Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 38581 times)

Lewis C

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #100 on: March 18, 2015, 03:58:38 AM »
The linked research indicates that prior scientific assumptions about the advisability of converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland were overly optimistic (see extract).  The application of "Coppice Afforestation for Biochar" to the tropical rainforest may be even more inadvisable:

ASLR -

I feel I should point out that what I have proposed in repeated descriptions has nothing to do with:
"The application of "Coppice Afforestation for Biochar" to the tropical rainforest . . . "

and that:
"The application of "Coppice Afforestation for Biochar" to the tropical rainforest . . . "
has nothing to do with:
"prior scientific assumptions about the advisability of converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland"
apart from the fact that Africa happens to contain both rainforest and wet savannah.

It seems you might benefit from looking up the term 'afforestation'.


 

Lewis C

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #101 on: March 18, 2015, 04:04:11 AM »
Jai - I answered the question you wrote:
what would be the carbon footprint of falling and dragging, chipping and then processing to char, then grinding, shipping and then burying a forest that is almost 2 times the size of the nation of brazil?


I'm equally willing to answer your new questions, but I'd appreciate a response to the detailed answer to your last one, without which discussion is diminished.

You need first an understanding of the ancient and highly sustainable sylviculture of Coppice, which in preceding agriculture is arguably our oldest surviving sustainable industry.

Coppice consists of a woodland that is harvested cyclically and regrown from the stumps. For a coppice on a 10 year growth cycle there will be 10 plots felled in succession, meaning that there is one ready each year. The roots do not die so long as the cycle is less than ~35 years and browsers are not allowed to graze off the new growth, but instead they put out exceedingly vigorous growth owing to the massive root ball that develops. The rule of thumb is that from the second harvest onwards coppice grows 20% faster than normal cohort forestry. The trees thrive on this regime, with their biological clock being reset at each harvest, with the oldest known in Britain being a hazel near Ashford in Kent that was planted during the Roman occupation.

Coppice is never a clear-cut operation - cutting areas (coups) are limited to the traditional 1 to 3 acres and often smaller. Larger coups would allow more wind in slowing the start of the growth season and leading to lower humidity and soil moisture in summer, again slowing growth. The felling is done during the dormant season in temperate climes to increase the formation of new buds on the stump, though by contast in Burma the trees are cut when convenient and regrow just as well.

Extraction to a stack at the edge of the coup is normally done in winter in temperate climes to minimze plants' obstruction, but on wet sites is better done in summer when the ground is firmer. Haulage in the UK is normally by pony, though in many countries oxen are used. This has advantages of tight manoeuvring, minimal ground disturbance, and when trained of being self-guided between somebody hitching bundles of logs out on the coup and somebody unhitching and building the stack. Tractors are unhelpful for extraction as their ground pressure affects the trees' roots and has been shown to slow growth rates. A timber bob or 'pair of wheels' can be used to avoid logs scraping the ground which adds to haulage load.

An interesting aspect of native coppice forestry is that it accomodates exceptional biodiversity - the highest of any ecosystem in Europe - and I know of no reason against this being the case elsewhere. It does so due to the "ecological edge effect" where year by year the light enters onto a new patch of the woodland floor and then gradually declines as the trees grow during the felling cycle. This generates unique floral and fungal inventories which attract corresponding insect and bird communities plus every mammal, amphibian and reptile that can get a living from the result, including carnivores where they are respected.

So in answer to your questions:
When you chop down the trees, the roots die and decompose,
In coppice forestry they do not; they can live for at least 1700 years.

in addition, you dry out the tropical soil and change rainfall patterns.
No, coppice doesn't dry out tropical soils and change rainfall pattern, particularly when it is planted anew and so adds to total tree cover - as in the proposed program

not to mention biodiversity loss.
A program of Native Coppice Afforestation in plots across 1.6GHa.s will provide an immense and world-changing boost to biodiversity, particularly where it is planted to buffer or rejoin isolated old-growth forest reserves.

I wonder if you have truly thought through this idea.
I began thinking this idea through in its early formats back in the late 1980s, when I was first consulting to the UK govt on forestry issues. 25 years later I have thought this through in some detail.

Please consider the manpower, logistics
I've done so in close detail for project proposals but given the number of critical variables I'd say here that they depend largely upon local conditions and on inputs.

and environmental devastation such a scheme would entail.
If it it entailed the slightest 'environmental devastation' I'd not be proposing it.

You are talking about clear cutting a significant fraction of the tropical forest belt.
No, I'm talking about nothing of the sort. I'm talking of the feasibility and multiple critical benefits of a global program of Carbon Recovery for Food Security.

All the best,

Lewis
« Last Edit: March 18, 2015, 05:05:20 AM by Lewis C »

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1043
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #102 on: March 18, 2015, 04:40:17 AM »
Lewis, Changing agriculture and forestry practices are IMO two of the only ways I can think of to sequester some small part of the growing atmospheric load of CO2 we are daily delivering. Scale is of course a huge issue but at least it's a start, and done correctly the Carbon can be stored in a measurable form. It's also something somebody can set out to accomplish solo, without a big technology advancement. Holes in the ground that somebody uses huge amounts of energy to cram
CO2 into holes where we suck out the oil first isn't a viable option and likely more snake oil from the experts at snake oil.
 And congratulations on your coppiced trees.
 I am going to work on no till + winter cover crops. It is merely a start but it's a a start. I do not have coppiced trees yet Lewis but I will put some work into getting that going.
 I have a fascination with converting solar into food calories. The garden is an obvious effort but I am convinced with a small e car I can collect enough acorns, walnuts, and olives to fatten up pigs. I have tried to use small hand powered /solar assisted tools for gardening to some success but scaling above a couple acres puts a lot of stress on the battery tools. Again just a start. To be honest scale is of course hugely important but using some proven techniques and making a living while doing the footwork for others to follow is also hugely important. If I am a lucky man maybe someday I can say I did both.   
   

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1944
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #103 on: March 18, 2015, 06:32:00 AM »
What if you don't haul?

What if you cut and process in place with a portable pyrolyzer and bury the biochar where it's produced?

If the main idea is to re-sequester carbon then using the biochar for ag uses is secondary.  In some cases hauling the biochar to fields may not make economic sense, but sequestering carbon might.

