes,
John
--
David Keith wrote:
A couple of points on sea ice:
1. There have been a bunch of hype-rich data-poor announcements recently
that confidently predict very early dates for disappearance of summer
sea ice. There is some good evidence that people are overinterpreting
interannual variability as signal. The following is quite painful: it
was the July 2009 compilation of forecasts every single one of which
overestimated the actual sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a figure with
the 2009 data added as an annotation. See the following for the original
report:
I am deeply concerned about the rapidity of change in the Arctic, indeed
unlike most people who talk about this I spent a fair amount of time
traveling on skis high Arctic, but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know
that uncertainty cuts both ways. I also am keenly aware that people tend
to interpret noise as signal when it goes the way they expect.
2. Several folks on this list talk about the ice-albedo feedback as if
it is not included in models. In fact this feedback is one of the
central reasons for the polar amplification of predicted global warming
and has been in models in various forms since the early 70s. In recent
years the big focus has been improving dynamic (including ocean
currents) sea ice models. Among the things typically not included are
the (very uncertain) effect of warming permafrost on methane emissions,
this is likely not a large omission as it's very hard to have methane
emissions large enough to significantly change radiative forcing over
half-century timescales.
3. It does appear that the IPCC underestimated the possibility of
large-scale loss of the big ice sheets, I have run an expert elicitation
(www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html <http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Ekeith/elicitation.html> ) on the topic and
our compilation of expert judgments (almost all of whom were in IPCC)
shows that IPCC dramatically underestimated the risk.
4. One can make an argument that albedo geoengineering would be
particularly appropriate for the Arctic both for the obvious reason that
climate change impacts and responses are largest there, and because by
increasing reflectivity geoengineering would be nicely countering the
albedo feedback that decreases reflectivity.
-David
________________________________
From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk] Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
To: David Keith
Cc: climateintervention@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike
MacCracken
Subject: Re: [geo] ERL papers on line
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering.
If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain
problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of
ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude
weather;
3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of
sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient
to trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on
global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea
level rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming
amplification process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer
disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea
ice summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in
the other papers seem rather irrelevant!
Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed
with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean
acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then
the arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant
to the point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments were
...
We would like to suggest Diatom Algae as the best geoengineering
solution.
We have been using Diatom Algae to solve various problems in the past
5 years.
Diatom Algae are the most useful of all Phytoplankton and the least
problematic.
In fresh water lakes and rivers they increase Dissolved Oxygen level
and provide food for fish.
In Oceans they could directly sequester huge amounts of CO2 on the
ocean bed and in the bones of fish.
Ocean fertilization has been discussed and experimented with over the
past 2 decades.
An excellent summary of the 12 expeditions of Ocean Iron Fertilization
is available at - www.cbd.int/marine/doc/scientific-synthesis-marine-peerreview-en.doc This is a draft paper.
All the expeditions have been lacking in one aspect, they have not
targeted any specific group of Algae and instead have targeted all
Phytoplankton.
Targeting Diatom Algae will give the best results.
Mr T Sampath Kumar worked on a means of causing a bloom of Diatoms for
10 years from 1994 to 2004 and perfected a solution to achieve this -
a nano silica based powder that contains all the micro nutrients
required by Diatom Algae.
This has been used in aquaculture ponds and lakes for past 5 years and
we are now sure of the performance and that there are no side effects
or other problems.
> There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
> Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special
> issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
> Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been
> receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle
> climate change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen
> this December. However, the field is controversial as the methods may
> have unforeseen consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in
> some regions or reducing rainfall, and many aspects remain
> under-researched.
> This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of
> research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and
> Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different
> methods for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in
> this issue highlight various methods of climate engineering but they
> also detail the arguments for and against climate engineering as a
> concept.
I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of
methane are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates.
These cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is
likely to increase as feedback effects kick in.
Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill,
etc, is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in
the long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere,
the sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning'
mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our
undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a
charging lion running straight for us.
> Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce
> methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has
> significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions.
> Why not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries.
