Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 40711 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #150 on: February 10, 2017, 05:43:02 PM »
The link leads to a compilation of papers on Geogineering in Earth's Future entitled: "Crutzen +10: Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research".  The compilation includes a lot of papers that cover a wide ranges of topics and perspectives.  My only comment is that when many denialists believe that geoengineering will be implemented then they are prepared to admit that climate sensitivity is high so that they can demand a lot of geoengineeing.


http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/issue/10.1002/(ISSN)2328-4277.GEOENGIN1/

Summary: "The year 2016 marked the 10 year anniversary of Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen's seminal 2006 contribution on geoengineering, “Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injection: A contribution to solve a policy dilemma?” Crutzen’s paper in climatic change sparked an unprecedented surge of academic, public, and political interest in geoengineering. This collection comprises research and commentaries from leading experts in the field of geoengineering on the development of the discussion over the past decade and to consider where it may be going in the next 10 years."
“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: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #151 on: February 10, 2017, 05:55:03 PM »
In the linked reference the author voice their opinion that China will not unilaterally implement geoengineering, but they offer what they believe to be lessons learned from China's long history of manipulating the environment, so that the world community will be able to act more according to Chinese thinking when it decides to implement geoengineering when our communal situation become sufficiently desperate.

John C. Moore, Ying Chen, Xuefeng Cui, Wenping Yuan, Wenjie Dong, Yun Gao & Peijun Shi (13 December 2016), Will China be the first to initiate climate engineering?" Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000402

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000402/full

Abstract: "Over the last 30 years, China has industrialized more rapidly than any other society in history and become the world's largest emitter of CO2. This has demonstrated unprecedented ability to change the socioeconomic landscape, produced great wealth, and led to some catastrophic environmental damage. This is the background that has motivated several authors to postulate that China would initiate geoengineering using solar radiation management. But will China be the first to pioneer climate engineering? The answer, we argue here, is likely to be “no!” We reach this conclusion from an analysis of the historic philosophical tradition that informs the Chinese world view, China's experience of mega-engineering projects both ancient and modern, and the policies implemented over the last 60 years. The debate on geoengineering has to-date been almost exclusively Euro-American, but China has mega-engineering experience, huge resources, and a radically different world-view that needs to be acknowledged. Furthermore we contend that these experiences can be useful internationally in helping to frame the debate on climate mitigation from the perspective of the earth as shared, multiuse and finite."

See also:

https://eos.org/editors-vox/good-night-sunshine-geoengineering-solutions-to-climate-change?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz021017
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

bairgon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #152 on: February 12, 2017, 07:47:53 AM »
"Could a £400bn plan to refreeze the Arctic before the ice melts really work? "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/plan-to-refreeze-arctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change

Proposed wind pumps to bring water up to the top of the ice, increasing ice thickness.

"[It] may become necessary if we want to halt the calamity that faces the Arctic, says Desch, who, like many other scientists, has become alarmed at temperature change in the region. They say that it is now warming twice as fast as their climate models predicted only a few years ago and argue that the 2015 Paris agreement to limit global warming will be insufficient to prevent the region’s sea ice disappearing completely in summer, possibly by 2030."

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 610
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #153 on: February 13, 2017, 10:09:29 PM »
CHINA
20 + years ago I worked on some environmental projects in SW China. There was a widespread belief that the big environmental problems building up from 10+ percent annual economic growth could be fixed later. " Man can fix nature to man's requirements." Talk about being a prophet in the wilderness.

Maybe by now the decision-makers in China  are more cautious ? We will see. Geo-engineering scares me witless. Natural systems are just too complex - unforseen consequences rule, OK?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

Pragma

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #154 on: February 20, 2017, 07:54:14 PM »
DARK Humour:

It's not meant to be, and perhaps it's just my way of dealing with the stress, but I found this article to be hilarious.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-february-20-2017-1.3988710/can-a-500-billion-geoengineering-project-save-the-arctic-from-melting-1.3990917

The best stuff is in the accompanying audio.

I won't even begin to opine on why this is a non-starter, because I likely won't stop.

I'll leave it up to the forum to decide on the motivation for such a hare brained scheme.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #155 on: February 20, 2017, 08:02:21 PM »
DARK Humour:

It's not meant to be, and perhaps it's just my way of dealing with the stress, but I found this article to be hilarious.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-february-20-2017-1.3988710/can-a-500-billion-geoengineering-project-save-the-arctic-from-melting-1.3990917

The best stuff is in the accompanying audio.

I won't even begin to opine on why this is a non-starter, because I likely won't stop.

I'll leave it up to the forum to decide on the motivation for such a hare brained scheme.


