Olson gives Spoerl Lecture on geoengineering, climate change solutions | The Lawrentian
Andrew Lockley
http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002557
Olson gives Spoerl Lecture on geoengineering, climate change solutions
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 7, 2014 BY DANNY DAVIS
Last week, the environmental science department held a lecture by guest speaker Robert L. Olson from the Alternative Futures Institute. The lecture was part of the Spoerl Lectureship in Science and Society and discussed the problems of climate change and the implications of the solutions presented. The lecture was held on Thursday, Jan. 30 at 7 p.m. in Steitz Hall.The first half of the lecture discussed an emerging technology called climate geoengineering. Climate geoengineering is a category of technologies that could aggressively alter the course of global warming, technology that is both feasible and currently in development. These technologies serve as a ‘quick fix’ to climate change. Rather than try and take preventative measures, such as expanding green energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate geoengineering aims to directly reverse the effects of global warming.The associated technologies fall under two categories: Those that aim to reduce sunlight to prevent warming and those that remove carbon from the atmosphere to mitigate greenhouse effects. The technologies that Olson presented varied in potential effectiveness. The weakest, but also least potentially harmful technology was aggressive reforestation. By planting trees in massive numbers, the aim is to increase the amount of plants that scrub carbon from the atmosphere and convert it into oxygen.Another possible technology involves injecting iron into the oceans, which would cause large algae blooms which would absorb carbon. As the phytoplankton die, the carbon it absorbs would become part of the seafloor rather than reenter the atmosphere. However, this would come with the ramifications of algae blooms, which may cause harm to the atmosphere. Another strategy would be to plant lighter-colored crops and paint cities white to absorb less heat.The most powerful geoengineering technology that was speculated, however, was the use of stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Stratospheric sulphate aerosols are chemicals that would be sprayed into the atmosphere by aircraft. The concept of this technology would be to create a global dimming effect. In the lecture, Olson cited a large volcanic eruption that released so many sulfates into the air that it created a cooling effect. Even a one percent reduction in sunlight, as Olson discussed, could potentially mitigate the effects of global warming. However, the ramifications of injecting sulfates are unknown and could potentially be extremely dangerous. Olson argued that the best and safest way to mitigate the effects of global warming would be to cut greenhouse gas emissions and simply prepare for what he strongly alluded to be the inevitable effects of global warming. Olson cited alarming studies which showed the environmental impacts of small raises in average global temperatures. One study he cited suggested that if global temperatures rise enough, the amount of land area affected by severe drought could increase from fifteen percent to forty-four percent by the year 2100.Olson discussed issues with why preventative technologies have not been mobilized, despite the alarming evidence that was presented. Olson took a directly partisan stance and argued that the political right has catered to the interests of the energy industry and climate change deniers. As Olson argued, politics have been a major obstacle in enacting environmental policies. Part of what makes geoengineering so controversial is that the political right has recently shown support of geoengineering, even if the ramifications aren’t fully known yet, he said.Junior Conor Sexton, an environmental studies major, discussed the political situation around geoengineering. “In the current political arena, it’s a very viable option that’s going to become lucrative as time goes on. There are lot of unknowns, but that’s the path we’re headed down if we’re unwilling to take long term steps to prevent climate change,” he said.Though, politically, climate change has not gained much traction, Olson pointed out that even some conservative think-tanks are beginning to favor environmental policies that would not harm businesses. One such policy is carbon taxing, in which taxes from other areas in the economy are shifted onto a company’s carbon emissions to incentivize them to take environmentally friendly steps. Additionally, Olson said he was optimistic that something can be done about climate change. “It’s really important for us to have a dialogue between people who are concerned about climate change and people who are skeptical.”
Stephen Salter
Olson writes:
"Rather than try and take preventative measures, such as expanding green
energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate geoengineering
aims to directly reverse the effects of global warming."
green energy for nearly 40 years.
Stephen
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
em...@lewis-brown.net
We can only contiune to consistently frame geo-eng as a group of possible 'as well as' technologies.
I wonder if the Sokolovs (sorry if spelling is wrong) wedge approach would adaptable to showing the possible contribution to reducing temperatures (directly or indirectly) through different geo-eng AND standard mitigation (emissions reductions) options, show how they can contribute alongside one another and how standard mitigation may not act fast enough now.
Best wishes,
Emily
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
William Calvin
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
William H. Calvin
WCa...@UW.edu WilliamCalvin.org
William Calvin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
em...@lewis-brown.net
I refer to ocean acidification as only part of my concern about rises in co2 levels. The impact on temp seems established also, and i refer you to ipcc for further info on the links and concerns on this.
Regarding past changes in atmospheres and climates, yes these have ocurred and large and rapid ones are linked to mass extinctions. I dont wish that one our heavily populated world, especially where the most vulnerable and least to contribte pollution are hit soonest and hardest. Thus my concern for reducing co2 emissions, levels and avoiding rapid temperature rises is driven by concern for the welfare and suffering of people and animals. I think this is a widely shared driver behind climate campaigns and geo-eng developments?