> About the only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and
> the like and rice crops.
> David Schnare
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut
>> emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have
>> made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into
>> the air.
>> I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making
>> substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
>> Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions
>> and you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation
>> where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution.
>> Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture,
>> and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be
>> built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see
>> enclosed).
>> Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England
>> Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction
>> costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I
>> was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's
>> reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power
>> system in a few decades.
>> I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts
>> in the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim
>> any special ability to judge political outcomes.
>> It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse
>> technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
>> When someone like Peter Read (see below) says “there is no way increasing
>> CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon” I think he really
>> means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will
>> not be made.
>> However when people and the political community hear technical people say
>> can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is
>> untrue and destructive.
>> It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut
>> emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the
>> scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided
>> not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared
>> more about current consumption than we did about preserving our
>> grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our
>> civilization developed.
>> I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the
>> risk of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk
>> grows with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by
>> emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
>> -David
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] *On Behalf Of *Peter Read
>> *Sent:* November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
>> *To:* mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
>> *Cc:* Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>> There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed
>> any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle
>> they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
>> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a
>> bit more so as to bring the level down.
>> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
>> with a flow of biofuel.
>> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
>> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
>> organization.
>> *To:* John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> ; David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca>
>> *Cc:* Climate Intervention <climateintervention@googlegroups.com> ;
>> Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ; Ken Caldeira<kcalde...@stanford.edu>; Julian
>> Norman <Julian.Nor...@iop.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
>> *Subject:* [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>> Dear John—A couple of comments:
>> 1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand
>> in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
>> actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held
>> by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space,
>> making the ice thicker).
>> 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation
>> management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report
>> that I prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had
>> a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential.
>> This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and
>> I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to
>> keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward
>> toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2
>> from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a
>> significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2
>> related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is
>> going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other
>> alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero
>> quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
>> forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my
>> thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at *
>> http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf*
>> Mike
>> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
>> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If
>> we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how
>> should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
>> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
>> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
>> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of
>> ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude
>> weather;
>> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of
>> sulphate aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to
>> trigger methane and carbon feedbacks.
>> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
>> trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on
>> global warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level
>> rise. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification
>> process, so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you
>> agree, Mike?
>> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
>> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the
>> other papers seem rather irrelevant!
>> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed
>> with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean
>> acidification, and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the
>> arguments in the other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the
>> point of absurdity - but then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM
>> geoengineering alone.
>> Cheers from Chiswick,
>> John
>> ---
>> David Keith wrote:
>> Folks,
>> There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
>> Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special
>> issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.
On methane limitation, remember that human sources have elevated the methane
concentration to near 1800 ppb from its preindustrial value of about 1000
ppb less, so there is potentially a lot that can be done to bring the
elevated methane concentration back down, and it would have a very large
climatic influence. As far as human sources, in the US the EPA inventory
gives, as I recall, roughly the following source categories:
1. About 25-30% from fossil fuels‹and if we are going to phase these out, we
should be able to get this down a good deal;
2. Another 25-30% from landfills and sewage treatment, etc.--and we know how
to reduce these emissions
3. Something like 30-35% from agriculture‹and these can be partly
controlled. In fact there are already efforts underway to suck in and
separate the methane out in cattle feeding lots in California (and this can
be done in barns as well) and use the methane for power (right now through
combustion engines that emit NOx which troubles air pollution district
officials) but perhaps soon into fuel cells.
Other nations have different mixes, but also a lot of opportunities to
reduce methane and we should do all that we can‹and whatever we can do will
help keep temperatures down so help to slow the increase in emissions from
thawing permafrost.
Related to this, we also need to aggressively reduce emissions of black
carbon and precursors to tropospheric ozone because those as well will bring
down atmospheric concentrations forcing noticeably and quickly. In fact, the
21st century emissions of CO2 provide only about half of the 21st century
warming influence of the emissions of all GHGs (i.e., methane and
tropospheric ozone are the other most critical ones‹then halocarbons and
N2O), so we simply must go after all GHGs aggressively.