Even if hauled it would see that biochar would be cheaper to move than even dried plant matter.

Lewis C

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #104 on: March 19, 2015, 06:05:23 AM »
Bruce - I share your doubts of the CO2CS proposals - both BECCS and DACCS - in spades. I've not seen anything remotely feasible proposed on a marginally significant scale in either of them.
Scaling Carbon Recovery for Food Security [CRFS] is a very different matter for a series of reasons -

- It offers the biochar product that is of both cash value and political value as a means of stabilizing rural populations of subsistence farmers, thereby slowing the pressure of the urban drift on overstressed cities, while also raising farm yields or at least lowering drought impacts on yields thus raising the politically crucial food security;
- It offers coproduct methanol from the retorts' surplus hydocarbon gasses which, with moderately efficient modular conversion kit, can yield at least one barrel of petrol-equivalent per two tonnes charcoal, which on the full scale 1.6Gha.s program would yield at least 9.0Mbbls/day of petrol equivalent, or roughly 10% of present global oil production (which for the many nations spending half their hard-currency earnings on the FF import bill will be a Godsend);
- It offers a carbon sequestration service that is predictably going to be tradable between nations as the issue of Carbon Recovery gains diplomatic profile and nations are faced with the task of recovering their cumulative emissions;
- It also offers both substantial rural employment and the establishment of massive new biodiversity habitat (for which Native Coppice is exceptionally benign) alongside relatively tiny infrastructure requirements, as additional drivers of national and donor-govts' decisions to invest in the necessary afforestation projects.

Regarding that best of livestock, the pig, I'd warmly recommend the Tamworth if you can find some weaners not too far away. They are very bright, eat anything (bar onion & citrus family but including any fallen sheep they can get) are hardy as hell (mine live out on a marsh and oakwood at ~1,000ft at 52N and rarely use the shelter) and are friendly and very peaceable. Gathering food for them is an option, but if you can get veg or bakery wastes you'd save a lot of time. Restaurant wastes are better still but need boiling thoroughly. A fine option for solar-sourced feed would be a plot of Jerusalem Artichokes, which can either be lifted and put in a clamp for winter feed, or can be dug up by the pigs being turned onto a new patch per week behind an electric fence. The latter gets the huge stems trampled in and well dunged, resulting in very high soil fertility the following year.

Regards,

Lewis

« Last Edit: March 19, 2015, 06:11:06 AM by Lewis C »

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1043
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #105 on: March 19, 2015, 03:15:00 PM »
Lewis, It is just getting to dawn over on this side of the pond.I thought I'd send some pictures of the farm. You can see the cover crop, the pigs and in the background , cottonwoods ( 20 acres native cottonwoods ) I have an electric water heater converted into a bio-diesel cooker and I have had some experience with buying barrels of methanol . I did run trucks and tractors with homemade fuel for awhile but I have been lazy lately.
I am familiar with methanol recovery from glycerine , and I also am a little intimidated with the whole process, or paranoid about blowing up the barn.  So I imagine a bio-char methanol recovery process involves stills and equipment best built some distance from neighbors? Things that can go boom draw all sorts of extra attention so like I said it makes me kinda paranoid. All that said maybe you could share some insight on small scale retorts, bio-char processing and methanol stills.

   http://winfieldfarm.us/store/?page_id=696

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1322
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #106 on: March 19, 2015, 06:54:21 PM »
careful with the methanol vapor, it goes boom as you noted. Make sure you have explosion proof breakers and pumps. But worse, methanol is very toxic: blindness, madness and death in that order.

I have a double walled tube with cold water in the outer jacket to condense the methanol vapor in the inner.

Also, a lot of methanol vapor come off the reactants when you cook the biodiesel.

take care, stay upwind ...

sidd

Lewis C

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #107 on: March 20, 2015, 12:56:00 PM »
What if you don't haul?
What if you cut and process in place with a portable pyrolyzer and bury the biochar where it's produced?
If the main idea is to re-sequester carbon then using the biochar for ag uses is secondary.  In some cases hauling the biochar to fields may not make economic sense, but sequestering carbon might.
Even if hauled it would see that biochar would be cheaper to move than even dried plant matter.

Bob - thanks for these proposed options.
 
- I'd doubt that burial of biochar from mobile retorts in the coppices would prove viable, since this subtracts both the income from sales to farms and the strong political support for better food security, while saving only the distribution costs and adding the burial costs, while also taking up land within the coppices. Dumping into mines or quarries might serve for a while, but the sheer volumes point to the use of farmland, as well as the economics and food security issue.

But it's right that charcoal is very preferable to wood as a cargo in terms of value/kg.
Using a mobile retort would raise investment costs very significantly for IIIrd world sites, but it might very well pay off as a means to avoid hauling the feedstock wood under N American and European labour rates, with that wood being about three times the weight of charcoal it yields.

Since a lot of room is needed for loading and unloading drums from a mobile retort, as well as space for them to cool safely, something nearer to the traditional approach of dispersed hearths spread out through the woodlands may prove most efficient, with the retort being moved between them and only charcoal being hauled out for milling, mixing, and bagging.

Traces of that system of dispersed hearths can still be seem in much of the Appalachian forests that now appear pristine but are actually grown-out coppice that was cut and regrown cyclically for generations to provide the charcoal on which the US iron industry was founded, and which it continued to use well into the C20th.

It's the best option I've seen for local mass employment once the coalmines are finally closed down.

Regards,

Lewis

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #108 on: March 20, 2015, 02:31:08 PM »
It might be a better investment to stop destruction of our natural environment (especially deforestation) before speculating about Negative Emissions Technology, NET.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/amazon-rainforest-and-great-barrier-reef-need-better-care-say-scientists
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Lewis C

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #109 on: March 20, 2015, 06:01:11 PM »
Bruce - fantastic pigs. What is the breed's history ? Were the coats bred in or basically inherited from a wild breed ? I'd like to know more about them.

My apology for misreading your remark of gathering feed as meaning you were thinking of starting in pigs. One item that came to mind that might be relevant that I heard years ago is of an autumn tradition (in the Balkans?) of setting fine mesh nets under oaks as chutes to feed acorns to sacks tied onto the trunks. Keeping the sacks as dry as poss would presumably be important.
Might save a lot of time on hands and knees given the size of your pigs . . .

