Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

[John Nissen]

It is incredible. It is so obvious.

1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the
concentration above its pre-industrial level; and

2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the
concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective lifetime
of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years.

Therefore:
3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and will
not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades.

Therefore:
4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the warming
due to the albedo effect.

Therefore:
5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing quantities
of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many degrees to
global warming; and

6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable,
potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres.

Therefore:
7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly
enough to save the Arctic sea ice; and

8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation
management (SRM) geoengineering.

9. SRM is not a last resort, it is needed now to cool the Arctic.

It is incredible that people do not seem to follow this train of logic -
it is so obvious.

Yet when I challenged a panel of geoengineering experts to refute this
argument, the response was that geoengineering (even just to cool the
Arctic) was too dangerous - not that the argument was false! [1]

So we continue to hear politicians and their advisers claiming that
emissions reduction alone can be sufficient to keep the planet safe. [2]

And we continue to hear geoengineering experts saying that
geoengineering should only be used as a last resort. [3]

How can this mindset be changed quickly, to avoid leaving geoengineering
too late?

John

P.S. Apologies to those who have heard this all before and accept the
logic as self-evident.

[1] This challenge was put to the panel at the launch of the Royal
Society geoengineering report, on September 1st, with response from the
team leader and panel chairman, Professor John Shepherd.

[2] For example at the geoengineering hearing at the House of Commons,
November 2008.

[3] For example at the congressional hearing on geoengineering, November
2009.

[Glyn Roberts]

I largely agree with your logical train of arguments. Except I'm not
convinced on #9 (NOW!). Given the well known risks (and unknown
ones!) of SRM, shouldn't CO2 reduction technologies be given a chance?
What's your evidence that applying SRM a decade from now will not be
sufficient to prevent a climate catastrophe? In a decade from now
SRMs may have matured & safer (on paper).

best regards,

Glyn

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>
>
>

[Eugene I. Gordon]

"Shouldn't CO2 reduction technologies be given a chance?" That is laughable.
Who is going to give CO2 reduction technologies a chance? Where will the
money come from to implement new technology on the scale needed to make a
difference. Where will the consensus come from? Russia and Canada will give
it lip service because they want the Arctic seaways open and they sell
fossil fuels.

In any case the cries of doom and gloom from the global warming advocates
especially in the absence of any credible science relating warming to CO2
levels is not going anywhere. This thing will drag on and on and Nero
fiddles while the world burns.

-gene

[Eugene I. Gordon]

Dear Mr. Law:

 

I suggest you are missing the point. The various countries are giving lip service to reversing the global warming problem by reducing CO2 emissions or by carbon capture. Copenhagen will produce nothing of substance. Moreover, nothing significant will happen in the next 25 years.  I agree that re-icing the poles is critical and that can be done best or may only be feasible by geoengineering in the short term. This group has been giving this serious consideration for a considerable time. You are preaching to the choir. It is not the thinking that is lacking but funding. Moreover, even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions were brought to zero and some reversal of CO2 concentration were achieved, there is a reasonable argument that the planet will continue to get warmer for other reasons. (That is an off topic discussion.)

 

I would argue based on over 50 years of experience beyond my postdoc that the experienced people, (or those with training and willing to shift focus) will follow the money. The most critical need right now is to get a viable source of long term funding, then attack the polar re-icing and let the politicians deal with restructuring energy generation to reduce carbon emissions.

 

Eugene I. Gordon

(908) 233 4677

eugg...@comcast.net

www.germgardlighting.com

 

 

From: Raymond Law [mailto:r200...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 6:45 AM
To: eugg...@comcast.net
Cc: glynlr...@gmail.com; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering; Oliver Tickell
Subject: Re: [geo] Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

 

Mr. John Nissen's train of logical thinking should really deserve serious consideration by those politicians like Al Gore that are relevant with reversing global warming.  It is logical to consider all options, short/quick term or long/slow term solutions, main stream or alternate ones  ----  as long as they can do the job.

 

Politicians and big businesses generally prefer the main streams probably it is the path of least resistance in getting enormous fundings.  But alternate ones could also create huge fundings needs too ; and alternate solutions could be more dispersed/localized, meaning that it is easier to envisage the creation of technology-transferred localized businesses and boosting localized jobs/economies  ---  anyone cares to identify more opportunities for politicians to work on.  Lets face it, you might not like politicians, but you really need them to turn your ideas into reality.

 

Your  ' urgency '  direction is pointing to the one true and real need at this juncture is to re-ice the poles.  I think that we should pool our brains together and give this direction serious thinking.

 

Raymond Law

[Raymond Law]

Mr. John Nissen's train of logical thinking should really deserve serious consideration by those politicians like Al Gore that are relevant with reversing global warming.  It is logical to consider all options, short/quick term or long/slow term solutions, main stream or alternate ones  ----  as long as they can do the job.

 

Politicians and big businesses generally prefer the main streams probably it is the path of least resistance in getting enormous fundings.  But alternate ones could also create huge fundings needs too ; and alternate solutions could be more dispersed/localized, meaning that it is easier to envisage the creation of technology-transferred localized businesses and boosting localized jobs/economies  ---  anyone cares to identify more opportunities for politicians to work on.  Lets face it, you might not like politicians, but you really need them to turn your ideas into reality.

 

Your  ' urgency '  direction is pointing to the one true and real need at this juncture is to re-ice the poles.  I think that we should pool our brains together and give this direction serious thinking.

 

Raymond Law

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Eugene I. Gordon <eugg...@comcast.net> wrote:

[John Nissen]

Hi Eugene,

Money isn't the problem.  Cowardice more like.

And Raymond Law is not missing the point.  He has followed my chain of reasoning, concerning the critical situation in the Arctic (and it's critical in Antarctic also).  This reasoning has been accepted by many of us in the group - yet when the Royal Society produced its geoengineering report, and when there was the subsequent Congressional hearing on geoengineering, the need for geoengineering to cool the Arctic was not mentioned.  I know for certain it was deliberately ignored in the former case, and it could have been deliberate in the latter.  I suspect that the academics who want to be seen as leading lights on geoengineering are scared to look too enthusiastic about geoengineering, so suggest there may be enormous dangers.  As Gregory Benford said, in immediate response to my original posting:

"YET the dangers aren't studied, and in fact are probably small. Yes: cowards. No other word for it."

Cowardice will get us nowhere.  We need a bold plan to save civilisation, such as Lester R Brown's "Plan B" [1], nicely explained here [2], or Oliver Tickell's Kyoto2 [3].  But such a plan does need to include SRM geoengineering for saving the Arctic sea ice.  Can anybody argue with the logic?

Cheers,

John

[1]  Plan B, version 4.0
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4/pb4_table_of_contents

[2]  Scientific American, May 2009:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages

[3] Kyoto2 leaflet.  See attached

--

[Neil Farbstein]

Hi Eugene and everyone else. Do you mean funding for studying the
greenhouse effect and geoengineering projects or funding for
geoengineering projects themselves. Or funding for conventional
projects like solar nergy and other renewable substitutes to replace
oil and coal? I agree with Greg Benford that cowardice is a major
reason that geonegineering has been given short shrift despite its
importance.

Here's some ideas I've had that might be new or might not be.
1.) Instead of fertilizing parts of the ocean with low iron levels we
can build pipelines form iron rich parts of the ocean and transport
iron laden waters to surface of iron poor regions. A pipeline will
provide a steady source of nutrients and it can be powered by wave
enrgy or OTEC which will move water from lower depths to higher
deaths. It will cost less also since iron mined on the land can run
out and it will become increasing scarce.
2.) Collecting Sargasso sea seaweed and burning it in generator plants
or converting it to ethanol, methanol etc and using it as a renewable
resource is possible. The minerals in the seaweed can be recycled back
into the Sargasso sea.
3.) Providing iron and nutrients to seaweed in the Sargasso sea might
remove as much or more CO2 from the atmosphere than fertilizing iron
poor parts of the ocean. Redistributing some of the iron laden water
in the Sargasso sea to parts of the ocean near the Sargasso sea might
cause more seaweed to grow if optimal concentrations of nutrients are
provided. That is different than causing upwellings from the bottom of
the ocean. vertical pipelines from nutrient laden waters under the
kelp can transport water to parts near the seaweed to cause additional
growth. Spreading the nutrients to surrounding water might cause more
seaweed to grow.

On Nov 13, 11:48 am, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Eugene,
> Money isn't the problem.  Cowardice more like.
> And Raymond Law is not missing the point.  He has followed my chain of reasoning, concerning the critical situation in the Arctic (and it's critical in Antarctic also).  This reasoning has been accepted by many of us in the group - yet when the Royal Society produced its geoengineering report, and when there was the subsequent Congressional hearing on geoengineering, the need for geoengineering to cool the Arctic was not mentioned.  I know for certain it was deliberately ignored in the former case, and it could have been deliberate in the latter.  I suspect that the academics who want to be seen as leading lights on geoengineering are scared to look too enthusiastic about geoengineering, so suggest there may be enormous dangers.  As Gregory Benford said, in immediate response to my original posting:
> "YET the dangers aren't studied, and in fact are probably small. Yes: cowards. No other word for it."
> Cowardice will get us nowhere.  We need a bold plan to save civilisation, such as Lester R Brown's "Plan B" [1], nicely explained here [2], or Oliver Tickell's Kyoto2 [3].  But such a plan does need to include SRM geoengineering for saving the Arctic sea ice.  Can anybody argue with the logic?
> Cheers,
> John

> [1]  Plan B, version 4.0http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4/pb4_table_of_contents

> [2]  Scientific American, May 2009:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages
> [3] Kyoto2 leaflet.  See attached
> --
> Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Law:
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I suggest you are missing the point. The various countries are giving lip service to reversing the global warming problem by reducing CO2 emissions or by carbon capture. Copenhagen will produce nothing of substance. Moreover, nothing significant will happen in the next 25 years.  I agree that re-icing the poles is critical and that can be done best or may only be feasible by geoengineering in the short term. This group has been giving this serious consideration for a considerable time. You are preaching to the choir. It is not the thinking that is lacking but funding. Moreover, even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions were brought to zero and some reversal of CO2 concentration were achieved, there is a reasonable argument that the planet will continue to get warmer for other reasons. (That is an off topic discussion.)
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I would argue based on over 50 years of experience beyond my postdoc that the experienced people, (or those with training and willing to shift focus) will follow the money. The most critical need right now is to get a viable source of long term funding, then attack the polar re-icing and let the politicians deal with restructuring energy generation to reduce carbon emissions.
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Eugene I. Gordon
>
>
>
> (908) 233 4677
>
>
>
> eugg...@comcast.net
>
>
>
> www.germgardlighting.com
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> From:Raymond Law [mailto:r200...@gmail.com]Sent:Friday, November 13, 2009 6:45 AMTo:eugg...@comcast.netCc:glynlr...@gmail.com;j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering; Oliver TickellSubject:Re: [geo] Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Mr. John Nissen's train of logical thinking should really deserve serious consideration by those politicians like Al Gore that are relevant with reversing global warming.  It is logical to consider all options, short/quick term or long/slow term solutions, main stream or alternate ones  ----  as long as they can do the job.
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Politicians and big businesses generally prefer the main streams probably it is the path of least resistance in getting enormous fundings.  But alternate ones could also create huge fundings needs too ; and alternate solutions could be more dispersed/localized, meaning that it is easier to envisage the creation of technology-transferred localized businesses and boosting localized jobs/economies  ---  anyone cares to identify more opportunities for politicians to work on.  Lets face it, you might not like politicians, but you really need them to turn your ideas into reality.
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Your  ' urgency '  direction is pointing to the one true and real need at this juncture is to re-ice the poles.  I think that we should pool our brains together and give this direction serious thinking.
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Raymond Law
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>

> <p...
>
> read more »
>
>  kyoto2_leaflet_inner.pdf
> 295KViewDownload

[jim woolridge]

Nice one, John; the train of argument is clear (of limpid clarity, in
fact!) The problem is that the people and institutions addressed are
in the business of politics, the art of the possible, rather than in
the business of logical evaluation. They hear what you are saying and
must see the validity of it. But politically what is true and what is
doable do not always coincide, as we all know from as many examples as
one cares to ennumerate.

We have to keep hammering away at the arguments, to the point at which
they are generally understood and accepted, and also keep on
politicking in the sure and certain hope that eventually the
acceptance of the arguments and the cowardice/caution/horse sense/
opportunistic careerism of the politicos will achieve the right kind
of intersection. In the next year or so (& wouldn't it be a great
help to have the environmental NGOs on board.)

[Andrew Lockley]

At present the likely methane excursion is far from clear.  Further, it is also unclear how quickly the total excursion will occur.  The excursion rate is highly significant due to the short life of methane in the atmosphere.  The methane ends up as CO2, in itself a major issue.  However, the CO2's likely effect is nothing compared to the devastating temperature spike which may result from a sudden methane excursion.

I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the problem is far from conclusive.  We need much more research into:

1)  The methane reservoir in clathrates and permafrost

2) The size of potential methane sources currently frozen as organic detritus

3) The likely changes to the GWP of methane in future atmospheres, as the levels of hydroxyl radicals etc. shift over time and as a direct result of methane excursion.  Recent research on this asks more questions than it answers.

My personal feeling is that the range of likely outcomes is from a significant amplification of AGW, right up to a 'Great Dying' sized mass-extinction event when we come within a sneeze of sterilising the entire planet.  I'd be tempted to bet on the latter, but I wouldn't be around to collect the winnings, so I'll keep my wallet in my pocket.

My suggestions is that geoengineers look at ways to clean up the methane from the atmosphere, and then lock down the resulting carbon.  My guess is we've got about 50 years to do this, but virtually no time at all if the methane can't be dealt with once it's in the atmosphere. Therefore, I'd support John out of precautionary principle-based reasoning.

A

2009/11/15 jim woolridge <jimwoo...@hotmail.com>

[Eugene I. Gordon]

Andrew:

 

Based on prior behavior I guess we might get 50 years of few or no sunspots. Hence we might have 50 years before it gets really hot. In the meantime my guess is that the Canadians and Russians will fight any attempt at Arctic geoengineering to cool or get rid of CH4. Methane conversion to CO2 is one molecule for one molecule; and CH4 is a more effective greenhouse gas so I don’t see methane conversion to CO2 as a big deal. The main converters are OH and O2H radicals formed from O3 and H2O. So means of enhancing radical formation would be desirable. Another way would be to introduce H2. All of these conversion processes are at the expense of the ozone layer.

 

-gene

[John Nissen]

Hi Andrew,

You say: "I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the problem is far from conclusive."  I disagree.