Limiting Arctic warming would help keep natural emissions from going up, but
with humans causing an increase of about 1000 ppb, there is plenty of
potential to do better.
Mike
On 11/14/09 9:33 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of methane
> are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates. These
> cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is likely
> to increase as feedback effects kick in.
> Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill, etc,
> is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in the
> long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere, the
> sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning'
> mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our
> undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a
> charging lion running straight for us.
> A
> 2009/11/2 David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>
>> Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce
>> methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has
>> significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions. Why
>> not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries. About the
>> only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and the like
>> and rice crops.
>>
>> David Schnare
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>> It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut emissions
>>> is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have made to
>>> ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into the air.
>>>
>>> I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making
>>> substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
>>>
>>> Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and
>>> you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation
>>> where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution.
>>> Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture,
>>> and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be
>>> built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see
>>> enclosed).
>>>
>>> Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England
>>> Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction
>>> costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I
>>> was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's
>>> reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power
>>> system in a few decades.
>>>
>>> I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in
>>> the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any
>>> special ability to judge political outcomes.
>>>
>>> It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse
>>> technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
>>>
>>> When someone like Peter Read (see below) says ³there is no way increasing
>>> CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon² I think he really
>>> means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will
>>> not be made.
>>>
>>> However when people and the political community hear technical people say
>>> can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is
>>> untrue and destructive.
>>>
>>> It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut
>>> emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the
>>> scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided
>>> not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared
>>> more about current consumption than we did about preserving our
>>> grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our
>>> civilization developed.
>>>
>>> I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk
>>> of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows
>>> with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by
>>> emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
>>> Sent: November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
>>> To: mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
>>> Cc: Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
>>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>>>
>>> There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any
>>> time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they
>>> see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
>>> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
>>> more so as to bring the level down.
>>> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
>>> with a flow of biofuel.
>>> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
>>> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
>>> organization.
>>> It's all so blindingly obvious
>>> Peter
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Mike MacCracken <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>
>>>> To: John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk> ; David Keith
>>>> <mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca>
>>>> Cc: Climate Intervention <mailto:climateintervention@googlegroups.com> ;
>>>> Geoengineering <mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ; Ken Caldeira
>>>> <mailto:kcalde...@stanford.edu> ; Julian Norman
>>>> <mailto:Julian.Nor...@iop.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
>>>> Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>>>>
>>>> Dear John‹A couple of comments:
>>>> 1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in
>>>> hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
>>>> actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held
>>>> by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space,
>>>> making the ice thicker).
>>>> 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management,
>>>> my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I
>>>> prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a
>>>> fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential.
>>>> This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was
>>>> and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want
>>>> to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading
>>>> upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how
>>>> pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to
>>>> make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with
>>>> CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting
>>>> is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other
>>>> alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero
>>>> quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
>>>> forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my
>>>> thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at
>>>> http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
>>>> Mike
>>>> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk
Very insightful and this is all very interesting; but there are a few minor issues; who is WE, who decides and approves, and where does the funding to do these necessary things come from? -gene
From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:01 PM
To: Andrew Lockley; dwschn...@gmail.com
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL thread plus Ken's bet)
On methane limitation, remember that human sources have elevated the methane concentration to near 1800 ppb from its preindustrial value of about 1000 ppb less, so there is potentially a lot that can be done to bring the elevated methane concentration back down, and it would have a very large climatic influence. As far as human sources, in the US the EPA inventory gives, as I recall, roughly the following source categories:
1. About 25-30% from fossil fuels—and if we are going to phase these out, we should be able to get this down a good deal; 2. Another 25-30% from landfills and sewage treatment, etc.--and we know how to reduce these emissions 3. Something like 30-35% from agriculture—and these can be partly controlled. In fact there are already efforts underway to suck in and separate the methane out in cattle feeding lots in California (and this can be done in barns as well) and use the methane for power (right now through combustion engines that emit NOx which troubles air pollution district officials) but perhaps soon into fuel cells.