With regard to home methanol production I'm afraid it's a tiny and neglected field of R&D - Ethanol gets all the focus, particularly biotech cellulosic, so I'd have to suggest googling. What I've found is mostly a step up scale, for instance Mitsubishi had a 2Ts/day woodchip to methanol plant as a lab device working towards a larger unit.

The Univ of Washington, College of the Environment, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences has been doing work on methanol as a forest product from thinnings, and at one point were developing a unit to go into woodland on a pickup. Looked very positive.

A paper by one of theirs: Ayhan Demirbas
 "Biorefineries: Current activities and future developments" is worth reading though it doesn't cover syngas production and conversion which is the route for serious volume: http://www.sefs.washington.edu/classes.pse.487/Biorefineries%20Current%20Activities%20and%20Future%20Developments.pdf

For all methanol is less prone to vapour ignition than petrol, I'd fully agree it's one to treat with real caution.

Regards,

Lewis
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 06:08:31 PM by Lewis C »

Lewis C

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #110 on: March 22, 2015, 03:16:59 PM »
It might be a better investment to stop destruction of our natural environment (especially deforestation) before speculating about Negative Emissions Technology, NET.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/amazon-rainforest-and-great-barrier-reef-need-better-care-say-scientists


ASLR - It might be, but under the circumstances it seems a vanishingly small probability.

Consider first that the only Carbon Recovery option that offers credible scaleabity to cleanse the atmosphere by 2100 - namely Native Coppice Afforestation for Biochar - will take at least 25 years to reach full operation;

and next that the ocean ecosystems covering ~70% of the planet are threatened by acidification that only Carbon Recovery can reduce;

and next that both the Amazon (now shown to be in rising mortality due to excess anthro-CO2) and the Great Barrier Reef (now shown to be threatened by rising mortality due to excess anthro-CO2) are clearly dependent on the application of Carbon Recovery alongside rapid Emissions Control for their survival.

I'd suggest that Carbon Recovery is now a critical component of a commensurate strategy to mitigate the damage caused by industrial society to date, and that the longer its applicalion is delayed the greater will be the irreversible losses. That said I'd of course agree that equitable measures to halt deforestation and end the pollution and other damage to the GB Reef are absolutely necessary - but I see no case for ranking their priority ahead or behind that of Carbon Recovery, particularly as there is no conflict between them.

Regards,

Lewis

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2017
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #111 on: March 22, 2015, 03:34:05 PM »
It might be a better investment to stop destruction of our natural environment (especially deforestation) before speculating about Negative Emissions Technology, NET.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/amazon-rainforest-and-great-barrier-reef-need-better-care-say-scientists


ASLR - It might be, but under the circumstances it seems a vanishingly small probability.

Consider first that the only Carbon Recovery option that offers credible scaleabity to cleanse the atmosphere by 2100 - namely Native Coppice Afforestation for Biochar - will take at least 25 years to reach full operation;

and next that the ocean ecosystems covering ~70% of the planet are threatened by acidification that only Carbon Recovery can reduce;


We're going to need a lot of sodium bicarbonate to deal with acid indigestion.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #112 on: March 22, 2015, 03:40:33 PM »
I'd suggest that Carbon Recovery is now a critical component of a commensurate strategy to mitigate the damage caused by industrial society to date, and that the longer its applicalion is delayed the greater will be the irreversible losses. That said I'd of course agree that equitable measures to halt deforestation and end the pollution and other damage to the GB Reef are absolutely necessary - but I see no case for ranking their priority ahead or behind that of Carbon Recovery, particularly as there is no conflict between them.

Regards,

Lewis


The linked reference indicates that large-scale deforestation, reforestation and afforestation (see second link to the IPCC for a discuss of the differences between deforestation, reforestation and afforestation) can change precipitation in the monsoon regions of the world.  Therefore, this fact should be considered in all model projections and in any possible Negative Emissions Technology, NET, planning.  For example the reference states that "… large-scale deforestation in the northern middle and high latitudes shifts the Intertropical Convergence Zone southward."  Thus allowing deforestation to continue in the northern middle & high latitudes is contributing to droughts in the US Southwest, India, North Africa and East Asia.  As our current farms and cites are built to match the historical precipitation patterns, it is a good idea to stop deforesting first, the to do reforesting and last to use large-scale afforestation only after careful modeling with a state-of-the-art Earth Systems Model (like ACME) otherwise, we could be making more problems than we solve.

N. Devaraju, Govindasamy Bala, and Angshuman Modak (2015), "Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: Remote versus local effects", PNAS, 3257–3262, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423439112

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3257.abstract

Abstract: "In this paper, using idealized climate model simulations, we investigate the biogeophysical effects of large-scale deforestation on monsoon regions. We find that the remote forcing from large-scale deforestation in the northern middle and high latitudes shifts the Intertropical Convergence Zone southward. This results in a significant decrease in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere monsoon regions (East Asia, North America, North Africa, and South Asia) and moderate precipitation increases in the Southern Hemisphere monsoon regions (South Africa, South America, and Australia). The magnitude of the monsoonal precipitation changes depends on the location of deforestation, with remote effects showing a larger influence than local effects. The South Asian Monsoon region is affected the most, with 18% decline in precipitation over India. Our results indicate that any comprehensive assessment of afforestation/reforestation as climate change mitigation strategies should carefully evaluate the remote effects on monsoonal precipitation alongside the large local impacts on temperatures."

Link to IPCC discussion of differences between deforestation, reforestation & afforestation:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=47
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2522
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #113 on: April 16, 2015, 09:53:52 PM »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #114 on: April 19, 2015, 05:22:49 PM »
Warning over aerosol climate fix
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32334528



This article indicates that:

Extract: "Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in "different" climate change, rather than its elimination, new results suggest. Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate change.