Hate brained schemers above are well meaning. Just not quite strong on analysis...
“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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #156 on: February 23, 2017, 06:42:15 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Biomass subsidies ‘not fit for purpose’, says Chatham House".   It raises major doubts about the use of biomass to fight climate change.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/biomass-subsidies-not-fit-for-purpose-chatham-house

Extract: "Subsidies should end for many types of biomass, a new Chatham House report argues, because they are failing to help cut greenhouse gas emissions."
“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: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #157 on: March 16, 2017, 03:17:35 AM »
While the following 2014 reference is nothing particularly relevant (or timely) to our current climate change situation, it does demonstrate that strange attractors can be stabilized by feedback linearization.  Therefore, as I believe that climate attractors amplify climate sensitivity above what it would be otherwise; I recommend that before studying more blunt force types of geoengineering, that scientists explore the possibilities associated with stabilizing climate attractors:

Shaqarin et. al. (July 2014), ”Stabilizations of Strange Attractors by Feedback Linearization”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 8(1):43-47, DOI: 10.19026/rjaset.8.938

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289106876_Stabilizations_of_Strange_Attractors_by_Feedback_Linearization

Abstract: “This study deals with the control of the Lorenz, Chen and Lu chaotic system. Feedback linearization was successfully implemented on these chaotic systems. Feedback linearization was successful to transform the three attractor systems to a general system that simplify the linear control analysis. Hence, a linear controller is designed for the feedback linearized general system. Furthermore, some numerical simulations were carried out for the closed loop systems. These simulations show that the developed controller design method is effective in stabilizing and regulating the response.”

Edit: I noted that in the Science folder and the associated "Modelling the Anthropocene" thread, I provide posts about references how how to model climate attractors; while in the Consequences folder and the associated "Conservative Scientists and its Consequences" folder I provide several posts that relate climate attractors to both observed & paleo data.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 03:39:06 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

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #158 on: March 16, 2017, 04:17:23 AM »
"...  climate attractors amplify climate sensitivity above what it would be otherwise ..."

I do not understand. Climate trajectories explore the phase space in the attractor's basin of convergence, the climate sensitivity is only properly defined within that basin. The stucture of the attractor defines the sensitivity, and i do not understand what "amplifies" means in this context.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #159 on: March 25, 2017, 04:48:27 AM »
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/

What could go wrong ? Well, some yahoo like me with a balloon an a bag of talc could cause drought in the Sahel. Naaa, never happen.

sidd

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #160 on: March 25, 2017, 04:31:38 PM »
"...  climate attractors amplify climate sensitivity above what it would be otherwise ..."

I do not understand. Climate trajectories explore the phase space in the attractor's basin of convergence, the climate sensitivity is only properly defined within that basin. The stucture of the attractor defines the sensitivity, and i do not understand what "amplifies" means in this context.

What I was rather clumsily trying to say is that as computer power is limited, current state-of the-art Earth System Models are not properly follow chaos theory (using the phase space in the attractor's basin), and as they are unlikely to be able to do so for many decades (well after my estimated socio-economic collapse in the 2045 - 2060 timeframe); I recommend that AR6 not only recalibrate their ESM response sensitivities, but that they also include discussions about key climate attractors like for example ENSO (which is dependent on both phase relationships of multiple feedback mechanisms and on initial boundary conditions).  I use this as an exampled as there is plenty of evidence that aerosols over the Tropical Pacific have a major impact on ENSO (& I believe that an increasingly El Nino-like ENSO will not only directly increase GMSTA but will also accelerate Arctic Amplification) and thus localized control of aerosols over the Tropical Pacific may be able to blunt feedbacks that may drive ECS towards 5C this century (see the middle panel of the attached image by Andrew from the 2015 Ringberg Workshop).

Edit: I provide the second image of ECS from various different paleo-eras, to demonstrate the ECS is not a fixed number but is dependent upon the level of activation of the various feedback mechanisms under different climate conditions.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2068
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #161 on: March 25, 2017, 04:36:46 PM »
By 2040, we will be employing all manner of geoengineering techniques in a desperate to attempt to halt warming with disastrous results.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 802
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #162 on: March 25, 2017, 05:37:58 PM »
By 2040, we will be employing all manner of geoengineering techniques in a desperate to attempt to halt warming with disastrous results.

Can't wait for the New Little Ice Age of the 2070's that led to worldwide famine, brought to being by the geoengineering trials of the stratospheric aerosol injections. Followed by the rapid warmup of the 2080's when the aerosols washed out.
“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

Cate

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #163 on: March 28, 2017, 02:20:48 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/mar/27/trump-presidency-opens-door-to-planet-hacking-geoengineer-experiments

"Under the Trump administration, enthusiasm appears to be growing for the controversial technology of solar geo-engineering, which aims to spray sulphate particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s radiation back to space and decrease the temperature of Earth.......
David Schnare, an architect of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition, has lobbied the US government and testified to Senate in favour of federal support for geoengineering.
He has called for a multi-phase plan to fund research and conduct real-world testing within 18 months, deploy massive stratospheric spraying three years after, and continue spraying for a century, a duration geoengineers believe would be necessary to dial back the planet’s temperature......"