The methane presents a very real risk - because of the uncertainty on timing combined with the potential size of methane discharge - perhaps even enough to cause thermal runaway due to positive feedback, as is thought to have happened in the past [1].  Risk management involves identifying events and assessing them in terms of their likelihood and magnitude of impact [2].  Thus something with a small likelihood (such as rapid massive methane excursion) can have a high risk, if the magnitude of impact is sufficiently large (and you can't get much larger than thermal runaway).

It is possible that much or most of the methane trapped in frozen structures has built up over hundreds of thousands of years.  There is little sign of massive methane discharge in the ice record. In fact methane seems to track the temperature even better than CO2 [3].

But of course methane discharge is not the only high risk event - there is also the Greenland ice sheet disintegration. 

BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane, as opposed to the 20 year value (72), 100 years (25) or 500 years (7.6)?  The lifetime is only 12 +/- 3 years.  See [4].

Cheers,

John

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management

[3] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

---

[John Nissen]

Here's a better reference for [3], re absence of massive methane discharge in recent record:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/icecore.htm 

John

[John Nissen]

Hi Jim,

Thanks.  I've never been accused of limpid clarity before!

But, seriously, there are people on this list, such as Alan Robock, who would disagree with the argument.  Alan?

Cheers,

John

--

jim woolridge wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.


  

[Sam Carana]

On point (4), lifetime of methane. This really worries me. Over time,
hydroxyl radicals (OH) will convert methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide
(CO2), which is less potent as a greenhouse gas. However, as a recent
study by Drew Shindell et al. concluded, CH4 will persist for far
longer in the atmosphere than the figures used in IPCC estimates.

The reason for this is scarcity of OH. Many atmospheric pollutants
compete for access to OH. In particular, carbon monoxide will elevate
concentrations of CH4 through scavenging of the OH that would
otherwise break down the CH4. What's most worrying is that an increase
of CH4 itself will severely exacerbate the problem. The Shindell study
estimates that increases in global CH4 emissions have already caused a
26% decrease in hydroxyl. Melting permafrost in the Arctic could cause
huge amounts of methane to be added that will also maintain their
highest levels of global warming potency for far longer than
previously thought.

Cheers,
Sam Carana

[Peter Read]

John, Andrew

Re "BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane?"

Someone will correct me no doubt but my understanding is that warming is a rate process measured in W/m^2

So "instantaneous" [[== "immediate"?]] warming is an incorrect concept

Unless it continues for a second, a week, a year, 25 years, for whatever, no warming takes place.

So it is necessary to multiply by a duration to get joules/m^2

It's how many joules get into the low albedo meltwater on top of Greenland's ice that decides how much gets melted each year to fall down crevasses and lubricate the eventual collapse of large areas of ice into the oceans. 

Meaning that the integral [[roughly]] under the CO2 level curve is what matters [multiplied by the warming potential over that period]  when it comes to measuring threats of Greenland's collapse

So the key issue is duration - how long elevated greenhouse gas levels last and how to get them down.

Think that's right 

Peter

----- Original Message -----

From: John Nissen

To: andrew....@gmail.com

Cc: geoengineering

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:18 PM

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00

[Mike MacCracken]

Agreed, one has to consider a time period, so assume one takes a day that when injected there is no decay over this period—so it might as well be a second of time one takes—so virtually instantaneous. And I’ll assume linearity on methane absorption and logarithmic for CO2.

So, for methane, humans have caused an increase of roughly 1000 ppb which converts to about 3 GtCH4, and this causes a forcing of about 0.5 W/m**2 (at the tropopause) per IPCC.

For CO2, we know that a doubling (so we’ll say from 300 to 600 ppm so we are in the range of interest) causes a forcing of about 3.6 W/m**2 (at the tropopause). So, 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 600 GtC or 2200 GtCO2 (and global warming potential is done for CO2, I believe.

So, if we take the ratio of forcing to mass for CH4 divided by the ratio of forcing to mass for CO2, we get a rough estimate of the instantaneous GWP, so

[0.5/3]/[3.6/2200] equals roughly 100

for the ratio at t=0 (so allowing for no decay) of the radiative forcing caused by a unit mass of CH4 added to the atmosphere to a unit mass of CO2 added to the atmosphere.

Not exact, but plausible.

Mike

On 11/16/09 3:42 AM, "Peter Read" <pre...@attglobal.net> wrote:

John, Andrew
Re "BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane?"
Someone will correct me no doubt but my understanding is that warming is a rate process measured in W/m^2
So "instantaneous" [[== "immediate"?]] warming is an incorrect concept
Unless it continues for a second, a week, a year, 25 years, for whatever, no warming takes place.
So it is necessary to multiply by a duration to get joules/m^2
It's how many joules get into the low albedo meltwater on top of Greenland's ice that decides how much gets melted each year to fall down crevasses and lubricate the eventual collapse of large areas of ice into the oceans.  
Meaning that the integral [[roughly]] under the CO2 level curve is what matters [multiplied by the warming potential over that period]  when it comes to measuring threats of Greenland's collapse
So the key issue is duration - how long elevated greenhouse gas levels last and how to get them down.
Think that's right
Peter

----- Original Message -----
 
From:  John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk>   
 
To: andrew....@gmail.com
 
Cc: geoengineering <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>  

To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .

For  more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For  more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[Eugene I. Gordon]

The last line is the key and perfectly true. At last an honest broker. plausible. We are not dealing with solid science but rather with hypothesis and plausibility. Plausibility is not a lesser form of exactness. They are not related concepts. Nothing better than plausibility is available. So in an exact sense much of this discussion is hand waving. Very sorry but it is true. No one has predicted and then confirmed a result in hand so we have no theory and only an incomplete picture of the phenomena. We have to be careful and not get carried away.-gene

[John Nissen]

Hi Peter,

As regards "immediate global warming potential (GWP)", Mike MacCracken has just explained that, as you reduce the duration from 20 years (when GWP is 72) down to near zero, the global warming potential converges on a value - which he estimates at around 100.  That was the figure I was looking for.  Thanks, Mike.

However Peter, you are right that it is integration over time which matters.  This is partly why Copenhagen is doomed to failure.  Global warming is proportional to climate forcing from excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (excess above pre-industrial levels), where this excess is an integration of anthropogenic contributions over many decades.  There is already an enormous excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, sufficient for global warming to continue for millennia.  Emissions cuts just cannot be drastic enough to halt global warming in the required timescale.

I don't know how any scientist can deny this.  Yet, in a desperate attempt to get government commitments at Copenhagen to cut CO2 emissions, it appears that scientists have conspired to lie to governments and the media, by stating that emissions reductions by themselves can make the planet safe for future generations.  Having lied about this, they cannot then turn round and say sorry but actually there need to be additional actions:
(1) to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere by geoengineering techniques such as biochar;
(2) to cool the Arctic by solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering.

A consequence of the big lie is that scientists are now afraid to admit that geoengineering is needed.  And the SRM geoengineering is needed particularly urgently, because they underestimated the speed of sea ice retreat in particular.

This is essentially cowardice, but there is also money at stake, because there is no financial motivation for scientists to come clean, and accept both my simple argument for SRM geoengineering and your equally simple argument for biochar, Peter.  Climate scientists are only too happy to continue their research indefinitely, which somebody here described as "fiddling while Rome burns" - quite an apt analogy.

How do we break out of this impasse?  Can we hope that the media picks up on the arguments, and the scientific consensus moves rapidly towards a rational and comprehensive approach to saving the planet, taking the politicians with them?  Time is in short supply.  A myopic focus on emissions reduction, to exclusion of geoengineering, would be an unmitigated disaster for humanity.  Perhaps failure at Copenhagen will provide an opportunity for a new, comprehensive approach, so desperately needed.

Cheers from Chiswick,

John

---

[Greg Rau]

In light of recent modeling results on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, I am concerned that the current time-integrated (not instantaneous) GWP estimate for CO2 has been underestimated and hence GWP's of other gases (esp short-lived gases) relative to CO2 have been overestimated.  E.g., Eby et al., 2009:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2554.1

show that 20-30% of excess emissions of CO2 and 60-70% of the subsequent CO2-caused surface air temp anomally exists 10,000 years after emission.  Isn't this (or is this?) a far larger total time-integrated GW effect than a mass equivalent emission of CH4?  Experts please set me straight.

Thanks,

Greg 

Agreed, one has to consider a time period, so assume one takes a day that when injected there is no decay over this period-so it might as well be a second of time one takes-so virtually instantaneous. And I'll assume linearity on methane absorption and logarithmic for CO2.

pre...@attglobal.net> wrote:

[1] http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

[2]  http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management  

[3] http://*answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk  

[4] http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas  

---

Andrew Lockley wrote:  

> .
For  more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

.
For  more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to  geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email  to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

.
For more options, visit  this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
 

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG -  www.*avg.com

Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release  Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to

geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[Mike MacCracken]

First, I should have noted that the recent Shindell et al paper makes clear that methane has roles in addition to its own GH effect, so my estimate does not include that.

On the CO2 question, GWP is over a time period. Indeed, as the time is stretched out, the GWPs for other species drop because the lifetime of the CO2 perturbation is so long—so CO2 certainly has to be controlled.

Over the 21st century only, however, the warming influence of emissions of CO2 (ignoring the SO2 cooling influence with which it is associated) and of the non-CO2 gases (plus black carbon) are about equal. I should note that there is also the carryover effect of CO2 perturbation from emissions prior to 2000, but if you want to slow near-term warming, the non-CO2 gases simply have to be addressed (not doing so aggressively is why the temperature rise curves for various stabilization scenarios do not start showing an effect for a several decades). Sharply cutting black carbon, ozone precursor and methane emissions, all of which need to be cut for other reasons—and developed nations have shown it is possible-- can have a quite rapid effect in reducing radiative forcing  (just as volcanic eruptions limiting solar shows there can be a quite strong near-term effect—on forcing and temperature).

But certainly, we also have to reduce CO2 emissions.

Best, Mike

Cc: geoengineering <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> >  

 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:18  PM
 
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a  simple argument for SRM geoengineering
 


Hi Andrew,

You say:  "I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the  problem is far from conclusive."  I disagree.

The methane presents  a very real risk - because of the uncertainty on timing combined with the  potential size of methane discharge - perhaps even enough to cause thermal  runaway due to positive feedback, as is thought to have happened in the past  [1].  Risk management involves identifying events and assessing them in  terms of their likelihood and magnitude of impact [2].  Thus something  with a small likelihood (such as rapid massive methane excursion) can have a  high risk, if the magnitude of impact is sufficiently large (and you can't get  much larger than thermal runaway).

It is possible that much or most of  the methane trapped in frozen structures has built up over hundreds of  thousands of years.  There is little sign of massive methane discharge in  the ice record. In fact methane seems to track the temperature even better  than CO2 [3].

But of course methane discharge is not the only high risk  event - there is also the Greenland ice sheet disintegration.   

BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane,  as opposed to the 20 year value (72), 100 years (25) or 500 years (7.6)?   The lifetime is only 12 +/- 3 years.  See  [4].

Cheers,

John

[1] http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis <http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis>

[2]  http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management <http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management>   

[3] http://*answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk <http://*answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk>   

[4] http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas <http://*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas>   

---

Andrew Lockley wrote:  

To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> > .
For  more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For  more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to  geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email  to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit  this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

 

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -  www.*avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release  Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

[Greg Rau]

Thanks, Mike.  My comments below.  - Greg

First, I should have noted that the recent Shindell et al paper makes clear that methane has roles in addition to its own GH effect, so my estimate does not include that.

On the CO2 question, GWP is over a time period. Indeed, as the time is stretched out, the GWPs for other species drop because the lifetime of the CO2 perturbation is so long-so CO2 certainly has to be controlled.

My concern is that the standardly used 2007 IPCC GWP's did not take into account the new and longer CO2 lifetime and SAT anomalies recently shown by Eby et al. (2009), Solomon et al. (2009). etc, in addition to Caldeira and Hoffert's 1:100,000 combustion heat/GWP  (what is this ratio of heat of formation/GWP for methane?).  So if the goal is to limit not only the global warming Tmax but especially the time integral of this warming, we have (vastly?) underestimated the value of CO2 mitigation and overestimated the effects of other more potent but much shorter-lived gases when scaled to CO2 using the old IPCC values(?)

Over the 21st century only, however, the warming influence of emissions of CO2 (ignoring the SO2 cooling influence with which it is associated) and of the non-CO2 gases (plus black carbon) are about equal. I should note that there is also the carryover effect of CO2 perturbation from emissions prior to 2000, but if you want to slow near-term warming, the non-CO2 gases simply have to be addressed (not doing so aggressively is why the temperature rise curves for various stabilization scenarios do not start showing an effect for a several decades). Sharply cutting black carbon, ozone precursor and methane emissions, all of which need to be cut for other reasons-and developed nations have shown it is possible-- can have a quite rapid effect in reducing radiative forcing  (just as volcanic eruptions limiting solar shows there can be a quite strong near-term effect-on forcing and temperature).

My concern is that we not only must limit the Tmax, but especially also the time integral of elevated T.  Surely 1,000 yrs of +2degC would seem a lot more of a concern than 10 years of +4degC.  Or if not I'd like to see climatologists do a impacts/costing function of such scenarios so that more accurate (relative) values of CO2, CH4, etc mitigation can be determined with regard to long term planet habitability.  This has obvious and significant (R&D) policy implications.

But certainly, we also have to reduce CO2 emissions.

Best, Mike


On 11/16/09 3:22 PM, "Greg Rau" <ra...@llnl.gov> wrote:

In light of recent modeling results on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, I am concerned that the current time-integrated (not instantaneous) GWP estimate for CO2 has been underestimated and hence GWP's of other gases (esp short-lived gases) relative to CO2 have been overestimated.  E.g., Eby et al., 2009:

http://*ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2554.1

mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> >  

[1] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis <http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis>

[2]  http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management <http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management>   

[3] http://**answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk <http://**answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk>   

[4] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas <http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas>   

---

Andrew Lockley wrote:  

mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> > .
For  more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to

geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For  more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to  geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email  to

geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit  this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .
 

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG -  www.**avg.com

Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release  Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to

geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[David Keith]

Greg

 

GWP’s by design ignore all climate impacts beyond 100 years.

 

This has real consequences as it makes methane look relatively more important that it should be, and it also overweight’s the beneficial impacts of biomass sequestration in some calculations.

 

While some traditional economists may assume that discounting allows them to ignore any impact beyond 100 years, this GWP formula has long been a point of contention as most of us do value the future of the planet beyond 100 years.

 

Adopting a 100 year analysis horizon, as the IPCC generally does, takes our eye off the long term consequences of dumping fossil carbon in the atmosphere. The risk of sea level rise look much less serious if one only looks a century out.