But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly ( http://www.egu2015.eu ) have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #115 on: April 29, 2015, 04:41:20 PM »
The linked research indicates that any potential geoengineering effort to whiten the Arctic Ocean may restore the some of the lost sea ice but will not reverse climate change:

Ivana Cvijanovic, Ken Caldeira and Douglas G MacMartin (2015), "Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate", Environmental Research Letters Volume 10 Number 4 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044020

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/4/044020/
or
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/4/044020/pdf/1748-9326_10_4_044020.pdf


Abstract: "The Arctic Ocean is expected to transition into a seasonally ice-free state by mid-century, enhancing Arctic warming and leading to substantial ecological and socio-economic challenges across the Arctic region. It has been proposed that artificially increasing high latitude ocean albedo could restore sea ice, but the climate impacts of such a strategy have not been previously explored. Motivated by this, we investigate the impacts of idealized high latitude ocean albedo changes on Arctic sea ice restoration and climate. In our simulated 4xCO2 climate, imposing surface albedo alterations over the Arctic Ocean leads to partial sea ice recovery and a modest reduction in Arctic warming. With the most extreme ocean albedo changes, imposed over the area 70°–90°N, September sea ice cover stabilizes at ~40% of its preindustrial value (compared to ~3% without imposed albedo modifications). This is accompanied by an annual mean Arctic surface temperature decrease of ~2 °C but no substantial global mean temperature decrease. Imposed albedo changes and sea ice recovery alter climate outside the Arctic region too, affecting precipitation distribution over parts of the continental United States and Northeastern Pacific. For example, following sea ice recovery, wetter and milder winter conditions are present in the Southwest United States while the East Coast experiences cooling. We conclude that although ocean albedo alteration could lead to some sea ice recovery, it does not appear to be an effective way of offsetting the overall effects of CO2 induced global warming."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #116 on: April 29, 2015, 06:57:52 PM »
China is building a Great Wall of Trees to fight climate change and the encroaching Gobi Desert.
http://qz.com/391797/china-is-building-a-great-wall-of-trees-to-fight-climate-change-and-the-encroaching-gobi-desert/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

F.Tnioli

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #117 on: July 14, 2015, 12:13:46 PM »
What is the plan for that not to happen?

None, as far as i know. In fact, "local geo-engineering" a.k.a. "weather control" is already practiced by few dozens countries, in some cases on a billion-dollar scale (US and China, possibly few other countries). And they are going to do more of it. Net effect from it on climate, i doubt anyone can quantify, but it's growing.

Some links about it and other related things are in my recent post here . I hope it won't be deleted by moderators for being off-topic there. Please put any related discussion not there, but into this topic.

P.S. I just found this topic, and it's excellent read, at least at the start. I am grateful to everyone who honestly contributed to it. Good job!
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 12:38:06 PM by F.Tnioli »

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #118 on: October 02, 2015, 10:42:17 PM »
Geoengineering of Mars, not earth, but:

Elon Musk won't nuke Mars, he'll just give it 2 temporary suns
http://mashable.com/2015/10/02/elon-musk-nuke-mars-two-suns/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #119 on: November 03, 2015, 06:18:07 PM »
While the media has generally slowed-down talking about geoengineering; research on this topic is quietly continuing as indicated by the linked (open access) reference that indicates that of the options that it examined, the use of sulfate aerosols looks to be the technically most promising option:

Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., and Jones, A. (2015), "Climatic impacts of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate, black carbon and titania injection", Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 30043-30079, doi:10.5194/acpd-15-30043-2015.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/30043/2015/acpd-15-30043-2015.html

Abstract: "In this paper, we examine the potential climatic effects of geoengineering by sulfate, black carbon and titania injection against a baseline RCP8.5 scenario. We use the HadGEM2-CCS model to simulate scenarios in which the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative imbalance due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations is offset by sufficient aerosol injection throughout the 2020–2100 period. We find that the global-mean temperature is effectively maintained at historical levels for the entirety of the period for all 3 aerosol-injection scenarios, though there are a wide range of side-effects which are discussed in detail. The most prominent conclusion is that although the BC injection rate necessary to produce an equivalent global mean temperature-response is much lower, the severity of stratospheric temperature changes (> +70 °C) and precipitation impacts effectively exclude BC from being a viable option for geoengineering. Additionally, while it has been suggested that titania would be an effective particle because of its high scattering efficiency, it also efficiently absorbs solar ultraviolet radiation producing a significant stratospheric warming (> +20 °C). As injection rates for titania are close to those for sulfate, there appears little benefit of using titania when compared to injection of sulfur dioxide, which has the added benefit of being well modelled through extensive research that has been carried out on naturally occurring explosive volcanic eruptions."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #120 on: November 30, 2015, 10:17:16 PM »
Bloomberg Businessweek article.  Wasn't it only about a year ago that the financial gurus were completely shrugging off the idea of climate change?  Some seem to have skipped right to the "Reaching out for a miracle" stage of denial. (Although this article is mostly a cautionary tale of why the sulfuric acid solution should not be tried.)

How to Slow Climate Change With a Fake Volcano
Mimic an eruption by spraying sulfuric acid into the stratosphere.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/how-to-slow-climate-change-with-a-fake-volcano
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #121 on: December 05, 2015, 09:03:16 PM »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #122 on: February 03, 2016, 04:20:47 PM »
The linked reference examines the feasibility of adding surfactants to ship wakes, and to possibly increase the number of ships and routes, in order to increase albedo for geoengineering:

Julia A. Crook, Lawrence S. Jackson, Piers M. Forster (2016), "Can increasing albedo of existing ship wakes reduce climate change?", Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024201


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024201/abstract

Abstract: "Solar radiation management schemes could potentially alleviate the impacts of global warming. One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing. We use a global climate model to simulate brightening the wakes of existing shipping by increasing wake albedo by 0.2 and increasing wake lifetime by ×1440. This yields a global mean radiative forcing of -0.9 ± 0.6 Wm-2 (-1.8 ± 0.9 Wm-2 in the Northern Hemisphere) and a 0.5 °C reduction of global mean surface temperature with greater cooling over land and in the Northern Hemisphere, partially offsetting greenhouse gas warming. Tropical precipitation shifts southwards but remains within current variability. The hemispheric forcing asymmetry of this scheme is due to the asymmetry in the distribution of existing shipping. If wake lifetime could reach ~3 months, the global mean radiative forcing could potentially reach -3 Wm-2. Increasing wake area through increasing bubble lifetime could result in a greater temperature reduction but regional precipitation would likely deviate further from current climatology as suggested by results from our uniform ocean albedo simulation. Alternatively, additional ships specifically for the purpose of geoengineering could be used to produce a larger and more hemispherically symmetrical forcing."
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:57:54 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

solartim27

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #123 on: February 03, 2016, 08:13:58 PM »
I would think putting a chemical film over the ocean may interfere with a lot more than just albedo.  I wonder how happy the fish and plankton would be, and the effects on evaporation, and gas exchange.