Other nations have different mixes, but also a lot of opportunities to reduce methane and we should do all that we can—and whatever we can do will help keep temperatures down so help to slow the increase in emissions from thawing permafrost.
Related to this, we also need to aggressively reduce emissions of black carbon and precursors to tropospheric ozone because those as well will bring down atmospheric concentrations forcing noticeably and quickly. In fact, the 21st century emissions of CO2 provide only about half of the 21st century warming influence of the emissions of all GHGs (i.e., methane and tropospheric ozone are the other most critical ones—then halocarbons and N2O), so we simply must go after all GHGs aggressively.
Limiting Arctic warming would help keep natural emissions from going up, but with humans causing an increase of about 1000 ppb, there is plenty of potential to do better.
Mike
On 11/14/09 9:33 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
David,
I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of methane are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates. These cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is likely to increase as feedback effects kick in.
Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill, etc, is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in the long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere, the sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning' mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a charging lion running straight for us.
Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions. Why not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries. About the only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and the like and rice crops.
David Schnare
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into the air.
I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution. Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture, and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see enclosed).
Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power system in a few decades.
I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any special ability to judge political outcomes.
It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
When someone like Peter Read (see below) says “there is no way increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon” I think he really means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will not be made.
However when people and the political community hear technical people say can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is untrue and destructive.
It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared more about current consumption than we did about preserving our grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our civilization developed.
I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
-David
_____
From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
Sent: November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
To: mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
Cc: Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they see2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit more so as to bring the level down.
Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel with a flow of biofuel.
A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of organization.
From: Mike MacCracken <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>
To: John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk> ; David Keith <mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca>
Cc: Climate Intervention <mailto:climateintervention@googlegroups.com> ; Geoengineering <mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ; Ken Caldeira <mailto:kcalde...@stanford.edu> ; Julian Norman <mailto:Julian.Nor...@iop.org>
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
Dear John—A couple of comments:
1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space, making the ice thicker). 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
Mike
On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk <http:/...@cloudworld.co.uk> > wrote:
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which
First, in US, cutting methane is not expensive, and can pretty readily make
money in some situations‹which is why a lot is getting done. We just need
more stimulus.
More stimulus would start with a price on carbon‹even with the 100-year GWP
of methane being something like 22 (or higher if Shindell et al findings are
included). Given how important methane is for this century, one might even
use the 20 year GWP of 75, although we really also need to get CO2 emissions
down, so maybe one trades it off versus the non-CO2 shorter-lived GHGs (so
ozone precursors) and soot. And then add severe penalties for any new
methane emissions‹that is require a methane offset times 5 or something.
Mike
On 11/14/09 5:10 PM, "eSubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
<euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Very insightful and this is all very interesting; but there are a few minor
> issues; who is WE, who decides and approves, and where does the funding to do
> these necessary things come from? -gene
> From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:01 PM
> To: Andrew Lockley; dwschn...@gmail.com
> Cc: Geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL
> thread plus Ken's bet)
> On methane limitation, remember that human sources have elevated the methane
> concentration to near 1800 ppb from its preindustrial value of about 1000 ppb
> less, so there is potentially a lot that can be done to bring the elevated
> methane concentration back down, and it would have a very large climatic
> influence. As far as human sources, in the US the EPA inventory gives, as I
> recall, roughly the following source categories:
> 1. About 25-30% from fossil fuels‹and if we are going to phase these out, we
> should be able to get this down a good deal;
> 2. Another 25-30% from landfills and sewage treatment, etc.--and we know how
> to reduce these emissions
> 3. Something like 30-35% from agriculture‹and these can be partly controlled.
> In fact there are already efforts underway to suck in and separate the methane
> out in cattle feeding lots in California (and this can be done in barns as
> well) and use the methane for power (right now through combustion engines that
> emit NOx which troubles air pollution district officials) but perhaps soon
> into fuel cells.
> Other nations have different mixes, but also a lot of opportunities to reduce
> methane and we should do all that we can‹and whatever we can do will help keep
> temperatures down so help to slow the increase in emissions from thawing
> permafrost.