 

Scientific understanding about the long term impacts of fossil emissions is decades old (see Jim Kasting’s old papers for example), popular realization of these facts is long overdue.

 

Cheers,

David

 

 

---

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[Greg Rau]

Thanks, David.  I agree. Failure to appreciate long term effects and ocean acidification impacts, together with questionable/opaque discounting schemes has I believe resulted in CO2 mitigation being greatly undervalued by the economists and this is significantly undermining policy and political will.

Regards,

Greg 

Greg

 

GWP's by design ignore all climate impacts beyond 100 years.

 

This has real consequences as it makes methane look relatively more important that it should be, and it also overweight's the beneficial impacts of biomass sequestration in some calculations.

 

While some traditional economists may assume that discounting allows them to ignore any impact beyond 100 years, this GWP formula has long been a point of contention as most of us do value the future of the planet beyond 100 years.

 

Adopting a 100 year analysis horizon, as the IPCC generally does, takes our eye off the long term consequences of dumping fossil carbon in the atmosphere. The risk of sea level rise look much less serious if one only looks a century out.

 

Scientific understanding about the long term impacts of fossil emissions is decades old (see Jim Kasting's old papers for example), popular realization of these facts is long overdue.

 

Cheers,

David

 

 

---

From: Greg Rau [mailto:ra...@llnl.gov]
Sent: November 16, 2009 1:23 PM
To: mmac...@comcast.net; geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

 

In light of recent modeling results on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, I am concerned that the current time-integrated (not instantaneous) GWP estimate for CO2 has been underestimated and hence GWP's of other gases (esp short-lived gases) relative to CO2 have been overestimated.  E.g., Eby et al., 2009:

http://*ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2554.1

[1] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

[2]  http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management  

[3] http://**answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk  

[4] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas  

---

Andrew Lockley wrote:  

> .
For  more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For  more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to  geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email  to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit  this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
 

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG -  www.**avg.com

Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release  Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[Mike MacCracken]

The other problem with 100-year GWPs is that they tend to hide all that can be done with the short-lived species (black carbon, methane, ozone precursors), so what we really need to do is to use both 20 and 500+ year GWPs. Use of 100-year GWPs covers up both of the important tails.

Mike

Cc: geoengineering <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> >  
 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:18  PM

 
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a  simple argument for SRM geoengineering
 


Hi Andrew,

You say:  "I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the  problem is far from conclusive."  I disagree.

The methane presents  a very real risk - because of the uncertainty on timing combined with the  potential size of methane discharge - perhaps even enough to cause thermal  runaway due to positive feedback, as is thought to have happened in the past  [1].  Risk management involves identifying events and assessing them in  terms of their likelihood and magnitude of impact [2].  Thus something  with a small likelihood (such as rapid massive methane excursion) can have a  high risk, if the magnitude of impact is sufficiently large (and you can't get  much larger than thermal runaway).

It is possible that much or most of  the methane trapped in frozen structures has built up over hundreds of  thousands of years.  There is little sign of massive methane discharge in  the ice record. In fact methane seems to track the temperature even better  than CO2 [3].

But of course methane discharge is not the only high risk  event - there is also the Greenland ice sheet disintegration.   

BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane,  as opposed to the 20 year value (72), 100 years (25) or 500 years (7.6)?   The lifetime is only 12 +/- 3 years.  See  [4].

Cheers,

John

[1] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis <http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis>

[2]  http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management <http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management>  

[3] http://**answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk <http://**answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk>  

[4] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas <http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas>  

>
 

.
To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> > .
For  more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com

.

To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For  more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to  geoengi...@googlegroups.com

.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email  to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit  this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .
 

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -  www.**avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release  Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com

.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl= <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[Marty Hoffert]

David et al:

True, Jim Kasting's work on the long-term carbon cycle as impacted by human fossil fuel CO2 emissions is decades old. But brilliant though Jim is, he was not the first. See, e.g., the attached paper published in 1974 when it first dawned on me and others at NASA/GISS that we might be on to something important with the fossil fuel O2 greenhouse-climate issue. Who would have thought that Steve Schneider, Richard Sommerville, Jim Hansen and yours truly would be pounding the table in 2009 for the world to act to limit emissions?   (Remember, the planetary climate was still cooling in the '70s.)  My '74 Atmos Env. paper admittedly has (minor in the overall scheme of things)  errors. Not too surprising for an early probes into the far horizons of humankind's future. (Still, Dave Keeling liked it.) Finding those conceptual errors might be fun exercise for a carbon cycle savvy reader 35 years later.

But mostly, I think, I was right about the longevity of the impacts of the fuel era of human history through persistent elevated CO2 levels. Nobody much listened at the time and the paper was buried in in the resting place of specialized academic journals, though I was able to resurrect it with the help of the Internet.

But Hey: Is anyone listening now? Will they care in Copenhagen?

Cheers,

Marty Hoffert
Professor Emeritus of Physics       
Andre and Bella Meyer Hall of Physics
4 Washington Place        
New York University
New York, NY 10003-6621        
                           
NYU Phone:  212-998-3747       
NYU Fax:     212-995-4016   
Home Phone: 516-466-9418   
Home Fax:    516-487-0734
Cellphone:     516-972-4779
Email:        marty....@nyu.edu    

Web page:  http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html

[John Nissen]

Hi Jim,

I want to follow up on your email of 15th November.

So far, nobody has challenged the logic of my argument.  So we all seem to be in agreement!  It's not what we'd like to believe, but the conclusion is clear.

Why are most academics among us so reticent?  Jim Hansen has noticed this too.  When the outlook is bad, nobody wants to be the messenger.  So why don't we have a manifesto, which people can sign up to?  When I originally suggested this, Alan Robock flatly rejected the idea that we had any agreement in the group.

So I put out the challenge again.  Does anybody disagree with my simple argument for SRM geoengineering?  I'll repeat it:

---

> 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the

> concentration above its pre-industrial level.

>
> 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the
> concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective lifetime
> of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years.
>
> Therefore:
> 3.  Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and will
> not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades.
>
> Therefore:
> 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the warming
> due to the albedo effect.
>
> Therefore:
> 5.  The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing quantities
> of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many degrees to
> global warming; and
>
> 6.  The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable,
> potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres.
>
> Therefore:
> 7.  To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly

> enough to save the Arctic sea ice.

>
> 8.  Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation
> management (SRM) geoengineering.
>

> 9.  SRM is not to be left as a last resort; it is needed now to cool the Arctic.

---

Cheers,

John

---

jim woolridge wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.


  

[Tom Wigley]

Dear all,

How important is methane? This is not a simple question to answer.

But in my attached 1998 paper I conclude that 100-yr GWPs **underestimate**
its importance by a factor of 3.

GWPs are seriously flawed. See the papers below, but there are others
by other authors (Harvey, Shine, ...)

Smith, S.J. and Wigley, T.M.L., 2000: Global warming potentials: 1.
Climatic implications of emissions reductions. Climatic Change 44, 445�457.
Smith, S.J. and Wigley, T.M.L., 2000: Global warming potentials: 2.
Accuracy. Climatic Change 44, 459-469.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Greg Rau [mailto:ra...@llnl.gov]
> *Sent:* November 16, 2009 1:23 PM
> *To:* mmac...@comcast.net; geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM

> geoengineering
>
> In light of recent modeling results on the lifetime of CO2 in
> the atmosphere, I am concerned that the current time-integrated
> (not instantaneous) GWP estimate for CO2 has been underestimated
> and hence GWP's of other gases (esp short-lived gases) relative
> to CO2 have been overestimated. E.g., Eby et al., 2009:
> http://*ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10

> <http://*ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10>.1175%2F2008JCLI2554.1

> On 11/16/09 3:42 AM, "Peter Read" <_pr...@attglobal.net_>

> wrote:
> John, Andrew
> Re "BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential
> of methane?"
> Someone will correct me no doubt but my understanding is
> that warming is a rate process measured in W/m^2
> So "instantaneous" [[== "immediate"?]] warming is an
> incorrect concept
> Unless it continues for a second, a week, a year, 25 years,
> for whatever, no warming takes place.
> So it is necessary to multiply by a duration to get joules/m^2
> It's how many joules get into the low albedo meltwater on
> top of Greenland's ice that decides how much gets melted
> each year to fall down crevasses and lubricate the eventual
> collapse of large areas of ice into the oceans.
> Meaning that the integral [[roughly]] under the CO2 level
> curve is what matters [multiplied by the warming potential
> over that period] when it comes to measuring threats of
> Greenland's collapse
> So the key issue is duration - how long elevated greenhouse
> gas levels last and how to get them down.
> Think that's right
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>

> *From:* John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk> >
>
> *To:*_ andrew....@gmail.com
> _
>
> *Cc:* geoengineering
> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> >
>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 6:18 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument

> 2009/11/15 jim woolridge <_jimwo...@hotmail.com_>

> To post to this group, send email to_
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com_.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to_
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com_

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=
> <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed
> to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

> To post to this group, send email to_
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com_.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to_
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com_.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=
> <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to

> _geoeng...@googlegroups.com_.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to_
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com_.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=
> <http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=> .
>
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.**avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 -
> Release Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

> To post to this group, send email to_
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com_.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to_
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com_.

[Ron Larson]

John - Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I think I can speak for
quite a few others in the "Biochar tribe" when I offer below some
comments on what you have written. I do wholeheartedly agree with the
thrust that we are not doing enough today.

John Nissen wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I want to follow up on your email of 15th November.
>
> So far, nobody has challenged the logic of my argument. So we all
> seem to be in agreement! It's not what we'd like to believe, but the
> conclusion is clear.
>
> Why are most academics among us so reticent? Jim Hansen has noticed
> this too. When the outlook is bad, nobody wants to be the messenger.
> So why don't we have a manifesto, which people can sign up to? When I
> originally suggested this, Alan Robock flatly rejected the idea that
> we had any agreement in the group.
>
> So I put out the challenge again. Does anybody disagree with my
> simple argument for SRM geoengineering? I'll repeat it:
>
> ---
> > 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the

> > concentration above its pre-industrial level. *[RWL1: Although "largely" is correct, I think you opening statement should include all GHGs (and land disturbances - mainly because they all (??) have shorter lifetimes than CO2, and are probably mostly cheaper.]*

>
> > 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the
> > concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective lifetime

> > of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years. *[RWL2: I'd change "could" to "will", and drop "effective" and "some of".*

> >
> > Therefore:
> > 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and will

> > not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. *[RWL3: I'd rephrase to read: "Even total elimination of all GHG emissions will not stop the Earth, and especially the polar regions, from continuing to warm for decades." (Emphasizing all causes of warming again - as in #1, and trying to show the bigger impacts at the poles (both).
> >*

> > Therefore:
> > 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the warming

> > due to the albedo effect. *[RWL4: Probably OK, but I worry as much about thinning (melting from below and above both due to temperature changes - not just albedo. Greenland and the Antarctic ice are disappearing for more than albedo reasons.]*

> >
> > Therefore:
> > 5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing quantities
> > of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many degrees to

> > global warming; and *[RWL5: I'd replace "potentially adding many degrees to" to "adding to"]*

> >
> > 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable,

> > potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres. *[RWL6: I'd add Antarctica and be less specific on the exact level of sea rise; I'd drop "potentially".]*

> >
> > Therefore:
> > 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly

> > enough to save the Arctic sea ice. *[RWL7: I'd continue talking about both poles. Don't think you need the last clause - this whole series is all about ice.*

> >
> > 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation

> > management (SRM) geoengineering. *[RWL8: My main negative reaction is on this sentence. "Probably" is weak. I personally believe***, as a Biochar supporter,*** that a more sure way to solve all our AGW problems is to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Albedo is hugely important, but I need to hear more about the exact "SRM" technique you are proposing. Albedo or reduced input? Mirrors or SO2? Reversible? Whose ox might get gored?)*
> >
> > 9. SRM is not to be left as a last resort; it is needed now to cool the Arctic. *[RWL: With some changes that included CO2 removal and was more specific on the exact SRM technique being proposed, I might be able to sign. I think I may be demonstrating why Alan Robock said what he did. Hope you see something useful above. Ron*
> ---
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> --- <snip rest>

[Ken Caldeira]

John,

In my experience, the best way to develop a broad sign-on letter is for someone to write a first draft, and then assemble a small core group to carefully hone the message, and then send it out to a broader group with a simple yes/no offer to sign on (unless some egregious or easily corrected error is found at a later date).

It is helpful to have in mind an audience and a purpose for the letter.

There is no need to attempt a consensus among everyone.

Best,

Ken

PS. As it stands, I think some of your statements might be stronger than can be supported by the scientific literature. For example, Tom Wigley's simulations indicate that cutting emissions to zero instantaneously will bring cooling within decades. (If I remember them correctly.) But is it relevant if there is no way that plausible emissions reductions could bring cooling this century?

You might strengthen your case if you used words like "threatens" or "risks" rather than deterministic language.  While we risk instability of the Greenland ice sheet, can we really affirm that it definitely will become unstable? While we risk methane fluxes from melting Siberian permafrost, can we predict the methane fluxes with confidence?

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Peter Read]

John

 

If it is to impact on policy -- I guess policy-makers are the intended audience but how to get the message to them is another question -- it is important to realise there are quite likely a fair number of deniers out there.  It is no good just saying [or implying] they are wrong since confrontation is not good conflict resolution. 

 

I think the "simple argument" should be put in terms of risk managemnent.  We may be wrong but the cost of failing to act, if we are right, is catastrophic whereas the cost of being needlessly prepared, if we are wrong, is trivial. e.g.

• Stocking sulphur at places where it can be lifted to the stratosphere
• Designing and testing delivery systems
• Sorting the logistics for mass producing rockets or aircraft or whatever is to be used; and building an initial fleet of them
• Training pilots or rocket engineers
• Other things that experts can doubtless think of
• And building and testing a few Salter ships

All peanuts.

 

Risk management also bears on how scientifically certain we are.  We should aim to achieve policy-maker recognition of the Art 3.3 commitment to cost-effective precautionary action in the absence of full scientific certainty. 

 

So we don't need to be certain that the ice-sheet will definitely become unstable. 

 

And Kyoto style emissions reductions are not only ineffective but also high cost compared with many carbon removals options. 

 

The only way to get scaleable low cost emissions reductions is the grow the fuel and then prograssively substitute biomass for fossil fuel.  Yes, there are low hanging fruit in the efficiency and ambient energy directions but they don't scale up because of the intermittant nature of the supply or the difficulty of persuading busy people to think about complicated technologies that impact on a small portion of the household budget.

 

Defossilization is easy (low cost) and can be done in a few decades, decarbonization is hard (costly) and would take a century, replacing most of the existing energy sector capital stock.