The linked reference examines the feasibility of adding surfactants to ship wakes, and to possibly increase the number of ships and routes, in order to increase albedo for geoengineering:

One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing.
FNORD

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #124 on: February 03, 2016, 11:01:09 PM »
I would think putting a chemical film over the ocean may interfere with a lot more than just albedo.  I wonder how happy the fish and plankton would be, and the effects on evaporation, and gas exchange.

The linked reference examines the feasibility of adding surfactants to ship wakes, and to possibly increase the number of ships and routes, in order to increase albedo for geoengineering:

One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing.

Good points.  I just provide the reference to stimulate discussions & so that people are not surprised when in several decades desperate governments (when climate refugees number in the hundreds of millions and a larger number are dying) start trying geoengineering on the fly.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #125 on: February 09, 2016, 04:05:03 AM »
The linked article discusses the moral hazard associated with the use of geoengineering:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/geoengineering_might_give_people_an_excuse_to_ignore_climate_change_s_causes.html

Extract: "For more than a quarter-century, policymakers worldwide have puzzled over how to deal with climate change. If nothing else, these negotiations have served as a productive greenhouse environment for jargon. In particular, two modest-sounding words—mitigation and adaptation—have grown to occupy a special position, together including all possible responses to climate change. Mitigation attempts to reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases by making humans emit less (via renewable energy, fuel-efficient cars, well-insulated houses, and so forth) and helping the Earth absorb as much or more (by, say, protecting or expanding forests and wetlands). Since we haven’t mitigated enough already, we need adaptation as well, which softens the negative effects of higher temperatures, rising seas, and changing rainfall patterns by switching to drought-resistant crops, protecting coastal areas from floods, and trying, in hundreds of other ways, to make human and natural systems more resilient and robust. These two approaches are pretty comprehensive. Classically, the only other option is the default—proceeding as usual and hoping for the best—which is sometimes called “loss and damage” or, more candidly, “suffering.”

Geoengineering—a diverse collection of extreme-sounding, planet-sized proposals for stopping or reversing climate change—is often presented as a disruptive (or simply destructive) alternative to these well-worn paradigms. But we need to look carefully at the various ways in which geoengineering might relate, for better or worse, to mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. Otherwise, we risk getting distracted by the novelty of the ideas involved and missing some deeper complexities and controversies.

...

Ultimately, it’s important to ask whether separating geoengineering from mitigation and adaptation is even useful. The 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change defines mitigation, in part, as “protecting and enhancing ... greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs,” which sounds a lot like many carbon dioxide removal proposals, and recent emissions scenarios—basically blueprints for keeping global temperatures within certain limits—actually depend upon negative emissions in the future. It’s difficult to imagine how to achieve negative emissions without some amount of something that is often labeled geoengineering. Likewise, the definition of adaptation in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report is “[a]djustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects”—and putting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere to reduce the amount of incoming sunlight seems like a pretty clear (if potentially drastic) adjustment of a natural system.

As the global climate change conversation heads into middle age, geoengineering proposals are likely to become more specific and differentiated. Perhaps this emerging familiarity will save us from both dismissing the field as a whole and from seeing it as a glittering new landscape filled with exciting solutions. Climate change of the speed and magnitude that we may experience in the coming century is entirely new territory, at least for human beings, and of the vast range of responses that have been proposed, only suffering is truly familiar."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #126 on: February 09, 2016, 11:43:01 AM »
As a follow on to my last post about the moral hazard associated with geoengineering, see:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/08/slate_readers_give_their_thoughts_on_geoengineering.html

Extract: "... many pointed to important objections, including the concern that albedo modification presents a moral hazard: the danger that small fixes might dissuade us from pursuing larger solutions. Others worried that it requires too long a commitment for too little effect, as did one who echoed Pierrehumbert’s cautions: “The argument against geoengineering by albedo hacking … I find most convincing is that you have to commit to keep doing it basically forever, and if you are ever forced to stop, the world will face catastrophic rapid warming.” Some suggested that their concerns weren’t so much scientific as political, since geoengineering would “require strong and adaptive social institutions, institutions which currently are not up to the task.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #127 on: February 11, 2016, 04:05:40 PM »
The linked article indicates that implementation of the Negative Emissions Technology, NET, could do more harm than good:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2016/02/160210-massive-tree-farms-may-be-a-really-bad-climate-idea/

Extract: "Paris negotiators did not specifically discuss carbon removal, but Williamson argues their deal implicitly relies upon large-scale mitigation projects, because nations are not on track to cut fossil fuel burning enough to meet the pact's targets.
For example, he offers stark numbers on the potential impact of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)—or the growing of crops, from grasses to trees, that can be burned at power stations for electricity while the carbon emitted is captured and stored. Williamson calculates that for the cuts envisioned under the Paris deal, crops solely for carbon removal would have to be planted on 430 million to 580 million hectares (1,060 million to 1,440 million acres) of land—about one third of the total arable land on the planet, or half the land area of the United States.
Such dependence on BECCS could cause a loss of terrestrial species at the end of the century perhaps worse than the losses resulting from a temperature increase of about 2.8 °C above pre-industrial levels, Williamson wrote."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #128 on: February 22, 2016, 07:32:18 PM »
The linked reference discusses the possibility that albedo imparts from black carbon associated with biochar technology, may limit the value of biochar as a negative emissions technology, NET:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13254/abstract

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #129 on: March 29, 2016, 02:43:05 AM »
 ::)

A CRAZY PLAN TO HALT GLOBAL SEA RISING -- IT WOULD TAKE 7 PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S ENERGY
Thanks to climate change, scientists expect sea levels to rise about three feet by the end of the century, flooding islands and coastal cities. But some researchers have a (slighly insane) plan, published earlier this month in Earth System Dynamics, to prevent this: Pump a vast volume of seawater to Antarctica, where it will freeze. In this video, our friends at Nexus Media delve into just how much water would have to be pumped, the time it would take, and the power this plan would require—about seven percent of the world's annual energy supply.

http://www.popsci.com/crazy-plan-to-halt-global-sea-rising
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1944
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #130 on: March 29, 2016, 05:41:54 AM »
I bet it would be cheaper to build "7%" generation than to rebuild all our cities, houses and infrastructure that would need replacing.