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #164 on: March 28, 2017, 07:04:42 PM »
I am intrigued with the part of the geoengineering experiment that utilizes calcium carbonate .

"Keith has previously used computer modeling to explore the possibility of using other materials that may have a neutral impact on ozone, including diamond dust and alumina. Late last year, he, Keutsch, and others published a paper that found using calcite, a mineral made up of calcium carbonate, “may cool the planet while simultaneously repairing the ozone layer.”

The balloon tests could provide additional insight into how these chemicals actually interact with precursors to ozone in the real world and offer additional information that could help refine their understanding of solar geoengineering, he says: “You have to go measure things in the real world because nature surprises you.”

Is it time for scientists to begin geoengineering-related experiments in the open air?

Keith stresses that it’s too early to say whether any geoengineering technologies should ever be deployed. But he has argued for years that research should move ahead to better understand their capabilities and dangers, because it’s possible they could significantly reduce the risks of climate change. He stressed that the experiments would have negligible environment impacts, as they will involve no more than a kilogram of materials."

We should keep some perspective on the difference between an experiment and full scale geoengineering implementation . We do on a regular basis shoot rockets into space. I am quite sure those rocket launches inject tons of emissions into the stratosphere. A kilogram of calcium carbonate is harmless in comparison .
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #165 on: August 11, 2017, 05:52:42 PM »
I do not know who would pay for the proposed geoengineering to make the ocean more alkaline, but if governments every get serious about geoengineering, this might be one of the technologies that included at some point in the future:

Phil Renforth & Gideon Henderson (27 July 2017), "Assessing ocean alkalinity for carbon sequestration", Review of Geophysics, DOI: 10.1002/2016RG000533

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000533/abstract

Abstract: "Over the coming century humanity may need to find reservoirs to store several trillions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from fossil fuel combustion, which would otherwise cause dangerous climate change if it were left in the atmosphere. Carbon storage in the ocean as bicarbonate ions (by increasing ocean alkalinity) has received very little attention. Yet recent work suggests sufficient capacity to sequester copious quantities of CO2. It may be possible to sequester hundreds of billions to trillions of tons of C without surpassing postindustrial average carbonate saturation states in the surface ocean. When globally distributed, the impact of elevated alkalinity is potentially small and may help ameliorate the effects of ocean acidification. However, the local impact around addition sites may be more acute but is specific to the mineral and technology. The alkalinity of the ocean increases naturally because of rock weathering in which >1.5 mol of carbon are removed from the atmosphere for every mole of magnesium or calcium dissolved from silicate minerals (e.g., wollastonite, olivine, and anorthite) and 0.5 mol for carbonate minerals (e.g., calcite and dolomite). These processes are responsible for naturally sequestering 0.5 billion tons of CO2 per year. Alkalinity is reduced in the ocean through carbonate mineral precipitation, which is almost exclusively formed from biological activity. Most of the previous work on the biological response to changes in carbonate chemistry have focused on acidifying conditions. More research is required to understand carbonate precipitation at elevated alkalinity to constrain the longevity of carbon storage. A range of technologies have been proposed to increase ocean alkalinity (accelerated weathering of limestone, enhanced weathering, electrochemical promoted weathering, and ocean liming), the cost of which may be comparable to alternative carbon sequestration proposals (e.g., $20–100 tCO2−1). There are still many unanswered technical, environmental, social, and ethical questions, but the scale of the carbon sequestration challenge warrants research to address these."
See also the associate article entitled: "Preventing Climate Change by Increasing Ocean Alkalinity".

https://eos.org/editors-vox/preventing-climate-change-by-increasing-ocean-alkalinity?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz081117

Extract: "One method is enhanced weathering which is the application of rock powder to terrestrial, coastal, and open ocean environments. For instance, some have proposed distribution of crushed silicate rocks to tropical cropland. The wet and warm climate of these environments would be conducive to dissolution, the products of which would be transported via rivers to the ocean."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #166 on: August 12, 2017, 03:12:04 AM »
To Stop Global Warming, Should Humanity Dim the Sky?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/geoengineers-meet-off-the-record/536004/

Late last month, about 100 researchers from around the world gathered at Logan International Airport in Boston. A fleet of buses appeared to whisk them to a remote and luxurious ski resort in northeastern Maine. They met to talk, drink, and cogitate off the record for five days about a messy solution to one of the world’s most challenging problems. They had gathered to discuss how to provide humanity one last line of defense against catastrophic global warming: solar geoengineering.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #167 on: August 12, 2017, 08:30:23 AM »
So let me see: we must screw with the radiation balance with unknown effect to fix screwing with the radiation balance with definitely deleterious effects.