 

If you want it, I would be happy to contribute to the honed message that Ken proposes

 

Peter

 

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.75/2516 - Release Date: 11/20/09 19:43:00

[Peter Read]

I must be off the map somewhere I guess, but in my view you guys have got it wrong

 

This is because the calculations pertain exclusively to atmospheric physics/chemistry.

 

In fact the biosphere fixes about 60 Gt C annually plus another 20 including oceanic photosynthesis

 

So with less than 800 GT in the atmosphere, incremental CO2 stays in the atmosphere for around 10 years, not 10,000

 

Of course, if natural and anthropogenic fixation is exactly balanced by decay for 10,000 years then the physical-chemical processes are all that matters. But is that likely?? An increment of CO2 will cause an increment of CO2 fertilization, allowing for which would lead to a smaller lifetime I suspect [can anyone do the sum please?].  But an increment of CO2 will cause incremental warming and incrementally hasten decay, possibly lengthening the 10,000 years . 

 

However, I am much more concerned with the presentational aspect of the 10,000 years number.  This lends credence to the overwhelming importance of reducing emissions [[unless, that is, you happen to think that shorter term climatic impacts, like the risk of Greenland collapsing, are important]]. 

 

I believe the science should be stated in a way that emphasizes the carbon cyle as a whole, and the ease of getting CO2 out of the atmosphere, not the very difficult (costly) problem of stopping it being emitted.

 

Peter

----- Original Message -----

From: Marty Hoffert

To: ke...@ucalgary.ca ; ra...@llnl.gov ; mmac...@comcast.net ; geoengi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:00 PM

Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

David et al:

True, Jim Kasting's work on the long-term carbon cycle as impacted by human fossil fuel CO2 emissions is decades old. But brilliant though Jim is, he was not the first. See, e.g., the attached paper published in 1974 when it first dawned on me and others at NASA/GISS that we might be on to something important with the fossil fuel O2 greenhouse-climate issue. Who would have thought that Steve Schneider, Richard Sommerville, Jim Hansen and yours truly would be pounding the table in 2009 for the world to act to limit emissions?   (Remember, the planetary climate was still cooling in the '70s.)  My '74 Atmos Env. paper admittedly has (minor in the overall scheme of things)  errors. Not too surprising for an early probes into the far horizons of humankind's future. (Still, Dave Keeling liked it.) Finding those conceptual errors might be fun exercise for a carbon cycle savvy reader 35 years later.

But mostly, I think, I was right about the longevity of the impacts of the fuel era of human history through persistent elevated CO2 levels. Nobody much listened at the time and the paper was buried in in the resting place of specialized academic journals, though I was able to resurrect it with the help of the Internet.

But Hey: Is anyone listening now? Will they care in Copenhagen?

Cheers,

Marty Hoffert
Professor Emeritus of Physics       
Andre and Bella Meyer Hall of Physics
4 Washington Place        
New York University
New York, NY 10003-6621        
                           

---

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Caldeira

To: Ron Larson

Cc: dhaw...@nrdc.org ; geoengi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:08 PM

Subject: Re: [geo] you got that right

1 digit calculations just for orders of magnitude:

If we assume a doubling of CO2 is 4 W / m2 and the earth is 5 x 10^14 m2, a doubling of CO2 traps about 2 x 10^15 W.

If we assume 2 GtC / ppm, and think it takes say 300 ppm to double CO2, that is 600 GtC, 600 x 10^12 kgC = 6 * 10^14 GC, so each kgC in the atmosphere traps around 3 W.

Oil is about 4.5 x 10^7 J / kg. If we pretend oil is CH2, then we can assume that most of this mass is carbon, but a lot of the energy comes for the hydrogen.  So by this reckoning it would take  ( 4.5 x 10^7 J / kg ) /  (3 W / kgC) = 1.5 * 10^7 s or less than half a year for the greenhouse gas to heat up as much as the thermal heating from the oil.

Of course, this CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.

If you think the airborne fraction on the margin, is around 0.5 over the first thousand years, giving you about the radiative heating each year equivalent to the chemical heating from burning. Then you get a few hundred thousand years with several fold less heating, with a cumulative radiative heating on the order of 100,000 times the direct chemical heating. (I am not going to quibble about small integer multipliers one way or the other.)

Of course, all of this heat will not go into melting ice.

(I think that 75 was the ratio of current atmospheric CO2 radiative forcing to direct heating from fossil fuel burning, but I would need to go back to check.)

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Ron Larson <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:

Dave (cc Ken and list):

Thanks to Dave.

 1.  Since I doubt very much that the computation shown included anything on CO2 effects,   I hope Ken can weigh in on this, per the discussion last week re:      http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Warming-burning-091018.pdf

  2.  The answer might be 100,000 times larger - but that might exhaust the supply of glaciers.

  3.    Would Exxon today say that one day's worth of melting was calculated properly.  That we are only talking of an insignificant addition of only about 75/365  (only about another 20%,  assuming we don't worry about whether today's energy consumption is impacting any glacier tomorrow.)  (Ken had a factor of 75 for 1 year).

   4.   I haven't had any luck logging on to to leave a comment at the Grist site, so hope someone will.  One chap has shown a multiplicative factor of 65 - which looks like he has calculated for a year.

 Ron

[Raymond Law]

Hi John,

 

I have said that your train of logic is just what we would be needing today.  Go for your  manifesto,  I am all for it ! 

 

We have been talking about long term solutions for too long,  let's act on the immediate term solution from  John  --  this might even buy us time to come up with a set of really good long term solutions, too.

 

All the best,

 

Raymond Law

 

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Peter—Problem with your analysis is that biosphere also gives off something like 60 GtC as well. Preindustrial with steady CO2, as much was being taken up and given off. The net uptake, driven by the gradient created by emissions is now something like 1 GtC/yr and would equilibrate well before all of the perturbation is removed for this net uptake is occurring mainly as the new emissions are distributed among the fast reservoirs (atmosphere something like 50%, upper ocean that is well mixed 20-25% (and this includes the maybe 1 GtC/yr or less headed to the deep ocean), and terrestrial biosphere something like 25-30%. My upper ocean and terrestrial biosphere numbers may be off a bit, but close.

You are counting the gross flux—sort of like saying how much cash is going into the stock market by only counting the dollars used to buy the stocks without subtracting off the money coming out due to sales.

Mike

From: Ken  Caldeira <mailto:kcal...@stanford.edu>  
 
To: Ron Larson <mailto:rongre...@comcast.net>  

[Alvia Gaskill]

From Lenton and Vaughn (2009):

 

"First we consider the calculation of effects on atmospheric

CO2 (deltaCatm) over time. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere or

removing CO2 from the atmosphere triggers responses from

the ocean and land reservoirs that are continuously exchanging

CO2 with the atmosphere. The result is that any perturbation

to atmospheric CO2, whether an increase or a decrease,

decays over time towards around 20% of its original size on

a millennial timescale. The fraction of the original perturbation

remaining after a given time, deltat (in years), is called the

airborne fraction, f (deltat). It is a complex function containing

multiple decay timescales, related to multiple land and ocean

carbon reservoirs. For relatively small perturbations, it can

be approximated, from the Bern carbon cycle model (Joos et

al., 1996) by:

f (deltat)

=0.18+0.14e−deltat/420+0.18e−deltat/70

+

0.24e−deltat/21+0.26e−deltat/3.4 (15)

According to this formula, for an instantaneous removal

of carbon from (or release to) the atmosphere, 92% is still removed

(or present) after 1 year, 64% after 10 years, 34% after

100 years, and 19% after 1000 years. This is a little confusing

when compared with observations over 1960–2007 that

the increase in atmospheric CO

2 in a given year was only

~50% of the total emissions that year. The discrepancy can

be explained by the fact that in any given year, the natural

land and ocean carbon sinks represent an integrated response

to all previous years of emissions."

So as noted in my draft presentation from a week ago, CO2 emitted today has a variable lifetime and this must be considered in assigning which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and by what process.  Considering CO2 emitted this year, one can think of it as somewhat like a warehouse where all of the inventory arrives at the same time, but is sold and leaves the warehouse at different rates, the last 20% taking more than 1000 years.   And it's not Copenhagen, it's Copouthaven.

 

[Ken Caldeira]

Be aware that that formulation of Vaughn and Lenton is a simplification and that 20% asymptotic value  and 40% is probably a better estimate for cumulative releases on the scale of conventional fossil fuel resources.

See attached paper for discussion.

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Peter Read]

I used sulphate as an example because my understanding is that this is the only SRM technology that we are confident would work.  I think your interesting recent paper confirms that view, although it mentions a number of other technologies that look very interesting.

 

I much prefer Salter's ships but we don't yet know if they work - or if they would work better as bubble machines not spray machines

 

But if there are any proven non-sulphate technologies available I would like to see the preparations for deployment in hand with supply logistics etc sorted out

 

And I would like to see some vessels out there NOW putting down a few square miles of plastic to float on the surface and see whether the icepack that forms on top of it this winter lasts longer come summer.  The Alsakan Inuits would welcome it I suspect.  Or maybe the ice forms by freezing the ocean surface, and not by accumulated snowfall, so the plastic would result in less ice not more.  Maybe wait for the ice to form and then inject plastic through the ice to spread out underneath.  We need to suck it and see.

 

If russia and canada want navigation channels it should not be difficult to keep them open in summer given the warmer ocean waters.  Just put the plastic down where you want the sea ice, and not where you don't. 

 

But these speculations should not detract from the risk management perspective that reveals an urgent need to be able to deploy a proven technology quickly, if/when the situation calls for it

 

Peter

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike MacCracken

To: Peter Read ; John Nissen ; Ken Caldeira

Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:49 AM

Subject: Re: [geo] A simple argument for SRM geoengineering, again.

Dear John et al.--I would just note that I think arguing for stratospheric sulfate as the approach is a non-starter at present. There are other ways to try to save the Arctic, as my paper explores, that would have a far smaller effect on the world community and make getting it approved potentially a lot easier. See attached copy of recent paper.

On the key points, I would also note that CO2 is not the only cause of the warming-at least for this century the added emissions during 20th century are only about half the 21st century warming influence (though CO2 carries on for far longer). Now, carryover CO2 from the past is also an important influence as well, so CO2 is key, but as to 21st century warming influence, methane, black carbon and ozone precursors are also critical. You will see that cutting emissions to zero does reduce overall forcing significantly because other forcings would go down pretty rapidly—the Solomon et al. paper was nice, but it essentially kept all the non-CO2 forcings constant or something similar, so was a bit misleading as far as realistic situation during which other emissions could be reduced (she is right CO2 is very important long-term issue so going to such high concentrations would be very serious, but that is not what the current situation is). See recent copy of proceedings paper and see below for abstract for coming seminar on strategy I am pushing for agreement.

Given all of this, your key points would need some reworking in my view.

Mike

The Climate Institute is pleased to invite you to a presentation and discussion entitled:

Differentiated Responsibilities, but Comparable Challenges:
Building a Cooperative Climate Change Agreement by
Targeting Both Long- and Short-Lived Gases and Aerosols
 
Thursday, December 3 from 10-11:30 AM
Heinz Center Conference Room
900 17th St NW, Suite 700, Washington DC
RSVP: in...@climate.org

 
Recent news that world leaders will not aim to reach a final climate change agreement until the end of 2010 underscores the difficulty of reaching a common understanding between developed and developing nations. Because climate change cannot be reversed without strong global emissions reductions, developed nations are insisting that developing nations join now in limiting CO2 emissions. Because of their much lower per capita emissions and provisions regarding differentiated responsibilities in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, developing nations are insisting that the developed nations must go first in reducing their CO2 emissions, which have been the primary cause of the warming of about 0.8˚C since preindustrial times. Neither side seems prepared to budge and the key parties to the negotiations appear to be deadlocked.


Dr. Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs of the Climate Institute, will describe his proposal for building a climate change agreement around the principle of differentiated responsibilities, but comparable challenges for developed and developing nations (see the proposal here <http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/maccracken-proposal-north-south-framework.html> ). The first phase of his two-stage approach calls for developed nations to demonstrate by 2050 that a modern nation can prosper even with CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions at levels roughly 80% below current levels, while the developing nations, in addition to pursuing significant improvements in energy intensity and energy efficiency, formally commit to sharp reductions in deforestation and emissions of short-lived species (i.e., methane, the precursors to tropospheric ozone, and black carbon). Based on research by Dr. MacCracken and other scientists, Dr. Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, has recently recognized the importance of reducing non-CO2 greenhouse gases and warming aerosols as an essential complement to reducing CO2 emissions.


While sharply reducing the per capita CO2 emissions in developed nations will be a significant challenge, it will also bring significant benefits in pollution reduction, energy security, green jobs, and improved economic efficiency. Developed nations have proven that sharply reducing emissions of short-lived species is possible—the challenge for developing nations is to widely adopt the available technologies over only a few decades as they sharply increase the standard-of-living and well-being of their citizens while reducing air pollution (and health-related deaths) and improving energy efficiency and economic performance.  Without emissions control measures, emissions of CO2 and short-lived species during this century will make roughly equivalent contributions to 21st century warming.  By addressing the long- and short-lived species in a common yet differentiated manner, the first-phase emissions reductions of developed and developing countries will make comparably important contributions to limiting climate change. In the second phase, both developed and developing nations would work together to push per capita greenhouse gas emissions toward zero so that the planet can recover from the roughly 2-3°C warming that is becoming almost inevitable as a result of the delays in moving to emissions reduction.



As an example of the potential for developing nations to make a significant contribution to limiting climate change while improving public health, Mr. John-Michael Cross, Research Associate at the Climate Institute, will describe the sources of black carbon and inexpensive approaches to limiting emissions.  After summarizing black carbon sources and trends in emissions by sector and region, he will present examples of emissions reductions using existing technologies and describe barriers to and approximate costs for spreading such innovations to the world. (For more information on black carbon, see the Climate Institute's latest issue of the Climate Alert <http://www.climate.org/publications/Climate%20Alerts/Autumn2009.html> .)


We welcome your attendance at these presentations and participation in the concluding discussion about these approaches to achieving an international climate change agreement. Please RSVP to Corinne Kisner at in...@climate.org by December 1.


--
Climate Institute
900 17th St NW, Suite 700
Washington DC 20006
(202) 552-4723

On 11/21/09 2:24 AM, "Peter Read" <pre...@attglobal.net> wrote:

John

If it is to impact on policy -- I guess policy-makers are the intended audience but how to get the message to them is another question -- it is important to realise there are quite likely a fair number of deniers out there.  It is no good just saying [or implying] they are wrong since confrontation is not good conflict resolution.
 
I think the "simple argument" should be put in terms of risk managemnent.  We may be wrong but the cost of failing to act, if we are right, is catastrophic whereas the cost of being needlessly prepared, if we are wrong, is trivial. e.g.