> Related to this, we also need to aggressively reduce emissions of black carbon
> and precursors to tropospheric ozone because those as well will bring down
> atmospheric concentrations forcing noticeably and quickly. In fact, the 21st
> century emissions of CO2 provide only about half of the 21st century warming
> influence of the emissions of all GHGs (i.e., methane and tropospheric ozone
> are the other most critical ones‹then halocarbons and N2O), so we simply must
> go after all GHGs aggressively.
> Limiting Arctic warming would help keep natural emissions from going up, but
> with humans causing an increase of about 1000 ppb, there is plenty of
> potential to do better.
> I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of methane
> are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates. These
> cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is likely
> to increase as feedback effects kick in.
> Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill, etc,
> is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in the
> long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere, the
> sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning'
> mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our
> undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a
> charging lion running straight for us.
> A
> 2009/11/2 David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>
> Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce
> methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has
> significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions. Why
> not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries. About the
> only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and the like and
> rice crops.
> David Schnare
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut emissions
> is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have made to
> ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into the air.
> I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making substantial
> reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
> Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and
> you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation where
> we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution. Large-scale
> wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture, and (in the
> right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be built today at
> costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see enclosed).
> Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England
> Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction costs
> in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I was free
> to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's reasonable
> that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power system in a few
> decades.
> I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in
> the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any
> special ability to judge political outcomes.
> It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse
> technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
> When someone like Peter Read (see below) says ³there is no way increasing CO2
> emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon² I think he really means
> is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will not be
> made.
> However when people and the political community hear technical people say
> can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is
> untrue and destructive.
> It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut
> emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the scientific
> warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided not to. It was
> a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared more about
> current consumption than we did about preserving our grandchildren's chances
> to enjoy a climate like the one in which our civilization developed.
> I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk of
> dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows with
> every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by emissions cuts
> even if we cut emissions to zero today.
> -David
> From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
> Sent: November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
> To: mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
> Cc: Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
> There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any
> time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they
> see2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
> more so as to bring the level down.
> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel with
> a flow of biofuel.
> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
> organization.
> It's all so blindingly obvious
> Peter
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Mike MacCracken <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>
>> To: John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk> ; David Keith
>> <mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca>
>> Cc: Climate Intervention <mailto:climateintervention@googlegroups.com> ;
>> Geoengineering <mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ; Ken Caldeira
>> <mailto:kcalde...@stanford.edu> ; Julian Norman
>> <mailto:Julian.Nor...@iop.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
>> Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>> Dear John‹A couple of comments:
>> 1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in
>> hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
>> actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held by
>> the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space,
>> making the ice thicker).
>> 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management, my
>> talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I prepared on
>> geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a fourth category
>> devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential. This was not
>> covered in the paper as
Look at it this way. If methane mitigation makes the mitigator money, then
the mitigator is the "we". We would need no stimulus - profit being
sufficient.
d.
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>wrote:
> First, in US, cutting methane is not expensive, and can pretty readily make
> money in some situations—which is why a lot is getting done. We just need
> more stimulus.
> More stimulus would start with a price on carbon—even with the 100-year GWP
> of methane being something like 22 (or higher if Shindell et al findings are
> included). Given how important methane is for this century, one might even
> use the 20 year GWP of 75, although we really also need to get CO2 emissions
> down, so maybe one trades it off versus the non-CO2 shorter-lived GHGs (so
> ozone precursors) and soot. And then add severe penalties for any new
> methane emissions—that is require a methane offset times 5 or something.