Mmmm. Color me unconvinced.

sidd

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #168 on: August 12, 2017, 08:39:46 AM »
Yeah, this is killing me. Let's find expensive and risky solutions to alcohol-induced illnesses, and try them on our children, as we don"t want to stop drinking.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #169 on: August 12, 2017, 10:44:07 AM »
Yeah, this is killing me. Let's find expensive and risky solutions to alcohol-induced illnesses, and try them on our children, as we don"t want to stop drinking.
That was quotable !


Thanks
Terry

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #170 on: August 12, 2017, 01:00:07 PM »
Let me quote AbruptSLR from a little higher up:

My only comment is that when many denialists believe that geoengineering will be implemented then they are prepared to admit that climate sensitivity is high so that they can demand a lot of geoengineeing.


I believe this has been the plan all along. They planned to burn as much Fossil fuels as they can sell, and once the climate looked to be at a breaking point, force geoengineering solutions. Basically, they gambled the life of everyone in the world for a few bucks.

Climate change deniers won the climate change debate years ago. The time ran out to avoid great damage just by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Right now it is geoengineering or the end of civilization as we know it. Just like the fossil fuel interests wanted.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #171 on: August 12, 2017, 07:55:59 PM »
Sadly, I have to agree with you Archimid. The more I read about geo-engineering, the more unknowns and risks there seem to be, but it does look like the path we are on.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #172 on: August 12, 2017, 09:53:23 PM »
Even if we manage to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2050 (or even 2040) we will still need some way to pull some of the carbon back out of the above-surface carbon cycle.

Throwing up a sunshade would be, at best, a band aid that could buy us a few years respite from extreme temperatures (and temperature driven superstorms).  But it wouldn't reduce the amount of carbon in our oceans. 

I think we need to develop the sunshade but with very clear understanding that it is not a fix. 

Biochar, burying logs, grinding up carbon absorbing rock in order to expose more surface area - that seems to be all we've got right now and none are stuff that get's me excited.

Maybe we need some heavy (global) funding to see if a few of the billions of us can think up something better.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #173 on: August 12, 2017, 10:56:06 PM »
Even if we manage to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2050 (or even 2040) we will still need some way to pull some of the carbon back out of the above-surface carbon cycle.

It is probable that by 2040 the WAIS collapse may have reached a tipping point.  If so, then no amount of geoengineering will be able to stop its collapse.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #174 on: August 12, 2017, 11:28:36 PM »
So true. With a CO2e level of 520+ (much higher is we use the gwp20 # for methane) we are risking many, many different feedbacks in the next couple of decades. Ocean acidification and the WAIS just being two of them. Plus a general destabilization of weather patterns that could be made worse by geo-engineering (e.g. the geographical movement of/failing of the Indian and African monsoons).

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #175 on: August 12, 2017, 11:57:39 PM »
So true. With a CO2e level of 520+ (much higher is we use the gwp20 # for methane) we are risking many, many different feedbacks in the next couple of decades. Ocean acidification and the WAIS just being two of them. Plus a general destabilization of weather patterns that could be made worse by geo-engineering (e.g. the geographical movement of/failing of the Indian and African monsoons).

A few examples of slow response positive feedback mechanisms that geoengineering likely could not address, or might make worse, include:

1. Hansen's ice-climate feedback
2. The ocean's thermal inertia and the increasing frequency of super El Nino events (which warm the world).
3. The re-occurrence of the positive phase of the AMO circa 2035 to 2045, which could drive warm North Atlantic water deep into the Arctic Ocean basin (see the attached image), which might trigger pulses of methane emissions from relatively shallow water marine methane hydrates.
4.  If the WAIS were to begin collapsing circa 2040, then circa 2050 to 2060 major pulses of methane from Antarctic marine methane hydrates could occur.
5. The occurrence of regional extreme weather could over stress land vegetation, which could reduce the CO2 absorption from these plants.
6.  Continued acidification of the Oceans could reduce the amount of CO2 that the Oceans absorb.
7.  Rising sea levels (particularly if the WAIS collapses), would drive salient many miles into the landward groundwater, which would kill the vegetation in this coastal regions.
8.  Positive feedback from wars caused by changes in regional weather patterns caused by the geoengineering.

These are just a few of the many positive feedback mechanisms that geoengineering might not address.
 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 12:03:30 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

greylib

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #176 on: August 13, 2017, 12:28:19 AM »
If we were around 50-100 years more advanced in the field, I'd think that bio-geoengineering would be the way to go.

We already look to living organisms to extract carbon from the atmosphere - is there any chance that we could engineer critters to do it better? We're just learning how biological organisms can do some pretty amazing stuff. Could we create some that would extract carbon and lay it down as diamond? Or better still, graphene and buckytubes. We'd finish up with fewer carbon atoms in the air, plus a useful endproduct.