• Stocking sulphur at places where it can be lifted  to the stratosphere
• Designing and testing delivery systems
• Sorting the logistics for mass producing rockets  or aircraft or whatever is to be used; and building an initial fleet of  them
• Training pilots or rocket engineers
• Other things that experts can doubtless think  of
• And building and testing a few Salter  ships
  

All peanuts.

Risk management also bears on how scientifically certain we are.  We should aim to achieve policy-maker recognition of the Art 3.3 commitment to cost-effective precautionary action in the absence of full scientific certainty.  

So we don't need to be certain that the ice-sheet will definitely become unstable.  

And Kyoto style emissions reductions are not only ineffective but also high cost compared with many carbon removals options.  

The only way to get scaleable low cost emissions reductions is the grow the fuel and then prograssively substitute biomass for fossil fuel.  Yes, there are low hanging fruit in the efficiency and ambient energy directions but they don't scale up because of the intermittant nature of the supply or the difficulty of persuading busy people to think about complicated technologies that impact on a small portion of the household budget.

Defossilization is easy (low cost) and can be done in a few decades, decarbonization is hard (costly) and would take a century, replacing most of the existing energy sector capital stock.

If you want it, I would be happy to contribute to the honed message that Ken proposes

Peter

----- Original Message -----
 
From:  Ken Caldeira <mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>  
 
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
 
Cc: geoengineering <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>  

 
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 7:08  PM
 
Subject: Re: [geo] A simple argument for  SRM geoengineering, again.
 

John,

In my experience, the best way to  develop a broad sign-on letter is for someone to write a first draft, and then  assemble a small core group to carefully hone the message, and then send it  out to a broader group with a simple yes/no offer to sign on (unless some  egregious or easily corrected error is found at a later date).

It is  helpful to have in mind an audience and a purpose for the letter.

There  is no need to attempt a consensus among  everyone.

Best,

Ken

PS. As it stands, I think some of  your statements might be stronger than can be supported by the scientific  literature. For example, Tom Wigley's simulations indicate that cutting  emissions to zero instantaneously will bring cooling within decades. (If I  remember them correctly.) But is it relevant if there is no way that plausible  emissions reductions could bring cooling this century?

You might  strengthen your case if you used words like "threatens" or "risks" rather than  deterministic language.  While we risk instability of the Greenland ice  sheet, can we really affirm that it definitely will become unstable? While we  risk methane fluxes from melting Siberian permafrost, can we predict the  methane fluxes with confidence?

___________________________________________________
Ken  Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama  Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1  650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  



 

On Nov 12, 10:51 pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk>  wrote:
  
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.


  

 

--

You received this message because you are  subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this  group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from  this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .

For more  options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to  geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email  to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit  this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
 

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -  www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.75/2516 - Release  Date: 11/20/09 19:43:00

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.76/2517 - Release Date: 11/21/09 07:47:00

[Stephen Salter]

Peter

Thank you for your cockle-warming words.

Work on the mechanical design of most difficult inside bits of the spray
vessels has reached a point where little more can be done without some
money for test rigs. I can give you part numbers for bearings, seals,
and tell you the temperature of the cooling water. It would be a mistake
to work on the final hull design until we are confident of the equipment
weight figures. Work on electronics and software would be obsolete by
launch date and so I was pondering having a go at the detailed design of
Lowell Wood's sky hose.

Your email suggests a confidence in the hardware for stratospheric SO2
which would mean that I would be duplicating existing effort. Making
something that really works safely and reliably is a lot more than the
initial idea of the inventor. Can you, or anyone tell me how far design
work has gone?

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

Peter Read wrote:
> I used sulphate as an example because my understanding is that this is
> the only SRM technology that we are confident would work. I think your
> interesting recent paper confirms that view, although it mentions a
> number of other technologies that look very interesting.
> I much prefer Salter's ships but we don't yet know if they work - or
> if they would work better as bubble machines not spray machines
> But if there are any proven non-sulphate technologies available I
> would like to see the preparations for deployment in hand with supply
> logistics etc sorted out
> And I would like to see some vessels out there NOW putting down a few
> square miles of plastic to float on the surface and see whether the
> icepack that forms on top of it this winter lasts longer come summer.
> The Alsakan Inuits would welcome it I suspect. Or maybe the ice forms
> by freezing the ocean surface, and not by accumulated snowfall, so the
> plastic would result in less ice not more. Maybe wait for the ice to
> form and then inject plastic through the ice to spread out underneath.
> We need to suck it and see.
> If russia and canada want navigation channels it should not be
> difficult to keep them open in summer given the warmer ocean waters.
> Just put the plastic down where you want the sea ice, and not where
> you don't.

> But these speculations should not detract from *the risk management

> perspective that reveals an urgent need to be able to deploy a proven

> technology quickly*, if/when the situation calls for it

> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----

> *From:* Mike MacCracken <mailto:mmac...@comcast.net>
> *To:* Peter Read <mailto:pre...@attglobal.net> ; John Nissen
> <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk> ; Ken Caldeira
> <mailto:kcal...@dge.stanford.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] A simple argument for SRM geoengineering, again.

> *Differentiated Responsibilities, but Comparable Challenges:

> Building a Cooperative Climate Change Agreement by
> Targeting Both Long- and Short-Lived Gases and Aerosols

> *

> Thursday, December 3 from 10-11:30 AM
> Heinz Center Conference Room
> 900 17th St NW, Suite 700, Washington DC

> RSVP: _in...@climate.org _

>
>
>
> Recent news that world leaders will not aim to reach a final
> climate change agreement until the end of 2010 underscores the
> difficulty of reaching a common understanding between developed
> and developing nations. Because climate change cannot be reversed
> without strong global emissions reductions, developed nations are
> insisting that developing nations join now in limiting CO2
> emissions. Because of their much lower per capita emissions and
> provisions regarding differentiated responsibilities in the UN
> Framework Convention on Climate Change, developing nations are
> insisting that the developed nations must go first in reducing
> their CO2 emissions, which have been the primary cause of the

> warming of about 0.8?C since preindustrial times. Neither side

> seems prepared to budge and the key parties to the negotiations
> appear to be deadlocked.
>
>

> *Dr. Michael MacCracken*, Chief Scientist for Climate Change

> Programs of the Climate Institute, will describe his proposal for
> building a climate change agreement around the principle of
> differentiated responsibilities, but comparable challenges for
> developed and developing nations (see the proposal here

> <_http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/maccracken-proposal-north-south-framework.html_>

> improving public health, *Mr. John-Michael Cross,* Research

> Associate at the Climate Institute, will describe the sources of
> black carbon and inexpensive approaches to limiting emissions.
> After summarizing black carbon sources and trends in emissions by
> sector and region, he will present examples of emissions
> reductions using existing technologies and describe barriers to
> and approximate costs for spreading such innovations to the world.
> (For more information on black carbon, see the Climate Institute's
> latest issue of the Climate Alert

> <_http://www.climate.org/publications/Climate%20Alerts/Autumn2009.html_>

> .)
>
>
> We welcome your attendance at these presentations and
> participation in the concluding discussion about these approaches
> to achieving an international climate change agreement. Please

> RSVP to Corinne Kisner at _i...@climate.org_ by December 1.

>
>
> --
> Climate Institute
> 900 17th St NW, Suite 700
> Washington DC 20006
> (202) 552-4723
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/21/09 2:24 AM, "Peter Read" <pre...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> John
>
> If it is to impact on policy -- I guess policy-makers are the
> intended audience but how to get the message to them is
> another question -- it is important to realise there are quite
> likely a fair number of deniers out there. It is no good just
> saying [or implying] they are wrong since confrontation is not
> good conflict resolution.
>
> I think the "simple argument" should be put in terms of risk
> managemnent. We may be wrong but the cost of failing to act,
> if we are right, is catastrophic whereas the cost of being
> needlessly prepared, if we are wrong, is trivial. e.g.
>

> * Stocking sulphur at places where it can be lifted to the
> stratosphere
> * Designing and testing delivery systems
> * Sorting the logistics for mass producing rockets or

> aircraft or whatever is to be used; and building an
> initial fleet of them

> * Training pilots or rocket engineers
> * Other things that experts can doubtless think of
> * And building and testing a few Salter ships

>
> All peanuts.
>
> Risk management also bears on how scientifically certain we
> are. We should aim to achieve policy-maker recognition of the

> Art 3.3 commitment to _cost-effective_ precautionary action
> _in the absence of full scientific certainty_.

>
> So we don't need to be certain that the ice-sheet will
> definitely become unstable.
>
> And Kyoto style emissions reductions are not only ineffective
> but also high cost compared with many carbon removals options.
>
> The only way to get scaleable low cost emissions reductions is
> the grow the fuel and then prograssively substitute biomass
> for fossil fuel. Yes, there are low hanging fruit in the
> efficiency and ambient energy directions but they don't scale
> up because of the intermittant nature of the supply or the
> difficulty of persuading busy people to think about
> complicated technologies that impact on a small portion of the
> household budget.
>
> Defossilization is easy (low cost) and can be done in a few
> decades, decarbonization is hard (costly) and would take a
> century, replacing most of the existing energy sector capital
> stock.
>
> If you want it, I would be happy to contribute to the honed
> message that Ken proposes
>
> Peter
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>

> *From:* Ken Caldeira <mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
>
> *To:* j...@cloudworld.co.uk

>
> *Cc:* geoengineering <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>

> *Sent:* Saturday, November 21, 2009 7:08 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] A simple argument for SRM

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.75/2516 -
> Release Date: 11/20/09 19:43:00
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.76/2517 - Release Date:
> 11/21/09 07:47:00
>

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Peter Read]

Hi Mike

 

Don't think so.  Rereading my message I see that I did not omit to mention both the deposit and withdrawl mechanisms for the "biosphere carbon bank" i.e. photosynthesis for deposit into the biosphere 'bank' and decay for withdrawl from it.  The gross flows of about 110 Gt each into ocean and terrestrial biosphere are netted off in the numbers I quoted, with about 50Gt respired immediately by plant life and about as much released by warm oceans as is absorbed in cold ocean regions (more exact numbers at Fig 4 [3?] of the RS geo-engineering report that I don't have to hand). 

 

The 60 and 20 for land and ocean photosynthetic fixing that I mentioned are the amounts taken out of the atmosphere each year.  These  were balanced by an equal amount released by decay processes when the biosphere was in pre-industrial equilibrium.  With only about 800 Gt in the atmosphere, this means the average CO2 molecule in atmosphere can expect to get fixed (and later released) about once every ten years

 

The time constants in the Bern model relate, I believe, to quick adjustment with the oceans, slower adjustment with the biosphere and long term adjustment with the very limited benthic and lithosphere quasi-final resting places.  These time constants slowly adapt to shifts from the pre-industrial numbers as enhanced CO2 levels impact on the rate at which CO2 is fixed (CO2 fertilisation - a phenomena that finally resolved the IPCC second assessment report's mystery sink problem) and the rate it decays (Peter Cox's work on the impact of warmer climate on the biosphere sink).

 

So the lifetime of an incremental CO2 molecule depends on the scenario - in a rapidly warming world an increment of CO2 will provoke further warming and intensify decay processes and possibly leave several CO2 molecules in the atmosphere in 10000 years.  In a slowly warming world it will provoke further CO2 fertilization and possibly be removed in a few decades.

 

From the scientific perspective the point I am making is that the atmospheric chemisty-physics effect of a CO2 increment cannot be separated from the biological effects, which may well be much more important over a meaningful policy horizon..

 

But my main concern is the policy implication of giving the 10000 year figure prominence since it tends to give the impression that reducing emissions is the overwhelmingly important thing to do.  If on the other hand policy makers can be brought to realize that a molecule of CO2 revisits the biosphere every ten years or so then they can maybe be brought to realize that this gives 1000 opportunities to do something about the problem before 10000 years are up.  It is a simple matter, over a few decades, to manage the earths landscape so that 63 Gt are photosynthesized annually and only 57 Gt allowed to decay to CO2, yet that does as much good as reducing fossil fuel emissioins to zero, which nobody believes is feasible this side of 2100

 

Cheers

Peter

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike MacCracken

To: Peter Read ; Martin Hoffert ; David Keith ; Greg Rau ; Geoengineering ; John Nissen ; Ron Larson ; David Hawkins

Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:56 AM

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering AND did you get that right?

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Peter—Agreed, the residence time of a particular CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is a few years. And this number was confirmed in the 1950s/60s following the atmospheric nuclear testing as the excess C-14 molecules were taken up by the ocean and biosphere.

But what matters for climate is the lifetime of the perturbed concentration, and that depends on net fluxes—first the redistribution among the fast-exchanging reservoirs (atmosphere, upper ocean, terrestrial biosphere) and then as the amount gets transferred (very slowly) into the long term reservoirs (the deep ocean, etc. and eventually the sediments—and similar chains for the long-term terrestrial and geological reservoirs). It was this cycle that Solomon et al. and others have been referring.

I’ll agree that the language is often sloppy, saying the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere instead of the lifetime (or persistence time) of the CO2 perturbation, so there has been confusion on this.

Mike

On 11/22/09 12:32 PM, "Peter Read" <pre...@attglobal.net> wrote:

Hi Mike

Don't think so.  Rereading my message I see that I did not omit to mention both the deposit and withdrawl mechanisms for the "biosphere carbon bank" i.e. photosynthesis for deposit into the biosphere 'bank' and decay for withdrawl from it.  The gross flows of about 110 Gt each into ocean and terrestrial biosphere are netted off in the numbers I quoted, with about 50Gt respired immediately by plant life and about as much released by warm oceans as is absorbed in cold ocean regions (more exact numbers at Fig 4 [3?] of the RS geo-engineering report that I don't have to hand).  

The 60 and 20 for land and ocean photosynthetic fixing that I mentioned are the amounts taken out of the atmosphere each year.  These  were balanced by an equal amount released by decay processes when the biosphere was in pre-industrial equilibrium.  With only about 800 Gt in the atmosphere, this means the average CO2 molecule in atmosphere can expect to get fixed (and later released) about once every ten years

The time constants in the Bern model relate, I believe, to quick adjustment with the oceans, slower adjustment with the biosphere and long term adjustment with the very limited benthic and lithosphere quasi-final resting places.  These time constants slowly adapt to shifts from the pre-industrial numbers as enhanced CO2 levels impact on the rate at which CO2 is fixed (CO2 fertilisation - a phenomena that finally resolved the IPCC second assessment report's mystery sink problem) and the rate it decays (Peter Cox's work on the impact of warmer climate on the biosphere sink).