Lots of wind in that part of the world. 

Wonder if the ice would stay melted as global temps rise?

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1322
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #131 on: March 29, 2016, 07:40:04 AM »
i dont think that proposition to pump water on antarctica is to be taken seriously.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1944
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #132 on: March 29, 2016, 08:03:26 AM »
i dont think that proposition to pump water on antarctica is to be taken seriously.

The people who wrote the paper seem to have been serious -

10 Mar 2016

Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in Antarctica

K. Frieler1, M. Mengel1, and A. Levermann1,2,3
1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany
2Institute of Physics, Potsdam University, Potsdam, Germany
3Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, USA

Received: 15 Sep 2015 – Published in Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss.: 13 Oct 2015
Revised: 12 Jan 2016 – Accepted: 27 Jan 2016 – Published: 10 Mar 2016

Abstract. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stopped today, sea level would continue to rise for centuries, with the long-term sea-level commitment of a 2 °C warmer world significantly exceeding 2 m. In view of the potential implications for coastal populations and ecosystems worldwide, we investigate, from an ice-dynamic perspective, the possibility of delaying sea-level rise by pumping ocean water onto the surface of the Antarctic ice sheet. We find that due to wave propagation ice is discharged much faster back into the ocean than would be expected from a pure advection with surface velocities. The delay time depends strongly on the distance from the coastline at which the additional mass is placed and less strongly on the rate of sea-level rise that is mitigated. A millennium-scale storage of at least 80 % of the additional ice requires placing it at a distance of at least 700 km from the coastline. The pumping energy required to elevate the potential energy of ocean water to mitigate the currently observed 3 mm yr−1 will exceed 7 % of the current global primary energy supply. At the same time, the approach offers a comprehensive protection for entire coastlines particularly including regions that cannot be protected by dikes.
--

Rising sea levels is only one part of the pain we're dishing out to ourselves.  Heat, extreme storms, floods, droughts, and acidified oceans are others.  We might have to tackle them separately as we have no way at the moment to cool the planet back down rapidly.

(I'm not saying that this is thing we should do.  Beyond my paygrade.)


Richard Rathbone

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #133 on: March 29, 2016, 02:08:30 PM »
Why not Alaska? There's already a pipeline thats not going to be needed any more soon. Just break it halfway along and pump the ocean from both ends rather than oil from one end to the other.  ;)

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1322
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #134 on: March 29, 2016, 08:04:26 PM »
---
"The magnitude of sea-level rise is so enormous, it turns out it is unlikely that any engineering approach imaginable can mitigate it," said co-author Anders Levermann, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which led the study.

"Even if this was feasible, it would only buy time—when we stop the pumping one day, additional discharge from Antarctica will increase the rate of sea-level rise even beyond the warming-induced rate. This would mean putting another sea-level debt onto future generations," Levermann said.
---

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-meltwater-antarctica-turbines.html

That second para is the killer. Like aerosol albedo modification, if you ever stop either,  the resulting rise in temperature/sea level wil acceerate hugely.

sidd

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1944
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #135 on: March 29, 2016, 08:44:13 PM »
---
"The magnitude of sea-level rise is so enormous, it turns out it is unlikely that any engineering approach imaginable can mitigate it," said co-author Anders Levermann, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which led the study.

"Even if this was feasible, it would only buy time—when we stop the pumping one day, additional discharge from Antarctica will increase the rate of sea-level rise even beyond the warming-induced rate. This would mean putting another sea-level debt onto future generations," Levermann said.
---

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-meltwater-antarctica-turbines.html

That second para is the killer. Like aerosol albedo modification, if you ever stop either,  the resulting rise in temperature/sea level wil acceerate hugely.

sidd


It is a cost issue, is it not?

Do we continually pump water into the interior of Antarctica or rebuild everything that would be flooded out by sea level rise?  (Do we write off Bangladesh and the south end of Florida along with a lot of other land?)

Might it be wise to buy time to relocate ourselves to higher ground via normal replacement costs rather than spending trillions over a short period and abandoning trillions of dollars of still useful infrastructure?

I'm not advocating this idea, I'm just trying to avoid waving things aside because they seem to not make sense at first glance.  We've dialed in a large amount of climate change, even if we drop GHG emissions to zero well before 2050 we're still going to get hurt.  Are there some things we can do to limit that hurt?  Can we figure out how to pull GHGs back out of the atmosphere quickly and affordably?  Can we find affordable ways to "treat the symptoms"?

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2522
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #136 on: March 29, 2016, 09:30:14 PM »
I think we should not try to save what does exist because it is simply to late for that. At 400 ppm we know, we have to expect 40 to 50 meters of sea level rise. Can we stop emitting globally, well I have posted some solutions as links but lets imagine it is possible, realistically I would say we can limit if the international will is there, CO2 to 450 ppm of CO2 in 2050, other gazes would have to be limited also and absorbed (that mean being vegan for most of the world). We have to limit the size of cities also to their ecological foot print. Helping strongly solar organic even if it is less efficient. Building water dams along the rivers is not a good idea, we should build water storage on the sides not hindering the flow completely. To come back to sea level rise, once it is launched we won't stop it, nothing will, so we'd better hurry. It won't go in 50 years, but it will continue to melt even if we can bring CO2 and other gazes in suitable range (290 ppm of CO2). I would fix 10 meters as the limit, that mean everything below should be abandoned progressively, every year asses an other limit depending of the current situation.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2016, 11:23:23 PM by Laurent »

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1322
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #137 on: March 30, 2016, 05:52:51 AM »
I think the Frieler paper is a gedanken, a thought experiment on the magnitude of sea level rise. They do not really explore the idea, merely outlined it.

At first glance, I see two issues with pumping sea water into the Antarctic interior, apart from the plausibility of such a large project in some of the most inhospitable climes on earth.

1) The project will take many decades to spin up, and i think we have not the time. We should spend the money on managed (ha!) retreat.