> Mike
> On 11/14/09 5:10 PM, "eSubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov" <
> euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Very insightful and this is all very interesting; but there are a few
> minor issues; who is WE, who decides and approves, and where does the
> funding to do these necessary things come from? -gene
> *From:* Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net<mmacc...@comcast.net>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:01 PM
> *To:* Andrew Lockley; dwschn...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions
> (ERL thread plus Ken's bet)
> On methane limitation, remember that human sources have elevated the
> methane concentration to near 1800 ppb from its preindustrial value of about
> 1000 ppb less, so there is potentially a lot that can be done to bring the
> elevated methane concentration back down, and it would have a very large
> climatic influence. As far as human sources, in the US the EPA inventory
> gives, as I recall, roughly the following source categories:
> 1. About 25-30% from fossil fuels—and if we are going to phase these
> out, we should be able to get this down a good deal;
> 2. Another 25-30% from landfills and sewage treatment, etc.--and we
> know how to reduce these emissions
> 3. Something like 30-35% from agriculture—and these can be partly
> controlled. In fact there are already efforts underway to suck in and
> separate the methane out in cattle feeding lots in California (and this can
> be done in barns as well) and use the methane for power (right now through
> combustion engines that emit NOx which troubles air pollution district
> officials) but perhaps soon into fuel cells.
> Other nations have different mixes, but also a lot of opportunities to
> reduce methane and we should do all that we can—and whatever we can do will
> help keep temperatures down so help to slow the increase in emissions from
> thawing permafrost.
> Related to this, we also need to aggressively reduce emissions of black
> carbon and precursors to tropospheric ozone because those as well will bring
> down atmospheric concentrations forcing noticeably and quickly. In fact, the
> 21st century emissions of CO2 provide only about half of the 21st century
> warming influence of the emissions of all GHGs (i.e., methane and
> tropospheric ozone are the other most critical ones—then halocarbons and
> N2O), so we simply must go after all GHGs aggressively.
> Limiting Arctic warming would help keep natural emissions from going up,
> but with humans causing an increase of about 1000 ppb, there is plenty of
> potential to do better.
> I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of
> methane are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates.
> These cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is
> likely to increase as feedback effects kick in.
> Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill,
> etc, is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in
> the long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere,
> the sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning'
> mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our
> undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a
> charging lion running straight for us.
> A
> 2009/11/2 David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>
> Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce
> methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has
> significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions. Why
> not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries. About the
> only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and the like
> and rice crops.
> David Schnare
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut
> emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have
> made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into
> the air.
> I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making
> substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
> Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and
> you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation
> where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution.
> Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture,
> and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be
> built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see
> enclosed).
> Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England
> Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction
> costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I
> was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's
> reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power
> system in a few decades.
> I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in
> the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any
> special ability to judge political outcomes.
> It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse
> technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
> When someone like Peter Read (see below) says “there is no way increasing
> CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon” I think he really
> means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will
> not be made.
> However when people and the political community hear technical people say
> can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is
> untrue and destructive.
> It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut
> emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the
> scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided
> not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared
> more about current consumption than we did about preserving our
> grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our
> civilization developed.
> I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk
> of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows
> with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by
> emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
> -David
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz <pe...@read.org.nz>] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Read
> *Sent:* November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
> *To:* mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
> *Cc:* Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
> There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed
> any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle
> they see2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
> more so as to bring the level down.
> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
> with a flow of biofuel.
> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
> organization.
> It's all so blindingly obvious
> Peter
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mike MacCracken <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net<mmacc...@comcast.net>>
> *To:* John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>> ;
> David Keith <mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca <ke...@ucalgary.ca>>
As noted further below, cattle emissions can be captured in barns. They like listening to Bach it seems. Give them a run out in the paddock for a feed when they have done chewing the cud and then bring them in again for milking and a nice lie in the hay. Then the hay gets pretty stinky and is good for the bio-digester after a while
A propos paddy field CH4 emissions these can be reduced and power generated by after-harvest scraping out of the paddy mud and putting it through a bio-digester before returning the fibrous residue for fettilization. At least I think it can generate a positive EROEI with well designed muck collection and spreading technology. Anybody know of anyone who has tried it?
Just a question of getting the negotiators to start thinking a bit more holistically
----- Original Message ----- From: David Schnare To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL thread plus Ken's bet)
Gene:
Look at it this way. If methane mitigation makes the mitigator money, then the mitigator is the "we". We would need no stimulus - profit being sufficient.
d.