So the lifetime of an incremental CO2 molecule depends on the scenario - in a rapidly warming world an increment of CO2 will provoke further warming and intensify decay processes and possibly leave several CO2 molecules in the atmosphere in 10000 years.  In a slowly warming world it will provoke further CO2 fertilization and possibly be removed in a few decades.

From the scientific perspective the point I am making is that the atmospheric chemisty-physics effect of a CO2 increment cannot be separated from the biological effects, which may well be much more important over a meaningful policy horizon..

But my main concern is the policy implication of giving the 10000 year figure prominence since it tends to give the impression that reducing emissions is the overwhelmingly important thing to do.  If on the other hand policy makers can be brought to realize that a molecule of CO2 revisits the biosphere every ten years or so then they can maybe be brought to realize that this gives 1000 opportunities to do something about the problem before 10000 years are up.  It is a simple matter, over a few decades, to manage the earths landscape so that 63 Gt are photosynthesized annually and only 57 Gt allowed to decay to CO2, yet that does as much good as reducing fossil fuel emissioins to zero, which nobody believes is feasible this side of 2100

Cheers
Peter

----- Original Message -----
 
From:  Mike  MacCracken <mailto:mmac...@comcast.net>  
 
To: Peter Read <mailto:pre...@attglobal.net>  ; Martin  Hoffert <mailto:marty....@nyu.edu>  ; David  Keith <mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca>  ; Greg Rau <mailto:ra...@llnl.gov>  ;  Geoengineering <mailto:Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>  ; John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk>  ;  Ron  Larson <mailto:rongre...@comcast.net>  ; David  Hawkins <mailto:dhaw...@nrdc.org>  

[John Nissen]

Hi Raymond,

Thanks for your support.  So far I've not had a single person arguing against my reasoning for SRM geoengineering.  So I'm beginning to think there might be consensus - marking a tipping point in scientific thinking on geoengineering.    I'm really surprised that Alan Robock hasn't commented, since has been so against doing anything in the immediate term.  He must be able to counter my argument - if he's convinced that it's wrong.

BTW, I agree we should also be looking into long term solutions, so we can see the SRM geoengineering in context, and add in the CO2 capture side as well as all the other things that have to be done.   Have you looked at Kyoto2 from Oliver Tickell [1], or Plan B from Lester R Brown [2]?

Cheers,

John

[1] http://www.kyoto2.org/

[2] http://www.earth-policy.org/

---

[Ken Caldeira]

Just so you don't fool yourself into thinking there is a consensus, I think it is premature to start deploying a climate intervention system at scale.

I think there is potential for risk reduction through climate intervention, but it is not obvious to me that such interventions will actually reduce overall risk, especially when complex socio-political feedbacks are taken into consideration.

That said, be my guest, go ahead with your sign-on letter. I think there is room for a diversity of views. Consensus is unnecessary. We are large and contain multitudes.


Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

-- Walt Whitman (1855)

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Alan Robock]

Dear John,

And just because I ignore you does not mean I agree with you.

Alan

Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

Ken Caldeira wrote:
> Just so you don't fool yourself into thinking there is a consensus, I
> think it is premature to start deploying a climate intervention system
> at scale.
>
> I think there is potential for risk reduction through climate
> intervention, but it is not obvious to me that such interventions will
> actually reduce overall risk, especially when complex socio-political
> feedbacks are taken into consideration.
>
> That said, be my guest, go ahead with your sign-on letter. I think
> there is room for a diversity of views. Consensus is unnecessary. We
> are large and contain multitudes.
>
>

> /Do I contradict myself?

> Very well then I contradict myself,
> (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

> /
> /-- Walt Whitman (1855)
> /

>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>

> kcal...@ciw.edu <mailto:kcal...@ciw.edu>; kcal...@stanford.edu
> <mailto:kcal...@stanford.edu>

> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Raymond,
>
> Thanks for your support. So far I've not had a single person
> arguing against my reasoning for SRM geoengineering. So I'm
> beginning to think there might be consensus - marking a tipping
> point in scientific thinking on geoengineering. I'm really
> surprised that Alan Robock hasn't commented, since has been so
> against doing anything in the immediate term. He must be able to
> counter my argument - if he's convinced that it's wrong.
>
> BTW, I agree we should also be looking into long term solutions,
> so we can see the SRM geoengineering in context, and add in the
> CO2 capture side as well as all the other things that have to be
> done. Have you looked at Kyoto2 from Oliver Tickell [1], or Plan
> B from Lester R Brown [2]?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> [1] http://www.kyoto2.org/
>
> [2] http://www.earth-policy.org/
>
> ---
>
>
> Raymond Law wrote:

>> *Hi John,*

>>
>> I have said that your train of logic is just what we would be

>> needing today. Go for your *manifesto,* I am all for it !

>>
>> We have been talking about long term solutions for too long,

>> let's act on the immediate term solution from *John * -- this

>> might even buy us time to come up with a set of really good long
>> term solutions, too.
>>
>> All the best,
>>

>> *Raymond Law
>> *
>>
>> On 11/21/09, *John Nissen* <j...@cloudworld.co.uk

>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.

>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> geoengi...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>>
>>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

[Ron Larson]

Ken (with ccs) :

Thanks for attaching the Archer paper for which you were a co-author.
The paper looks well done - and I think it great that the team was able
to get nine models working on the same scenarios - especially on a
voluntary, unfunded basis. We will all look at such a paper for our own
perspectives - the following is only from a biochar proponent's
perspective. I understand that this paper had no intention of addressing
this list's topics - either Geoengineering or Biochar; I am simply
trying to draw as much out of the paper as I can in hopes there is
information here to help with better modeling of Biochar. Apologies if I
am missing a connection in this paper to other types of Geoengineering -
and apologies for writing so much - this has admittedly little
connection to Geoengineering (but I am trying to see if there aren't some.

1. The main relationship of the paper to the topic of Geoengineering is
through the fourth variable - vegetation, featured in the sequentially
last addition in both the 1000 and 5000 Gt scenarios by three teams
(UVIC , MPI-UW, and Climber). As I want to alert people in the Biochar
community , I quote from the paper just on the biomass/vegetation
portions with the _*bold underlining*_ showing the reasons.
a. UVIC2.8 is the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model,........
The _*terrestrial*_ carbon model is a modified version of the MOSES2
land surface model and
the TRIFFID dynamic *_vegetation_* model (Meissner et al. 2003)."
[Meissner KJ,Weaver AJ, Matthews HD, Cox PM. 2003. The role of land
surface dynamics in glacial inception:
a study with the UVic Earth System Model. Clim. Dyn. 21:515�37 ]

_*Ocean*_ carbon is simulated by means of ....... a marine ecosystem
model solving
prognostic equations for nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and
detritus (Schmittner et al. 2008).
[Schmittner A, Oschlies A, Matthews HD, Galbraith ED. 2008. Future
changes in climate, ocean circulation,
ecosystems, and biogeochemical cycling simulated for a business-as-usual
CO2 emission scenario until
year 4000 AD. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22:GB1013]
*[RWL: The best contacts seem to be co-authors Eby and Matsumoto at
Univ. Victoria *

b. _*MPI-UW*_ (Mikolajewicz et al. 2007) ........
"HAMOCC3 *_ocean_* biogeochemistry (Winguth et al. 1994) "
[Winguth AME, Heimann M, Kurz KD, Maier-Reimer E, Mikolajewicz U,
Segschneider J. 1994. El Nino-
Southern Oscillation related fluctuations of the marine carbon cycle.
Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 8:39�65].

"The *_land biosphere_* is simulated using the dynamic _*vegetation*_
model LPJ (Sitch et al. 2003). .."..
[Sitch S, Smith B, Prentice IC, Arneth A, Bondeau A, et al. 2003.
Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant
geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global
vegetation model. Glob. Change Biol. 9:161�85]
*[RWL: A cooperative effort between Max Plank and Univ. of Wisconsin -
apparently co-author Brovkin is key person.]*

c. " *_CLIMBER-2_* consists of ..........a *_terrestrial biosphere
_*model (VECODE), an oceanic biogeochemistry
model, and a phosphate-limited model for marine biota (Ganopolski et al.
1998; Brovkin et al.
2002, 2007)." .....
[Ganopolski A, Rahmstorf S, Petoukhov V, Claussen M. 1998. Simulation of
modern and glacial climates with
a coupled global model of intermediate complexity. Nature 371:323�26]
[Brovkin V, Bendtsen J, Claussen M, Ganopolski A, Kubatzki C, Petoukhov
V. 2002. Carbon cycle, *_vegetation_*
and climate dynamics in the Holocene: Experiments with the CLIMBER-2
model. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16:1139
[Brovkin V, Ganopolski A, Archer D, Rahmstorf S. 2007. Lowering of
glacial atmospheric CO2 in response to
changes in oceanic circulation and marine biogeochemistry.
Paleoceanography 22:PA4202]
*[RWL: Archer and Brovkin seem active with this model. **See an
open-access article from 2008:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf]
*

*
**RWLQ1s: Three is correct (other 6 models never included vegetation?
Any other recommended references for biomass modeling of this type? (see
more references below also)
*
2. The following quotes are what was said about the vegetation results
seen in Figures 3d, and 4d (with interspersed comments by RWL):

"The vegetation feedback operates on annual to century timescales, which
is substantially faster
than the ocean feedbacks. The productivity of terrestrial plants
increases instantaneously *[RWL2a: the graphs don't seem instantaneous;
explanation? what was time step for each team?]*
with elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration because a physiological
response of the plant stomata leads
to higher water-use efficiency and a consequent increase in plant
biomass (Denman et al. 2007).
[Denman KL, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A, Ciais P, Cox PM, et al. 2007.
Couplings between changes in the
climate system and biogeochemistry. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis, ed. S Solomon,
D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, et al., pp. 499�587. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press]

"Enhanced respiration of plant tissues and accelerated decomposition of
soil organic matter owing
to elevated temperatures counteract this effect, but a net result of
projected changes in CO2 and
climate is an increase of the land carbon storage in *_most_* vegetation
models (Cramer et al. 2001,
Friedlingstein et al. 2006).
[Cramer W, Bondeau A, Woodward FI, Prentice IC, Betts RA, et al. 2001.
Dynamic responses of global
terrestrial ecosystems to changes in CO2 and climate. Glob. Change Biol.
7:357�73]
[Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, Bopp L, von Bloh W, et al. 2006.
Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis:
Results from C4MPI model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19:3337�53]
*[RWLQ2b: Increase in "most" but not in all vegetation models? These
three all quite close for the 1000 GT case - but quite varied for 5000
GT case.]

* "This is reflected in Figures 3 and 4. A presence of vegetation
feedback in
the simulations substantially reduces an airborne CO2 fraction,
especially during the first hundred
years. After this period, the ocean carbon uptake gains control over the
atmospheric CO2 concentration
because of the much larger buffering capacity of the ocean in comparison
with the land.
Although these results are in line with expected long-term vegetation
feedback (Bala et al. 2005,
Plattner et al. 2008), many *_uncertainties_* in the representation of
long-term land biogeochemistry
make the land feedback story more *_comprehensive_*.
[Bala G, Caldeira K, Mirin A, Wickett M, Delira C. 2005. Multicentury
changes to the global climate and
carbon cycle: Results from a coupled climate and carbon cycle model. J.
Clim. 18:4531�44]
[Plattner G-K, Knutti R, Joos F, Stocker TF, von Bloh W, et al. 2008.
Long-term climate commitments
projected with climate-carbon cycle models. J. Clim. 21:2697�710]
*[RWLQ2c: I'd like to hear more on the last
clause:"...uncertainties....make.....more comprehensive."]*

"Modeling of soil carbon dynamics is still in its infancy; *_many
important_* mechanisms, the priming effect of the addition of fresh
organic material
to the soils (Fontaine et al. 2003) and processes of anaerobic
decomposition of organic matter, for
example (Frolking et al. 2001), are_* not yet accounted*_ for in the
coupled global models."
[Fontaine S, Mariotti A, Abbadie L. 2003. The priming effect of organic
matter: a question of microbial
competition? Soil Biol. Biochem. 35:837�43]
[Frolking S, Roulet NT, Moore TR, Richard JPH, Lavoie M, Muller SD.
2001. Modeling northern peatland
decomposition and peat accumulation. Ecosystems 4:479�98]
*[RWLQ2d: And similarly not yet Biochar, presumably. I wonder about the
term "many important".* *It appears that the impact of added charcoal is
to quite greatly add to root, microbe and fungal mass. Maybe a missing
equal biomass below ground not being counted?]*

"Nitrogen and phosphorus balance is ignored in most of the models (Reich
et al. 2006), and changes in
carbonate storages in dryland soils are neglected (Lal et al. 2000).
Models of vegetation (forest) dynamics on a global scale are extremely
simplified and difficult to validate because of the long
timescales involved (Purves & Pacala 2008). "
[Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Lee T, Ellsworth DS,West JB, et al. 2006. Nitrogen
limitation constrains sustainability
of ecosystem response to CO2. Nature 440:922�25]
[Lal R, Kimble JMH, Eswaran H, Stewart BA, eds. 2000. Global Climate
Change and Pedogenic Carbonates. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press]
[Purves D, Pacala SW. 2008. Predictive models of forest dynamics.
Science 320:1452�53]
*[RWLQ2e: No specific comment -but can add that Biochar is reported to
reduce N2O and phosphorous releases.]*

"Finally, changes in the land carbon uptake due to
future alteration of land use by humans are almost impossible to
foresee. All these limitations of
the land model assumptions make the simulations of the land carbon
response to the CO2 pulse
presented here illustrative rather than predictive."
*[RWLQ2f: Per Peter Read - Biochar (an intentional anthropogenic
variation in the carbon cycle) can probably be a bigger change than
anything else listed.]

3. Notes about the figures:

*a. The three"instantaneous" draw-down values for the 1000 Gt case are
between 100 and 120 ppmv (around 250 Gt?) - before year 50. It is not
clear the breakdown between plant, soil, and ocean contributions.
Hopefully the detailed data behind these graphs are available somewhere.
b. The biggest change I see is that the 3 models are much more similar
for the 1000 Gt vegetation case than the 5000 Gt vegetation case.
Understanding these differences looks important
c. It appears that one of the three case graphs are missing in Fig 1 for
each of the three vegetation cases. Only two curves are shown, so it is
not possible to generate Figs 3 and 4 from Fig 1. Hopefully it will b
possible to obtain the raw data.
d.. I think that the upper right part of Fig 1 has an incorrect labeling
of the three cases (solid and dotted not consistently labeled between
the 1000 and 5000 cases (should be a reversal, I believe.)