Best wishes,
Emily
Why is it so clear to you that there is a problem? For the past 400,000 years there has been one warm cycle every roughly 1000 years and CO2 levels were low. Some cycles produced global temperatures warmer than now; the last cycle 1000 years ago was quite warm; much warmer than now. Greenland was much greener. The cycles last several hundred years. If the current warming is related to the next cycle in the series then CO2 is not the issue but local control of temperature might have some value (certainly not by CO2 emission reduction.) All the work on eliminating fossil fuels might simply be for naught. Safer to work on local temperature reduction and if not that at least have an open mind.
This group is clearly wedded to CO2 emission as the source of the problem but in my opinion should have a more open mind,.i.e., focus on cooling techniques.
Ronal W. Larson
Better to get nutrients by pumping up and then pumping down the new green stuff --before it can decompose-- into deep waters that take a thousand years to begin resurfacing and then are spread out over 10k years.
Oops, cut and paste left out the rest. Here again:A rather lame assessment.Solar radiation management will have a big problem: an uneven application will rearrange the winds and thus precipitation. Guess who they will blame for the droughts.
Doubling forests is the right amount of carbon but keeping it from returning to the air via fire and rot is impractical; we cannot even do it in rain forests.Iron blooms sink only 25% of the carbon into deep water and less than 1% into sediments. Better to get nutrients by pumping up and then pumping down the new green stuff --before it can decompose-- into deep waters that take a thousand years to begin resurfacing and then are spread out over 10k years.-WHC
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002557
Olson gives Spoerl Lecture on geoengineering, climate change solutions
<snipped by RWL>
Keith Henson
>
> Solar radiation management will have a big problem: an uneven application
> will rearrange the winds and thus precipitation. Guess who they will blame
> for the droughts.
Reducing the effect of rainfall on food production is an old idea.
It's called irrigation. But to make irrigation long term independent
from climate takes lots of capital and prodigious amounts of energy,
to desalinate sea water and pump it thousands of miles inland.
Or to take a Mississippi flood, clean out the silt and pump it into
the Ogallala Aquifer or over to the Colorado River (or both).
A really rich society could do that, especially one with oceans of
very low cost energy.
Should we put some numbers on what it would take?
Keith
PS BIo char from any source is darn good idea, even if we didn't need
to remove carbon.
PPS Andrew, it would help readability if you could preserve the
paragraph breaks.
Stephen Salter
The climate models show that marine cloud brightening can affect
precipitation in both directions depending on when and where you spray.
We may not know where and when this should be but we can learn. Perhaps
we get blamed for not doing it.
Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
William Calvin
Ronal W. Larson
For energy production, ocean has a number of possibilities.
But I am focused on hauling down the atmospheric CO2 in a manner that is big, quick, and sure-fire.
No amount of cleaner energy is going to clean up the excess CO2 accumulation in the air, though it is a good plan for the long-run.
Brian Cartwright
On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:11:39 AM UTC-5, Keith Henson wrote:
[snip]
Let's think about droughts.
Reducing the effect of rainfall on food production is an old idea.
It's called irrigation. But to make irrigation long term independent
from climate takes lots of capital and prodigious amounts of energy,
to desalinate sea water and pump it thousands of miles inland.
Or to take a Mississippi flood, clean out the silt and pump it into
the Ogallala Aquifer or over to the Colorado River (or both).
A really rich society could do that, especially one with oceans of
very low cost energy.
Should we put some numbers on what it would take?
Keith
PS BIo char from any source is darn good idea, even if we didn't need
to remove carbon.
William Calvin
Ronal W. Larson
I start from urgency: lots of climate change in a decade with something of a hiatus in near-surface air warming. Anything effective we do will have a lead time and then a drawdown time.
If that is to be no more than 25 years, we have to both counter the additional emissions (say, 350 GtC) in that period but also remove 300-400 GtC of the existing accumulation. So we are looking at more than 30 GtC/yr of removal from the air, some of which will come from ocean surface bicarbonate buffers reversing.
This time frame says we don't have time for anything that requires time for trees to grow or a lot of development: known processes like photosynthesis are preferable. 30GtC/yr requires a lot of space; on land, it requires a lot of water. That's why I suggest ocean, using local organisms that are sunk into the depths before they can rot.
I've sketched out such a process using push-pull pumps driven by wind and wave, but I would expect a Second Manhattan Project to come up with something better.
I can see biochar etc for longer term approaches, especially for stabilizing CO2 once drawn down. But it does not pass my Big, Quick, and Surefire Test.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dr. Calvin:My apologies. I failed to add CDR in my list of benefits for biochar. I failed because CDR is what I usually am pushing on this list. A good example I found today of where some folks place biochar for quantity and speed (what you are after) is this figure from a respected ocean acidification source:Note that biochar is in the upper right hand corner, where we all want CDR to be. I would put biochar even higher than shown, because 1) it can heavily impact forestry as well as agriculture, and 2) it can start with ocean as well as land-based resources.See also a few inserts in your response below.
<PastedGraphic-1.png>
Brian Cartwright
Biochar is a valuable tool to boost and speed the process of re-establishing soil carbon. I hope that consideration of using biochar can be put in the bigger context of the many problems that can be solved by building carbon-rich living soil in the great variety of earth's landscapes.