As I say, we're not there yet. But I hope somebody, somewhere, is working on it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #177 on: August 13, 2017, 12:29:53 AM »
The concerns over how much time we have left probably belong in a different thread. 

But if feedbacks do decrease our viability window then we need to accelerate our geoengineering research efforts.


Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #178 on: August 13, 2017, 12:33:47 AM »
If we were around 50-100 years more advanced in the field, I'd think that bio-geoengineering would be the way to go.

We already look to living organisms to extract carbon from the atmosphere - is there any chance that we could engineer critters to do it better? We're just learning how biological organisms can do some pretty amazing stuff. Could we create some that would extract carbon and lay it down as diamond? Or better still, graphene and buckytubes. We'd finish up with fewer carbon atoms in the air, plus a useful endproduct.

As I say, we're not there yet. But I hope somebody, somewhere, is working on it.

I think it's an avenue we  have to investigate.

Could we engineer a plant, such as a fast growing tree, so that it grew mass much faster?  If so, we increase the potential of biochar or burying logs.

Could we engineer plankton to reproduce/grow faster and take more carbon to the seafloor with their dead bodies?

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #179 on: August 13, 2017, 12:50:49 AM »
The concerns over how much time we have left probably belong in a different thread. 

But if feedbacks do decrease our viability window then we need to accelerate our geoengineering research efforts.

While I concur that policy makers will almost certainly turn to geoengineering of some form or another in the next few decades, and thus research is a good idea; nevertheless, most forms of geoengineering do not address either ocean acidification or ocean ventilation.  In this regards,  the linked reference indicates that while there is still meaningful uncertainties, the potential impacts of both ocean ventilation and deoxygenation are large on different timeframes, and are significantly larger than assumed in AR5:

John G. Shepherd, Peter G. Brewer, Andreas Oschlies, Andrew J. Watson (7 August 2017), "Ocean ventilation and deoxygenation in a warming world: introduction and overview", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2017.0240

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/375/2102/20170240

Abstract: "Changes of ocean ventilation rates and deoxygenation are two of the less obvious but important indirect impacts expected as a result of climate change on the oceans. They are expected to occur because of (i) the effects of increased stratification on ocean circulation and hence its ventilation, due to reduced upwelling, deep-water formation and turbulent mixing, (ii) reduced oxygenation through decreased oxygen solubility at higher surface temperature, and (iii) the effects of warming on biological production, respiration and remineralization. The potential socio-economic consequences of reduced oxygen levels on fisheries and ecosystems may be far-reaching and significant. At a Royal Society Discussion Meeting convened to discuss these matters, 12 oral presentations and 23 posters were presented, covering a wide range of the physical, chemical and biological aspects of the issue. Overall, it appears that there are still considerable discrepancies between the observations and model simulations of the relevant processes. Our current understanding of both the causes and consequences of reduced oxygen in the ocean, and our ability to represent them in models are therefore inadequate, and the reasons for this remain unclear. It is too early to say whether or not the socio-economic consequences are likely to be serious. However, the consequences are ecologically, biogeochemically and climatically potentially very significant, and further research on these indirect impacts of climate change via reduced ventilation and oxygenation of the oceans should be accorded a high priority.

This article is part of the themed issue ‘Ocean ventilation and deoxygenation in a warming world’."
“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: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #180 on: August 13, 2017, 12:54:43 AM »
Could we engineer a plant, such as a fast growing tree, so that it grew mass much faster?  If so, we increase the potential of biochar or burying logs.

Could we engineer plankton to reproduce/grow faster and take more carbon to the seafloor with their dead bodies?


While these approaches could provide partial solutions, they would be difficult to implement on a large enough scale to solve our current situation, while the linked article makes it clear that relying on large-scale BECCS as a magic bullet to solve climate change is a very bad bet:

Title: “Failure of Kemper County “clean coal” plant casts more doubts on BECCS”

http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2017/07/failure-of-kemper-county-clean-coal-plant-casts-more-doubts-on-beccs/

Extract: “The project’s failure should cast serious doubts on the prospects of both “clean coal” as well as Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) – the current star child of techno-fix solutions to climate change.

BECCS would involve capturing CO2 from biofuel refineries or biomass-burning power stations and pumping it into geological formations, or – more likely due to economics – pumping it into oil wells in order to extract more oil. Despite lack of evidence as to the technological and economic viability of BECCS, the models underpinning the Paris Agreement’s 2°C target overwhelmingly rely upon BECCS as a “negative emissions technology” capable of being deployed at a scale large enough to balance out emissions by mid-century.

The failure of the Kemper County project, which featured the cleanest and most efficient CCS power plant technology, should therefore be seen as a warning for policy-makers expecting CCS – including BECCS – technologies to magically close the emissions gap by mid-century.