*4. Summary:* I doubt that the ongoing Biomass discussion between Peter
Read and Mike McCormick will be illuminated at all by this paper. But 3
of the 9 models in this paper have apparently made very different but
probably useful assumptions about the impact of excess carbon dioxide on
Biomass' (and therefore Biochar's) ability to withdraw CO2 from the
atmosphere. There seem to be a multitude of good papers to now review. I
thank Ken for bringing this paper to our attention. If anyone has
comments to make on any of the paper's Biomass citations (or good
missing ones - for modeling purposes), they would be appreciated.]


Ron

Ken Caldeira wrote (yesterday, giving the paperI am commenting on, that
can also be found at
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf):

> Be aware that that formulation of Vaughn and Lenton is a
> simplification and that 20% asymptotic value and 40% is probably a
> better estimate for cumulative releases on the scale of conventional
> fossil fuel resources.
>
> See attached paper for discussion.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>

> kcal...@ciw.edu <mailto:kcal...@ciw.edu>; kcal...@stanford.edu
> <mailto:kcal...@stanford.edu>

> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Alvia Gaskill <agas...@nc.rr.com
> <mailto:agas...@nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> From Lenton and Vaughn (2009):
>

<snip rest as not being pertinent to either modeling or early vegetation
carbon sequestration issues>

[Kelly Wanser]

The premises of the simple argument for SRM geoengineering are not all
confirmed, and the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them.
Your case for when to geoengineer (e.g. now), what type of
geoengineering to do (e.g. stratospheric particles) and whether the
benefits outweigh the risks is based on a number of assumptions and,
where evidence is scant, is likely to give rise to (justifiable)
skepticism and controversy.

An alternative way to think about it is that climate change has a risk
curve that we are traversing (and still trying to project accurately)
and geoengineering (here referring to SRM) has a risk curve about
which we know relatively little, including very little for specific
methods.

Our hypothesis today might be that, given what we know about the risk
forecast for overall climate change, at some point, the curves will
intersect where the risk of geoengineering may become lower than the
risk of not doing so. To determine when, and to influence both
curves, we require extensive research. We need research both to
understand the relative risks, and to reduce them. We need research
to know if, when and how we would ever use geoengineering, including
knowing whether there may be no circumstances under which we would do
so. We need research to know whether and how we may already be
inadvertently geoengineering, and how to know if anyone, anywhere is
geoengineering actively. And, if it is possible that the perceived or
actual risk of climate change could exceed the perceived or actual
risk of geoengineering at a point in the near future, this research
becomes rather urgent.

A simple case for geoengineering research can be soundly drawn from
the facts of our situation. Research is required to understand
whether we would ever use geoengineering, when the benefits would
outweigh the risks of doing so and what methods and approaches to
geoengineering may ever be viable components of managing climate
change (even temporarily). Such research is the pre-cursor to any
effort to geoengineer anyway, so it is both a solid argument and a
reasonable way to advance to the next relevant set of activities
without damaging credibility or raising alarm bells associated with
advocating an exceptionally high-risk activity in the absence of a
strong foundation of knowledge.

A Simple Case for Geoengineering Research:

1. Climate change incurs substantial risk of future loss of life,
property, ecosystems, population centers, industries and human well
being.

2. Evidence strongly suggests that this risk is increasing, and may
accelerate rapidly at various points in the future, toward
catastrophic consequences for inhabitants of many parts of the world.

3. There is a possibility that some forms of geoengineering, used
independently or jointly, may reduce the risk of catastrophic climate
change.

4. Every form of geoengineering has risks, about which we know
relatively little, and, based on what we do know, some of those risks
may be very large.

5. We have inadequate knowledge about the feasibility, risks and
benefits of any form of geoengineering:
- We do not know whether any methods or combination of methods can
feasibly reduce overall climate risk
- We do not know their risks, benefits and optimum method of
utilization
- We do not currently have the technology, or know how to implement,
monitor or manage them

6. We hypothesize that, as climate change proceeds as currently
forecast, at some point within the next few decades the risks of
geoengineering may be perceived by some to be lower than the risks of
not doing so, and a country, group or other party may attempt to
geoengineer the climate.

7. We can say with some degree of certainty that research lowers the
risks of geoengineering, so that if any party were ever to geoengineer
at some point in the future, research would be an extremely sound
investment to understand and reduce this risk.

8. Independently of any case for actively geoengineering in an attempt
to reduce catastrophic outcomes, research in geoengineering requires
both granular understanding of climate phenomena that we lack
currently, and yields understanding of the unintentional
geoengineering (man-made effects) that we are currently producing and
may inadvertently alter (such as the large quantities of polluting
particles thought to be producing cooling effects today).


A letter along these lines may be tougher to dispute and compelling
for many researchers (including those that may oppose geoengineering
deployment) to sign, and may help set the right activities in motion,
deferring debate about the relative merits and morality of
geoengineering deployment until we have more information to work with.


Best Regards,

Kelly Wanser
Silver Lining Project
CEO eCert Inc.

> > kcalde...@ciw.edu <mailto:kcalde...@ciw.edu>; kcalde...@stanford.edu
> > <mailto:kcalde...@stanford.edu>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Manu Sharma]

I too disagree that there's a case for a SRM geoengineering intervention without first acting on immediate, large and deep emission reductions.

Thanks,

Manu

[Glyn Roberts]

I assumed the reason for using 100 year GWP figures is that it
represents a compromise between too short and too long extremes.

If we talk about impacts too far in the future it becomes less urgent
to the public and politicians. There is some urgency when climate
change impacts our children and their children. But problems more
than a hundred years in the future becomes too hypothetical and no
longer has a direct interest to most of us. Besides, in a hundred
years the world will be so technologically different it's no longer
valid to uses our 20th century mentality to contemplate it. And our
ability to harness nature and adapt to anything she throws at us will
be light-years greater than today. I'm not saying that these opinions
are fully valid, just that there is a rational for not making the GWP
period overly long; because most people simply don't care about that
far off into the future.

But maybe there was a different reason for the 100 year GWP horizon?

Best regards,

Glyn

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Greg Rau <ra...@llnl.gov> wrote:
> Thanks, David.  I agree. Failure to appreciate long term effects and ocean
> acidification impacts, together with questionable/opaque discounting schemes
> has I believe resulted in CO2 mitigation being greatly undervalued by the
> economists and this is significantly undermining policy and political will.
> Regards,
> Greg
>

> http://*ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2554.1

> [1] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
>
> [2]  http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management
>
> [3] http://**answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk
>
> [4] http://**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To  unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For  more options, visit this group at

> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to  geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email  to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit  this group at

> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG -  www.**avg.com

> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release  Date: 11/15/09
> 19:50:00
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at

> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at

> http://**groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[jim woolridge]

There is a problem here: we have been asking for emissions cuts for 20
years yet now there more emissions than ever--surely it is time other
options were pursued. As well as emission cuts, NOT instead of
emissions cuts.

[Greg Rau]

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0911/gallery.geoengineer/index.html

[jim woolridge]

'...at some point within the next few decades...': Kelly, we have had
a scant 2 decades of major concern and political activism re climate
change; in that time things have moved rather more rapidly than anyone
anticipated and show no signs of slowing down. The concern that many
of us have is that we no longer have the luxury of decades in which to
ruminate about 'will we or won't we?'
Could you be more specific about the premises which are not confirmed
and in what way the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dan Whaley]

Jim-- I think this is the key takeaway from Kelly's note, which seems
patently obvious to me.

"Such research is the pre-cursor to any effort to geoengineer anyway,
so it is both a solid argument and a reasonable way to advance to the
next relevant set of activities without damaging credibility or
raising alarm bells associated with advocating an exceptionally high-
risk activity in the absence of a strong foundation of knowledge."

Dan

> ...
>
> read more »

[jim woolridge]

Granted, it is the key takeaway and of course more research is needed--
am assuming 'research' here includes 'demonstration and development'
and that all three categories include the caveat a.s.a.p. ('as soon as
possible' in case initials not known.)

As we know unauthorised research was carried out recently with regard
to ocean iron fertilisation, it is crucially important that a proper
international framework is put in place so that the necessary next
steps can be taken in a coherent and transparent fashion--and, of
course, it looks as though the US and UK are making the right kind of
moves in that direction.

But our real area of disagreement is not over the necessity for
further research but rather over the urgency of that need. It is only
to be expected that there will be a variance of views on what is,
after all, a matter of judgement. For me the sooner we get beyond
funding and research courtesy of the Discovery Channel the better--and
major thanks to Discovery, BTW--without them were would we be?

> ...
>
> read more »

[John Nissen]

Hi Jim,

The essential conclusion from the "simple argument", is that geoengineering is urgently needed to cool the Arctic and save the Arctic sea ice.  I have had no counter argument against this conclusion, from any of the experts on this list.  I'm still waiting!  THE CHALLENGE REMAINS.

In my view, the greatest danger to us all (and I mean all of us) is leaving the geoengineering deployment too late.  Positive feedbacks are building up in the Arctic.  The sea ice could suddenly melt away one summer.  There is no certainty about effectiveness of the various techniques, given the lack of engineering and field experimentation.  Therefore delaying tactics could be absolutely fatal.  We've delayed too long already.

Cheers,

John

---

jim woolridge wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.


  

[Neil Farbstein]

I agree you have made an excellent case to research geoengineering
methods. I'm still planning to start a nonprofit research foundation
devoted to find strategies for dealing with climate change and to find
ways to modify the climate so as to mitigate greenhouse warming and to
stop a runaway greenhouse effect.

On Nov 24, 12:47 pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> The essential conclusion from the "simple argument", is that geoengineering is urgently needed to cool the Arctic and save the Arctic sea ice.  I have had no counter argument against this conclusion, from any of the experts on this list.  I'm still waiting!  THE CHALLENGE REMAINS.
> In my view, the greatest danger to us all (and I mean all of us) is leaving the geoengineering deployment too late.  Positive feedbacks are building up in the Arctic.  The sea ice could suddenly melt away one summer.  There is no certainty about effectiveness of the various techniques, given the lack of engineering and field experimentation.  Therefore delaying tactics could be absolutely fatal.  We've delayed too long already.
> Cheers,
> John
> ---

> jim woolridge wrote:Granted, it is the key takeaway and of course more research is needed-- am assuming 'research' here includes 'demonstration and development' and that all three categories include the caveat a.s.a.p. ('as soon as possible' in case initials not known.) As we know unauthorised research was carried out recently with regard to ocean iron fertilisation, it is crucially important that a proper international framework is put in place so that the necessary next steps can be taken in a coherent and transparent fashion--and, of course, it looks as though the US and UK are making the right kind of moves in that direction. But our real area of disagreement is not over the necessity for further research but rather over the urgency of that need. It is only to be expected that there will be a variance of views on what is, after all, a matter of judgement. For me the sooner we get beyond funding and research courtesy of the Discovery Channel the better--and major thanks to Discovery, BTW--without them were would we be? On Nov 23, 9:02 pm, Dan Whaley<dan.wha...@gmail.com>wrote:Jim-- I think this is the key takeaway from Kelly's note, which seems patently obvious to me. "Such research is the pre-cursor to any effort to geoengineer anyway, so it is both a solid argument and a reasonable way to advance to the next relevant set of activities without damaging credibility or raising alarm bells associated with advocating an exceptionally high- risk activity in the absence of a strong foundation of knowledge." Dan On Nov 23, 12:30 pm, jim woolridge<jimwoolri...@hotmail.com>wrote:'...at some point within the next few decades...': Kelly, we have had a scant 2 decades of major concern and political activism re climate change; in that time things have moved rather more rapidly than anyone anticipated and show no signs of slowing down.  The concern that many of us have is that we no longer have the luxury of decades in which to ruminate about 'will we or won't we?' Could you be more specific about the premises which are not confirmed and in what way the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them?On Nov 23, 1:41 am, Kelly Wanser<kelly.wan...@gmail.com>wrote:The premises of the simple argument for SRM geoengineering are not all confirmed, and the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them. Your case for when to geoengineer (e.g. now), what type of geoengineering to do (e.g. stratospheric particles) and whether the benefits outweigh the risks is based on a number of assumptions and, where evidence is scant, is likely to give rise to (justifiable) skepticism and controversy.An alternative way to think about it is that climate change has a risk curve that we are traversing (and still trying to project accurately) and geoengineering (here referring to SRM) has a risk curve about which we know relatively little, including very little for specific methods.Our hypothesis today might be that, given what we know about the risk forecast for overall climate change, at some point, the curves will intersect where the risk of geoengineering may become lower than the risk of not doing so.  To determine when, and to influence both curves, we require extensive research. We need research both to understand the relative risks, and to reduce them.  We need research to know if, when and how we would ever use geoengineering, including knowing whether there may be no circumstances under which we would do so. We need research to know whether and how we may already be inadvertently geoengineering, and how to know if anyone, anywhere is geoengineering actively. And, if it is possible that the perceived or actual risk of climate change could exceed the perceived or actual risk of geoengineering at a point in the near future, this research becomes rather urgent.A simple case for geoengineering research can be soundly drawn from the facts of our situation.  Research is required to understand whether we would ever use geoengineering, when the benefits would outweigh the risks of doing so and what methods and approaches to geoengineering may ever be viable components of managing climate change (even temporarily). Such research is the pre-cursor to any effort to geoengineer anyway, so it is both a solid argument and a reasonable way to advance to the next relevant set of activities without damaging credibility or raising alarm bells associated with advocating an exceptionally high-risk activity in the absence of a strong foundation of knowledge.A Simple Case for Geoengineering Research:1. Climate change incurs substantial risk of future loss of life, property, ecosystems, population centers, industries and human well being.2. Evidence strongly suggests that this risk is increasing, and may accelerate rapidly at various points in the future, toward catastrophic consequences for inhabitants of many parts of the world.3. There is a possibility that some forms of geoengineering, used independently or jointly, may reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change.4. Every form of geoengineering has risks, about which we know relatively little, and, based on what we do know, some of those risks may be very large.5. We have inadequate knowledge about the feasibility, risks and benefits of any form of geoengineering: - We do not know whether any methods or combination of methods can feasibly reduce overall climate risk - We do not know their risks, benefits and optimum method of utilization - We do not currently have the technology, or know how to implement, monitor or manage them6. We hypothesize that, as climate change proceeds as currently forecast, at some point within the next few decades the risks of geoengineering may be perceived by some to be lower than the risks of not doing so, and a country, group or other party may attempt to geoengineer the climate.7. We can say with some degree of certainty that research lowers the risks of geoengineering, so that if any party were ever to geoengineer at some point in the future, research would be an extremely sound investment to understand and reduce this risk.8. Independently of any case for actively geoengineering in an attempt to reduce catastrophic outcomes, research in geoengineering requires both granular understanding of climate phenomena that we lack currently, and yields understanding of the unintentional geoengineering (man-made effects) that we are currently producing...
>
> read more »

[John Nissen]

Hi Neil,

Thanks for your support.  I think such a research foundation would be welcome.  But, as I've said on a thread started by Ken, research is not enough.  Time is running out for deployment of SRM to save the Arctic.