2) sea water at -2C is warmer than the air or the ice in the center of EAIS. The amount of water vapor into the air at the outlets will be prodigious, the thing would cloud up, insulate from normal cooling by radiation to space, quicken destabilization of EAIS. Or are we proposing to add refrigeration ...

More important, i think the smart people like Levermann are so much better employed in creating smart ice models than giant engineering projects.

Martin Gisser

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 318
  • alias Mars Joh. P. Florifulgurator
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #138 on: March 30, 2016, 05:02:48 PM »
"Carbon Recovery for Food Security" needs to be propagated very widely.

Regards,
Lewis
Wow! Serious stuff. Not the usuaal rocket scientist wet dreams!
Alas I'm coming a year late to this thread. (Have suggested similar things.)
Lewis C for chief biogeoengineer!
Why is the earth silent at this destruction? (Martin Heidegger ca. 1937)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #139 on: April 21, 2016, 12:43:03 AM »
Studying geoengineering is now in the federal 2017 budget; which begins Oct 1, 2016:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/fight-global-warming-senate-calls-study-making-earth-reflect-more-light

Extract: "Budgetmakers in the U.S. Senate want the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the possibility of making Earth reflect more sunlight into space to fight global warming. Earth's reflectivity is known as its albedo, and the request to study "albedo modification" comes in the details of a proposed spending bill passed by the Senate appropriations committee to fund DOE, the Army Corps of Engineers, and related agencies for fiscal year 2017, which begins 1 October. The bill does not specify how much money should be spent on the research."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #140 on: June 27, 2016, 10:46:11 PM »
The linked article indicates that we cannot count on geoengineering keep us below a 2C increases:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-cant-count-on-geoengineering-to-save-us-from-climate-change-scientists-warn

Extract: "We’re on track for a world that’s at least 2.7℃ warmer by 2100. Schemes that were once derided as unrealistic and dangerous are now being quietly put on the table, some scientists warn. Just ten years ago, technologies that can actively suck carbon from the atmosphere—for example, by turning over huge amounts of land to biofuel crops and capturing the carbon released by burning them, known as BECCS—were dismissed as unrealistic at best, and dangerous “‘geoengineering’” that could destabilize the planet at worst.

Now, with the carbon clock ticking, and new ambitious targets post-Paris, approaches that were once unthinkable fantasies increasingly underlie the very models that climate negotiators rely on, some researchers warn. Kevin Anderson of the UK’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research calls them “exotic Dr Strangelove options.” Many activists and scientists alike are wary that we’re learning to love the bomb."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #141 on: August 11, 2016, 09:52:45 PM »
The linked (open access) reference suggests that it is practicable to limit global warming to between 1.5 and 2C by the use of Iron Salt Aerosols (ISA) geoengineering, with acceptable impacts on other Earth Systems:

Oeste, F. D., de Richter, R., Ming, T., and Caillol, S.: Climate engineering by mimicking the natural dust climate control: the Iron Salt Aerosols method, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-32, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/esd-2016-32.pdf

Abstract. Power stations, ship, and air traffic are among the most potent greenhouse gas emitters and primarily responsible for global warming. Iron salt aerosols (ISA) exert a cooling effect on climate in several ways. This article aims firstly to examine all direct and indirect natural climate cooling mechanisms driven by tropospheric aerosol particles composed partly of iron and chloride, showing their cooperation and interaction within the different environmental compartments.

It then looks at a proposal to enhance the cooling effects by ISA in order to reach the CoP 21 optimistic target level of a global temperature increase of between 1.5 and 2 °C. Using mineral dust as a natural analogue tool, the proposed ISA method might be able to reduce climate warming by mimicking the same method used by nature during the glacial periods. The first estimations made in this article show that by doubling the current natural ISA emissions into the troposphere, i.e. by about 0.3 Tg Fe per year, artificial ISA would enable the prevention or even reversal of global warming.

The ISA method proposed integrates technical and economically feasible tools.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #142 on: August 25, 2016, 10:16:06 AM »
The ACP now has a special issue devoted to GeoMIP:

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): Simulations of solar radiation reduction methods (ACP/GMD inter-journal SI)
Editor(s): U. Lohmann, N. Vaughan, L. M. Russell, B. Kravitz, and H. Wang

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/special_issue376.html
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #143 on: August 27, 2016, 12:14:10 AM »
The Verge has posted (see link) the first of a series of article on Climate Hacking.  My general impression is that no group of governments will implement global climate hacking before 2050; and by then Hansen's ice-climate feedback, ocean acidification; permafrost & forest degradation will be so advanced that the hacking will not be very effective and may well make matters worse (if not lead to war):

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/24/12589796/climate-hackers-david-keith-geoengineering-climate-change

Extract: "After decades of inaction, our options are limited. To have a chance of avoiding a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperatures, a threshold scientists have long warned could trigger a cascading series of environmental catastrophes, greenhouse gas emissions must fall by 40 to 70 percent by midcentury.

But at this point, carbon dioxide levels are still rising as the population swells, nations modernize, and thousands of new natural gas and coal power plants come online. Meanwhile, separate studies show that current sustainable energy sources, even if aggressively expanded, can’t meet today’s needs, much less future demands.

Add it up and it’s clear that the world needs new technologies to avoid the worst of what’s coming: more efficient green energy alternatives; machines or methods for removing greenhouse gases from the skies and oceans; sturdier shields against the looming dangers; or, very likely, all of the above. In a Verge series launching today, Climate Hackers, we'll highlight the scientists, technologists, and researchers working to develop these new tools.

The series begins with David Keith, a Harvard professor of applied physics and public policy who has arguably done the most work exploring the promise of a "geoengineering" method known as solar radiation management. Scientists borrowed the idea from nature: earlier volcanic eruptions have cooled worldwide temperatures by blasting massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The particles help to reflect more of the Sun’s light back into space, which means less of its heat reaches the Earth.

Keith and others believe humans could mimic this natural phenomenon by launching planes or balloons into the stratosphere to spray similar sorts of particles. His models show variations on this approach could offset at least half of the rise in temperatures due this century, significantly reducing the associated environmental dangers. Given the growing threat of climate change, he believes it’s time to move from lab experiments to limited trials in the real world.