It’s important to note that exchanging biomass for coal would add even more challenges to an IGCC with CCS plant. Biomass gasification results in a syngas which is chemically quite different from that generated through coal gasification, and therefore requires different treatment in order to produce a gas clean enough for burning to power a gas turbine.”
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #181 on: August 13, 2017, 01:02:33 AM »
We may never find 'the one single silver bullet'.  A combination of things like biochar, juicing up plankton reproduction, and several other partial fixes may be our route.

We don't have to burn wood/wood waste in a gas turbine.  We can burn biomass in converted coal plants.  Even if we don't capture the carbon we are at least avoiding bringing more carbon into the above-surface carbon cycle.  Biomass and biogas may be our best "deep backup" solution as battery storage gets very expensive when it's very seldom cycled.

If we can figure out an affordable way to capture and securely store that carbon then we've turned biomass into one of our partial fixes.


ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #182 on: August 13, 2017, 01:26:37 AM »
People who study solutions suggest we don't need way out geoengineering boondoggles:

https://climatecrocks.com/2017/08/11/paul-hawken-drawdown-and-reversing-climate-change/

But of course this isn't what people want to hear.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #183 on: August 13, 2017, 01:31:35 AM »
People who study solutions suggest we don't need way out geoengineering boondoggles:

https://climatecrocks.com/2017/08/11/paul-hawken-drawdown-and-reversing-climate-change/

But of course this isn't what people want to hear.

When you set out to cross the ocean it's a good idea to carry a lifeboat even if you think you may not need one.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #184 on: August 13, 2017, 04:19:30 AM »
People who study solutions suggest we don't need way out geoengineering boondoggles:

https://climatecrocks.com/2017/08/11/paul-hawken-drawdown-and-reversing-climate-change/

But of course this isn't what people want to hear.


When you set out to cross the ocean it's a good idea to carry a lifeboat even if you think you may not need one.


While it is good to fight climate change no matter what the odds, Paul Hawken acknowledges that the odds of geoengineering solving the full problem are not good.  For example, his number one 'solution' is refrigerant management; however, the linked article indicates that countries like China indicate they are managing refrigerant gases; however, satellite measurement indicate that they are reporting that they are managing theses gases but in reality they are not.  Perhaps, Hawken's number one solution should be to improve human integrity and 'mindfulness' (maybe such a geoengineering 'solution' would make people understand that in the Anthropocene, human activity is the dominant Earth System, and it needs to be engineered in a 'mindfulness' sense of the word):

Title: "'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449

Extract: "Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.

However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.

Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.

These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme.

The rules covering how countries report their emissions are currently being negotiated.
But Prof Glen Peters, from the Centre for International Climate Research, in Oslo, said: "The core part of Paris [is] the global stock-takes which are going to happen every five years, and after the stock-takes countries are meant to raise their ambition, but if you can't track progress sufficiently, which is the whole point of these stock-takes, you basically can't do anything.

"So, without good data as a basis, Paris essentially collapses. It just becomes a talkfest without much progress.""

Edit, specifically with regard to China's refrigerant gas emissions see the following extract:

"Another rare warming gas, carbon tetrachloride, once popular as a refrigerant and a solvent but very damaging to the ozone layer, has been banned in Europe since 2002.

But Dr Reimann told Counting Carbon: "We still see 10,000-20,000 tonnes coming out of China every year."

"That is something that shouldn't be there.

"There is actually no Chinese inventory for these gases, as they are banned and industry shouldn't be releasing them anymore."

China's approach to reporting its overall output of warming gases to the UN is also subject to constant and significant revisions."
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 04:26:43 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

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #185 on: August 13, 2017, 05:58:27 AM »
The Paris Accord is working.  Countries made pledges and are now starting to present their data.

Some of that data is being questioned, as should happen.  That means that holes will get plugged because not meeting goals will be embarrassing.

Now, are we moving as fast as we should be moving?

Of course not.  But we're moving faster than we were.  Acceleration is a process.

And the more we see that we aren't moving fast enough the more pressure will be applied to speed things up.

We need to remember that we will not avoid hurt from climate change, we are already being hurt.  It's all about reducing the amount of hurt. 

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #186 on: August 13, 2017, 12:52:48 PM »
The Paris Accord is working.  Countries made pledges and are now starting to present their data.

Some of that data is being questioned, as should happen.  That means that holes will get plugged because not meeting goals will be embarrassing.

Now, are we moving as fast as we should be moving?

Of course not.  But we're moving faster than we were.  Acceleration is a process.

And the more we see that we aren't moving fast enough the more pressure will be applied to speed things up.

We need to remember that we will not avoid hurt from climate change, we are already being hurt.  It's all about reducing the amount of hurt.