There still seems to be some lingering doubt about the severity of the situation.  I'm just been reading "The Copenhagen Diagnosis" [1], an update of IPCC on the "latest climate science", prior to Copenhagen.  This report does not even mention geoengineering or climate intervention.  However it does discuss the situation in the Arctic.

METHANE

"Few studies with AR4-type climate models have been undertaken. One systematic study used the Community Climate System Model, version 3 (CCSM3) with explicit treatment of frozen soil processes. The simulated reduction in permafrost reached 40% by ~2030 irrespective of emission scenario (a reduction from ~10 million km2 to 6 million km2). By 2050, this reduces to 4 million km2 (under B1 emissions) and 3.5 million km2 (under A2 emissions). Permafrost declines to ~1 million km2 by 2100 under A2. In each case, the simulations did not include additional feedbacks triggered by the collapse of permafrost including out-gassing of methane, a northward expansion of shrubs and forests and the activation of the soil carbon pool.  These would each further amplify warming."

So the melting of permafrost is not affected by emissions reduction.  Surprise, surprise.  The feedbacks they ignore rather invalidates the 40% reduction in permafrost - itself quite a danger.  Have they taken into account Arctic warming, if the sea ice disappears?  David Lawrence, an expert on permafrost, considers that the permafrost will inevitably melt away if the sea ice disappears.  So I am not reassured at all by what they say.  And their conclusion is very suspect, even contradictory (as 40% reduction in permafrost would surely release methane):

❏ A separate and significant source of methane exists as hydrates beneath the deep ocean floor and in permafrost. It has recently been concluded that release of this type of methane is very unlikely to occur this century.

GREENLAND ICE SHEET

Note the astonishing melt in 2007, which coincided with flooding in the UK.  I wonder whether this is happening again!  We've just had the highest rainfall ever recorded in Cumbria.

Also note the low melt in 1992, which coincided with Mount Pinato eruption and sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere.  This bodes well for SRM geoengineering to work successfully, so long as we don't leave it too late.

Again I suspect that they haven't taken into account the possibility of sea ice disappearance.  Their conclusion is hardly reassuring.

"Although it is unlikely that total sea level rise by 2100 will be as high as 2 meters (Pfeffer et al. 2008), the probable upper limit of a contribution from the ice sheets remains uncertain."

ARCTIC SEA ICE

Their conclusion is staggering, considering that only recently they were saying that emissions reductions could save the Arctic sea ice.

❏ The warming commitment associated with existing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels means it is very likely that in the coming decades the summer Arctic Ocean will become ice-free, although the precise timing of this remains uncertain.

They accept the first part of my "simple argument for SRM geoengineering" (that emissions reductions alone cannot save the Arctic sea ice), but choose to ignore the consequences of sea ice disappearance.  Surely these consequences are so dangerous that we've got to save the Arctic sea ice at any cost.  That is the conclusion of my argument, that nobody has yet disputed!

Cheers,

John

[1] http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/download/default.html

---

Neil Farbstein wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.


  

[General Mail]

Introducing the world's next largest natural gas reserve?

 

    I never thought that I would be saying this but in a worse case scenario the deployment of white plastic sheeting could be utilized over
permafrost regions if it was determined that a potential methane out gassing reached a yet to-be-determined critical thermal state. The white plastic

sheeting would not only provide an emergency albedo effect to enhance snow and ice cover but it could also temporarily trap the methane underneath.

The methane could be captured or "funneled" for storage. Between the oil consumption used in the plastic sheeting and the idea of capturing natural

gas, who would have ever thought that the petroleum industry could potentially become the next powerful ally in the fight against climate change?

 

Brennan

[Greg Rau]

Brennan,
I thought we were going to use the PVC from your process for this
purpose? Anyway, we should probably clear this with the local
caribou herds, etc before carpeting the tundra. ;-)
-Greg

>--
>
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "geoengineering" group.
>To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at

>http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[Brennan J.]

Greg,

Yes, renewable energy for the chloro-alkali chlorine gas to PVC
production and PVC pipelines for the methane gas (meant in good
humor).

Well I am now determined to leave early before I come up with anymore
outrageous geoengineering ideas...

Wishing a Great Thanksgiving,

Brennan

> >http://*groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

I am afraid that we have lost one of the wisest of members of our group.  I am copying two of Peter Read's last postings before he died.  I think he was as concerned as anybody for the future of the planet, although he knew he was leaving it soon.  Here he is suggesting some practical things to do immediately for the Arctic, especially to protect the Greenland ice sheet.

---

[quote 1]

John

 

If it is to impact on policy -- I guess policy-makers are the intended audience but how to get the message to them is another question -- it is important to realise there are quite likely a fair number of deniers out there.  It is no good just saying [or implying] they are wrong since confrontation is not good conflict resolution. 

 

I think the "simple argument" should be put in terms of risk management.  We may be wrong but the cost of failing to act, if we are right, is catastrophic whereas the cost of being needlessly prepared, if we are wrong, is trivial. e.g.

• Stocking sulphur at places where it can be lifted to the stratosphere

• Designing and testing delivery systems

• Sorting the logistics for mass producing rockets or aircraft or whatever is to be used; and building an initial fleet of them

• Training pilots or rocket engineers

• Other things that experts can doubtless think of

• And building and testing a few Salter ships

All peanuts.

 

Risk management also bears on how scientifically certain we are.  We should aim to achieve policy-maker recognition of the Art 3.3 commitment to cost-effective precautionary action in the absence of full scientific certainty. 

 

So we don't need to be certain that the ice-sheet will definitely become unstable. 

 

And Kyoto style emissions reductions are not only ineffective but also high cost compared with many carbon removals options. 

 

The only way to get scalable low cost emissions reductions is the grow the fuel and then progressively substitute biomass for fossil fuel.  Yes, there are low hanging fruit in the efficiency and ambient energy directions but they don't scale up because of the intermittent nature of the supply or the difficulty of persuading busy people to think about complicated technologies that impact on a small portion of the household budget.

 

Defossilization is easy (low cost) and can be done in a few decades, decarbonization is hard (costly) and would take a century, replacing most of the existing energy sector capital stock.

 

If you want it, I would be happy to contribute to the honed message that Ken proposes

 

Peter

---

[quote 2]

I used sulphate as an example because my understanding is that this is the only SRM technology that we are confident would work.  I think your interesting recent paper confirms that view, although it mentions a number of other technologies that look very interesting.

 

I much prefer Salter's ships but we don't yet know if they work - or if they would work better as bubble machines not spray machines

 

But if there are any proven non-sulphate technologies available I would like to see the preparations for deployment in hand with supply logistics etc sorted out

 

And I would like to see some vessels out there NOW putting down a few square miles of plastic to float on the surface and see whether the icepack that forms on top of it this winter lasts longer come summer.  The Alaskan Inuits would welcome it I suspect.  Or maybe the ice forms by freezing the ocean surface, and not by accumulated snowfall, so the plastic would result in less ice not more.  Maybe wait for the ice to form and then inject plastic through the ice to spread out underneath.  We need to suck it and see.

If Russia and Canada want navigation channels it should not be difficult to keep them open in summer given the warmer ocean waters.  Just put the plastic down where you want the sea ice, and not where you don't. 

 

But these speculations should not detract from the risk management perspective that reveals an urgent need to be able to deploy a proven technology quickly, if/when the situation calls for it

 

Peter

 

[end quote]

Does anybody disagree with any of this?  Can we use it as a basis for a plan for immediate action?

John

[Andrew Lockley]

In order to address the problems of ozone loss and methane excursions, we need IMO to directly alter atmospheric chemistry.  Making ozone isn't terribly difficult.  You can buy off-the-shelf machines which do is quite happily.  If you sling them under a balloon, then they should work quite merrily to boost ozone levels.  Power would be a issue, but some options include microwave beams, lasers, solar panels and satellite-style micro-nuclear plants.

I know less about hydroxyl radicals.  I'm assuming that some similar flying Heath-Robinson contraptions could be used to fix them up too.  Does anyone know what technologies exist, what the power, servicing, lifetime and other issues are?

Our approach to pollution is strange.  On the ground, we're quite happy to catch it, treat it and scrub it up.  We seem, however, to make little effort to repair the damage in the wider environment, even when doing so doesn't appear to be impossibly difficult.  Why sit back, hand-wringing, instead of building some engineering solutions?

A

2009/11/15 Eugene I. Gordon <eugg...@comcast.net>

Andrew:

 

Based on prior behavior I guess we might get 50 years of few or no sunspots. Hence we might have 50 years before it gets really hot. In the meantime my guess is that the Canadians and Russians will fight any attempt at Arctic geoengineering to cool or get rid of CH4. Methane conversion to CO2 is one molecule for one molecule; and CH4 is a more effective greenhouse gas so I don’t see methane conversion to CO2 as a big deal. The main converters are OH and O2H radicals formed from O3 and H2O. So means of enhancing radical formation would be desirable. Another way would be to introduce H2. All of these conversion processes are at the expense of the ozone layer.

 

-gene

A

On Nov 12, 10:51 pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
> It is incredible. It is so obvious.
>

> 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the

> concentration above its pre-industrial level; and

>
> 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the
> concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective lifetime
> of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years.
>
> Therefore:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[Andrew Lockley]

John, 

The approach of the IMechE in the UK seems to be pretty sensible.  They argue for an approach (I've) nicknamed the 3-legged stool:  Mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering.  I think we need to be pushing a similarly-integrated policy.  

As for John's arguments for 'Geoeng now', I'm afraid I don't agree.  Even though the delivery methods might seem trivial, there are all sorts of problems which may arise with sulfur distribution.  It would be premature to try a full-scale rollout when no-one's even tested a single balloon or tanker-full of H2S or SO2.

Furthermore, we simply don't know if we need Geoengineering immediately.  I see no evidence which suggests that we're just about to pass a tipping point with Arctic sea ice, or anywhere else, that can't be stopped unless we geoengineer now as opposed to a few years later.  Sure, I buy the argument that we need geoengineering soon, but do we need it tomorrow?  I very much doubt it.  If we're overly hasty, and lack proper support for our rushed approach, then we'll risk alienating people at a crucial time.  Far better to do solid research on the scale and timing of deployment needed, and concurrently engineer a detailed plan for action.  Right now, we don't appear to have either, so let's not start the journey before getting the car running nicely.

A

PS I went to the Wave in London yesterday.  That's my climate karma sorted for the week :-)  I didn't see anyone from this list

2009/11/27 John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[Sam Carana]

Andrew,

Since hydroxyls essentially combine O and H, it may be possible to
increase the amount of hydroxyls in the atmosphere by adding both O
and H, although I'm unsure whether this will automatically result in
more hydroxyls.

I remember that I wrote you, back in March, that hydrogen could be
produced and released into the atmosphere to - under the influence of
UV light - in an effort to produce extra hydroxyl radicals, in order
to speed up methane oxidation. If this is feasible, we should prepare
for this as a separate geoengineering project, in order to be ready to
dramatically increase the production of hydrogen, preferably by means
of electrolysis powered by wind turbines, or by means of pyrolysis of
biomass.

You replied that such additional hydrogen could cause ozone depletion.
The above process of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water could
at the same time produce oxygen that could be used to in turn produce
ozone.

You said you were working on a methane paper, Andrew, is this
avialable online, or are you still working on it?

Cheers!
Sam Carana

> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Sam and Andrew,

Some problems may come up with further increasing H2. H2 is an indirect GHG.

H2 is a significant OH sink globally.

Most of the H2 is consumed in soil. In soil the following reaction takes
place,

CO2+4H2 ? CH4+2H2O.

Furthermore, the oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere of produces about
half of the H2 in the atmosphere.

A good summary can be found in

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf

Sincerely,

Oliver Wingenter

[Sam Carana]

Good point, Oliver,

Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was
estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further
hydrogen and oxygen may cause additional water vapor, in turn causing
additional radiative forcing.

However, water vapor persists for relatively short periods, much
shorter than methane. Most vapor will quickly turn into precipitation,
which may also be beneficial for the soil at many places. Furthermore,
additional cloud coverage may make that more sunlight is reflected
back into space, mainly due to the albedo difference between clouds
and seawater. Overall, the impact may therefore be beneficial,
especially if this results in increased oxidation of methane.

Of course, the aim of such a project would not be to create vapor, the
aim would be to increase hydroxyl levels, so we should look at adding
hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, rather
than water vapor.

Much research and testing has already been done and further research
can build on this. There should be more research in all this, with
testing of the overall impact of such a project, rather than to rely
only on observations of reactions that take place in isolated
conditions during lab testing.

As discussed, we should have plans ready in case methane becomes
catastrophic, e.g. due to large increases of methane from permafrost
and clathrates, while hydroxyl levels are dropping. Such a plan should
aim to take into account all the impacts, as well as work out costs,
feasibility and other points I raised before. In short, it should be
researched as a geoengineering project.

If this takes years of research and testing, then the more reason to
start with it now, as we may find that we have little time left to do
this, if it suddenly becomes immanent that our worst fears have
eventuated.

Cheers
Sam Carana

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hydroxyls role in relation to ozone should not be forgotten;
that might warrant extra study for hydroxyl's roles:
 
i.e. adding hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation,
in order to help to promote or stabilise the ozone formation, if do-able.

rgs, albert

---

Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.

[John Gorman]

A month or two back someone suggested that H2 would have as bad an effect on
the ozone layer as CFCs and that this was a reason for rejecting the H2
based transport energy idea.

Is this true? If so we want as little free H2 released as possible even if
it would have other positive effects.

John Gorman

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Carana" <sam.c...@gmail.com>
To: "geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:28 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere

Good point, Oliver,

Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was

estimated at 0.07 W/m� by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further

>>>> gas so I don�t see methane conversion to CO2 as a big deal. The main

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I recall this too. But then I read that hydroxyl OH- has a positive effect on the ozone. Is there any way to send a generators of hydroxyl, some sort of catalysator that would turn up that and help to create ozone which is said to be higher in the presence of OH- ions.

 
> From: gor...@waitrose.com
> To: sam.c...@gmail.com; Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:55:16 +0000
>
> A month or two back someone suggested that H2 would have as bad an effect on
> the ozone layer as CFCs and that this was a reason for rejecting the H2
> based transport energy idea.
>
> Is this true? If so we want as little free H2 released as possible even if
> it would have other positive effects.
>
> John Gorman
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sam Carana" <sam.c...@gmail.com>
> To: "geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:28 AM
> Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
>
>
> Good point, Oliver,
>
> Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was

> estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further

> >>>> gas so I don’t see methane conversion to CO2 as a big deal. The main

---

View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.