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote:
First, in US, cutting methane is not expensive, and can pretty readily make money in some situations—which is why a lot is getting done. We just need more stimulus.
More stimulus would start with a price on carbon—even with the 100-year GWP of methane being something like 22 (or higher if Shindell et al findings are included). Given how important methane is for this century, one might even use the 20 year GWP of 75, although we really also need to get CO2 emissions down, so maybe one trades it off versus the non-CO2 shorter-lived GHGs (so ozone precursors) and soot. And then add severe penalties for any new methane emissions—that is require a methane offset times 5 or something.
Mike
On 11/14/09 5:10 PM, "eSubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
Very insightful and this is all very interesting; but there are a few minor issues; who is WE, who decides and approves, and where does the funding to do these necessary things come from? -gene
From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:01 PM
To: Andrew Lockley; dwschn...@gmail.com
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL thread plus Ken's bet)
On methane limitation, remember that human sources have elevated the methane concentration to near 1800 ppb from its preindustrial value of about 1000 ppb less, so there is potentially a lot that can be done to bring the elevated methane concentration back down, and it would have a very large climatic influence. As far as human sources, in the US the EPA inventory gives, as I recall, roughly the following source categories:
1.. About 25-30% from fossil fuels—and if we are going to phase these out, we should be able to get this down a good deal; 2.. Another 25-30% from landfills and sewage treatment, etc.--and we know how to reduce these emissions 3.. Something like 30-35% from agriculture—and these can be partly controlled. In fact there are already efforts underway to suck in and separate the methane out in cattle feeding lots in California (and this can be done in barns as well) and use the methane for power (right now through combustion engines that emit NOx which troubles air pollution district officials) but perhaps soon into fuel cells.
Other nations have different mixes, but also a lot of opportunities to reduce methane and we should do all that we can—and whatever we can do will help keep temperatures down so help to slow the increase in emissions from thawing permafrost.
Related to this, we also need to aggressively reduce emissions of black carbon and precursors to tropospheric ozone because those as well will bring down atmospheric concentrations forcing noticeably and quickly. In fact, the 21st century emissions of CO2 provide only about half of the 21st century warming influence of the emissions of all GHGs (i.e., methane and tropospheric ozone are the other most critical ones—then halocarbons and N2O), so we simply must go after all GHGs aggressively.
Limiting Arctic warming would help keep natural emissions from going up, but with humans causing an increase of about 1000 ppb, there is plenty of potential to do better.
Mike
On 11/14/09 9:33 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
David,
I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of methane are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates. These cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is likely to increase as feedback effects kick in.
Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill, etc, is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in the long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere, the sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning' mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a charging lion running straight for us.
A
2009/11/2 David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>
Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions. Why not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries. About the only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and the like and rice crops.
David Schnare
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we can't cut emissions is a way to hide from the moral implications of the choice we have made to ignore the welfare of our grandchildren and keep pumping CO2 into the air.
I agree with Alan Robock (among others) that we could begin making substantial reductions in CO2 emissions with existing technology today.
Electricity is the easiest place to start, it's 40% of global emissions and you can mix and match solutions in a way you cannot with transportation where we probably have to make a single choice about fuel substitution. Large-scale wind power + gas backup, nuclear power, coal with CO2 capture, and (in the right locations) central-station solar thermal could all be built today at costs that we in the rich world could easily afford. (see enclosed).
Here's a blunt way to say it: there are at credible estimates (New England Journal of Medicine) that more than 300 $bn/yr are wasted in transaction costs in the US healthcare system. If you gave me that much money, and if I was free to avoid political correctness (no solar PV on roofs), I think it's reasonable that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power system in a few decades.
I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any special ability to judge political outcomes.
It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
When someone like Peter Read (see below) says “there is no way increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon” I think he really means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will not be made.
However when people and the political community hear technical people say can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is untrue and destructive.
It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared more about current consumption than we did about preserving our grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our civilization developed.
I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
Sent: November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
To: mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
Cc: Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they see2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit more so as to bring the level down.
Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel with a flow of biofuel.
A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of organization.
|