All good points Bob; however, my basic point is that most people are looking for a 'savior' (or 'magic bullet') so that they do not need to take responsibility themselves.  This allows both decision makers and the media to over-play 'solutions' like Paris and geoengineering, which allows the majority of people to act like they have been 'saved' and so they do not need to take any further action.  Thus teaching the majority of people how to be realistic about our current situation is the best geoengineering that there is.

Edit: Even if Paris is working, per the attached graph of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa, the rate of CO2 increase is the same as before Paris.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 01:23:54 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

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #187 on: August 13, 2017, 05:51:36 PM »
We're not yet seeing a decrease in atmospheric CO2.  We shouldn't expect to see any yet.  It takes time for changes to show up in gross measurements.  Look at where we are now and what we should expect to see as renewable energy and EVs enter the takeoff stage.  That's when we see CO2 levels decelerate.



We've assembled our armies, trained them and equipped them.  Now we're ready to go into battle.

We've created efficient and very affordable wind and solar technologies and now most of the world has learned something about our fossil fuels alternatives. 

We're launching more affordable EVs and should see EVs become cheaper to manufacture than ICEVs in less than five years.

Here's our route to victory (IMHO).

1) We create our weapons.  A job almost completed.

2) We alarm the populace.  A job that has been mostly completed.  Few people, globally are climate change deniers.  Most people want something done.

3) We show people what can be done and done in ways that won't inconvenience them.

Surveys have found that a majority of Americans want some action against climate change and are will to spend some money on fighting global warming - if it doesn't cost them too much.

What we need to be doing now, and with great vigor, is to get the message out that renewable energy and EVs are a major weapon to fight climate change and - most importantly - by switching to renewable energy and EVs people will save money.
---

Geoengineering.  We need to greatly increase our research because we'd be idiots to go forth without trying to fit ourselves out with lifeboats.  We do not yet fully understand the climate drivers that might appear as the planet warms.  Even with our best efforts we might sail into a hidden rock and have to take emergency measures.

Just don't talk about geoengineering as a solution.  Talk about it as a last chance of survival that might save us if the worst happens.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #188 on: August 13, 2017, 06:32:05 PM »
The linked article discusses how social science can be used to geoengineer society's resistance to address climate change (hint one focus should be on changing human behavior in order to reduce waste including wasted: food, energy and materials).

Title: "Behavior Frontiers: Can Social Science Combat Climate Change?"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-social-science-help-combat-climate-change/

Extract: "Scientists remove some of the guesswork about how individuals will use energy in 2050 by looking at past campaigns to induce personal change and their effectiveness

By studying past instances of social transformation, scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) hope to predict future change in response to global warming as part of California’s Carbon Challenge—a study commissioned by the California Energy Commission to help the state cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels. LBNL energy technology scientist Jeffery Greenblatt and his colleagues are analyzing  technology options as well as data records from 10 historical behavior changes—smoking cessation, seat belt use, vegetarianism, drunk driving, recycling and yoga, among others."
“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: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #189 on: August 14, 2017, 06:58:26 PM »
The linked reference better delineates some of the well-known impacts of solar dimming on hydrologic cycles:

Jane E. Smyth, Rick D. Russotto, and Trude Storelvmo (2017), "Thermodynamic and dynamic responses of the hydrological cycle to solar dimming", Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 6439–6453, doi:10.5194/acp-17-6439-2017

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/6439/2017/acp-17-6439-2017.pdf

Abstract. "The fundamental role of the hydrological cycle in the global climate system motivates a thorough evaluation of its responses to climate change and mitigation. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinated international effort to assess the climate impacts of solar geoengineering, a proposal to counteract global warming with a reduction in incoming solar radiation. We assess the mechanisms underlying the rainfall response to a simplified simulation of such solar dimming (G1) in the suite of GeoMIP models and identify robust features. While solar geoengineering nearly restores preindustrial temperatures, the global hydrology is altered. Tropical precipitation changes dominate the response across the model suite, and these are driven primarily by shifts of the Hadley circulation cells. We report a damping of the seasonal migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) in G1, associated with preferential cooling of the summer hemisphere, and annual mean ITCZ shifts in some models that are correlated with the warming of one hemisphere relative to the other. Dynamical changes better explain the varying tropical rainfall anomalies between models than changes in relative humidity or the Clausius–Clapeyron scaling of precipitation minus evaporation (P - E), given that the relative humidity and temperature responses are robust across the suite. Strong reductions in relative humidity over vegetated land regions are likely related to the CO2 physiological response in plants. The uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical P - E changes highlights the need for cautious consideration and continued study before any implementation of solar geoengineering."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #190 on: August 14, 2017, 07:57:20 PM »
To Stop Global Warming, Should Humanity Dim the Sky?

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

We got rid of sulphate pollution because it was killing us, poisoning our lakes, and reducing agricultural output by dimming the sky. Why would we want to purposefully bring those bad things back?

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #191 on: August 14, 2017, 08:02:50 PM »
It is probable that by 2040 the WAIS collapse may have reached a tipping point.  If so, then no amount of geoengineering will be able to stop its collapse.

My read of Rignot et seq is that a tipping point has been reached. The only remaining question is how fast and how far will it tip. Nobody has yet found a reason why the whole thing won't eventually go assuming the current climate continues.

"No amount of geoengineering" is obviously false, if we get there in time and vigorously enough. There might even be political will to freeze the ocean bottom and glue the glaciers in place within a couple years after the waters start to rise.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #192 on: August 14, 2017, 08:25:45 PM »
Re: " ... political will to freeze the ocean bottom and glue the glaciers in place ..."

Will is one thing. Ability is another. The amount of heat involved is around 1e22 joule/yr. By contrast, the sum total of fluxes involved in all human constructed heat engines is about five or six orders of magnitude smaller.

sidd

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #193 on: August 14, 2017, 08:31:36 PM »
There is also the probability of economic and social chaos within many countries, even the richer ones, as the impacts of SLR, increased temperatures and general climate chaos take hold. We may lose the ability to put together the massive social and economic constructs required to carry out such large-scale geo-engineering. Governments may be more focused on immediate-term survival.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #194 on: August 14, 2017, 08:34:16 PM »
My read of Rignot et seq is that a tipping point has been reached. The only remaining question is how fast and how far will it tip.

I should have been more explicit to say that a 'main phase' collapse of the WAIS might likely begin by 2040 that, once triggered, could lead to a contribution to eustatic SLR of approximately 2m from the WAIS by 2100.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #195 on: August 14, 2017, 09:47:57 PM »
We got rid of sulphate pollution because it was killing us, poisoning our lakes, and reducing agricultural output by dimming the sky. Why would we want to purposefully bring those bad things back?

In really bad times we might have to resort to something like this.  Acid rain and crop yield decrease might be worse than extreme heat.  Extreme heat could be worse for food production than dimming.

Obviously this should be only a last resort sort of technique.  But we need to build an arsenal of tools so that we can use them if necessary.

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #196 on: August 15, 2017, 05:51:25 AM »
There is also the probability of economic and social chaos within many countries, even the richer ones, as the impacts of SLR, increased temperatures and general climate chaos take hold. We may lose the ability to put together the massive social and economic constructs required to carry out such large-scale geo-engineering. Governments may be more focused on immediate-term survival.
Completely agree. That is why I don't expect geoengineering to actually happen. By the time it's needed due to major impacts of AGW, those same impacts will prevent its implementation.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #197 on: August 15, 2017, 04:15:08 PM »
But we need to build an arsenal of tools so that we can use them if necessary.

Tools that we (whoever 'we' are) could deploy right now (if mankind had the will-power) include:

(a) Apply a worldwide progressive carbon-fee (carbon tax) and dividend program that would not only reduce carbon emissions immediately but would also likely create jobs and would reduce the current extreme income inequality problem,

(b) Implement appropriate regulations on carbon emissions and on other pollutants.

(c) Provide investment capital for green/sustainable energy/food production.

(d) Apply restrictions on lobbyists who distort all of the above.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 05:09:31 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

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1732
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #198 on: August 15, 2017, 04:41:08 PM »
Geoengineering leading to a reduction of incoming radiation will work to allow stored heat in the earth's oceans to be released, very very slowly.  Since we are already seeing bottom melt in WAIS glaciers and much more heat will be absorbed before geoengineering occurs, it is certain that significant more melt will occur before temperatures equalize.

The great unknown is what will happen to surface precipitation on land and, especially, Eastern Antarctica under a geoengineering scenario.  If land-based precipitation increases significantly, it will offset much of the locked in SLR and cooling will work to reduce thermal expansion, eventually leading to contraction.  At this point the very best we can hope for is another few feet of sea level rise within 50 years after Geoengineering is engaged, though there is very very high uncertainty.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2102
    • View Profile
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #199 on: August 15, 2017, 05:14:14 PM »
But we need to build an arsenal of tools so that we can use them if necessary.

Tools that we (whoever 'we' are) could deploy right now (if mankind had the will-power) include:

(a) Apply a worldwide progressive carbon-fee (carbon tax) and dividend program that would not only reduce carbon emissions immediately but would also likely create jobs and would reduce the current extreme income inequality problem,

(b) Implement appropriate regulations on carbon emissions and on other pollutants.

(c) Provide investment capital for green/sustainable energy/food production.

(d) Apply restrictions on lobbyists who distort all of the above.

Those are not geoengineering tools.

That's some of the stuff we could be doing that would reduce our possible need of geoengineering tools later on.

(I don't think there's any chance at all of implementing (a).  And I don't think (d) is a real issue.)