But others see geoengineering as a reckless attempt at playing God. They argue that scientists can’t possibly predict or control the consequences of an experiment conducted at the scale of a planet, and shouldn’t be allowed to make guinea pigs of us all."
« Last Edit: August 27, 2016, 10:45:54 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #144 on: August 27, 2016, 06:11:33 AM »
ASLR
Attended a lecture by Keith last year. At that time he was advocating a geoengineering project to slow warming by 50%. His claim was that this was very affordable, avoided the worst of the unintended consequences, and could be done clandestinely, avoiding long approvals by global governments.
Scary stuff, as bypassing approval also means bypassing checks and controls. If one group was to surreptitiously block enough solar radiation what would prevent another, or a third group, from unknowingly doing the same. Multiplying the negatives until the unintended consequences became magnified, inevitable, and it became impossible to source the blame or to halt the process(s).
Perhaps geoengineering is inevitable. If so I hope it's undertaken by a responsible entity that has somehow garnered the support of at least a large majority of the worlds governing bodies.
Terry

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 132
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #145 on: September 01, 2016, 07:58:41 PM »
Being naive I started a thread on damming Bering Strait here on ARS forums as a geo-technical coastal civil engineering project to create a sea-ice refuge there, the point was heat-transfer, that led to realizing a way to refreeze the bottom, that led to refreezing seabed methane flares as goals.

This will have a global thermal cooling effect is the reason to do it so it's geoengineering, my post here just to get people to think of other strategies than energy regulation or sequestering CO2, a summary and thoughts below if you have the time:

The northerly current carries 30-Twh/year of heat through the Straits, the water fresher stays at the surface causing basal melting all the way to the Beaufort and aids early melt-out and late freeze-up.

The dam reduces flow 1/100th providing nutrient flow a confined current north using levees and a lock system for shipping and sea-mammal migration paths that hug the shoreline keeping the more acidic, fresher water there.

This uses Dutch dam & levee methods modified for deeper water and dredge-n-place also changed to operate in the conditions.

Part of the goals are creating ice-polders to provide calm water and refreeze the bottom and if they work then taking on the larger problem of seabed methane flares to build atolls around them and refreeze them the need, one in the Laptev Sea called a megaflare and clearing the ice above it early.

This kind of "geoengineering" doesn't rely on reducing emissions to work, imagine if this area was the last to melt and first to freeze what effect it would have on the situation in the Beaufort.

Another problem is guiding freshwater into the Canadian Archipelago closely to shore thus not expanding out into the Beaufort, and, westward same principle to forestall melt-out from the shoreline using levees.

Then, with acidification a big problem I found a use for desalinization salt production from California or other large-volume sources to add alkali to water by dispensing those salts at key locations. ARCUS reports all Alaskan waters are below the aragonite saturation state within 60-years, the Beaufort already at unity.

To maintain fisheries beyond that point means planning how to do it, and that takes money, the bathymetric, geologic, biologic and current, temp, salinity needs a standard full-model to use, Museum of the North has a report by Inuit Masters on their expertise very relevant to keeping sea-mammals happy with the design.

It's a big project, to test the levee construction methods the plan is restoring villages on islands or land being lost to wave erosion in the area, raising them as well for what's needed related to sea-level rise.

The method for these is mainly installing artificial shoals to alter sediment transport, so over time that fills in where you want and the seaward side gets then levee fill to above sea-level to slab wind-driven ice and cladded.

With this method ironed out somewhat to then evolve a production method and more detailed planning for the weir dam it's installed, then the ice-polders.

It's a different strategy than most energy-regulation to fill the real need to stop early melt-out, late freeze-up in Bering Straits where it started.
-tom

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #146 on: December 13, 2016, 05:40:19 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Atmosphere an Antacid to Relieve Climate Change".  I find it impossible to believe that decision makers won't opt for the implementation of some form of geoengineering by 2050 (probably with many ill side-effects).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-12/scientists-want-to-give-the-atmosphere-an-antacid-to-relieve-climate-change

Extract: "It won't solve the underlying problem, but "geoengineering" may have just gotten a bit safer.

A group of Harvard researchers led by David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy, just proposed a different solution in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. An aerosol of calcium carbonate would have a similar cooling effect as sulfur dioxide on the upper atmosphere and help protect the ozone layer as a bonus."
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 08:21:57 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #147 on: December 13, 2016, 08:10:11 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Atmosphere an Antacid to Relieve Climate Change".  I find it impossible to believe that decision makers won't opt for the implementation of some form of geoengineering by 2050 (probablt with many ill effects).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-12/scientists-want-to-give-the-atmosphere-an-antacid-to-relieve-climate-change

Extract: "It won't solve the underlying problem, but "geoengineering" may have just gotten a bit safer.

A group of Harvard researchers led by David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy, just proposed a different solution in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. An aerosol of calcium carbonate would have a similar cooling effect as sulfur dioxide on the upper atmosphere and help protect the ozone layer as a bonus."


A few years ago he was selling sulfur from high flying airplanes. He's a very good salesman, but lacks the integrity to sell used cars.


Terry

jonthed

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #148 on: December 29, 2016, 03:41:03 PM »
I've only just seen this about the 'antacid for the atmosphere'. If this avoids the worst side effects of a sulphur based aerosol, then surely this is a great step forward.

The way things are looking to me it does seem inevitable that we will have to resort to using some form of geo-engineering to try to rein in the escalating climate crisis, and in my opinion the sooner the better. We're already out of time and things are accelerating and looking bleaker by the day.

The article likens it to a painkiller, not addressing the cause but alleviating the symptoms. But isn't it more than that? A certain amount of aerosol would surely allow the ice and snow cover to recover, which would massively affect the albedo and related feedbacks. Perhaps we'd be talking ridiculous levels of global dimming to achieve this, in which case it won't be workable, but if not, then it could actually have an impact on the rate of climate change, if not the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon (although having said that, halting or damping certain natural feedback processes like thawing permafrost and increased microbial action would in fact serve to curtail the accelerating increase in atmospheric carbon).

Trying to make use of the higher latitudes albedo potential seems to be one of our best tools to try to control the energy imbalance. That window is closing. This geo-engineering might be viewed as a last resort. But I think it's already reached the point that we need to be pulling out our 'last resorts'.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #149 on: December 29, 2016, 03:49:43 PM »
Yay!  Global dimming will be amazing for plant life.

“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman