Geoengineering, another rush for money?

[ivica]

What is the plan for that not to happen?

[Laurent]

Climate engineering can’t erase climate change
http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2014/climate-engineering-cant-erase-climate-change.html

An interdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering strategies
Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/130030
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/130030

[Laurent]

About geoengineering... (I do not necesseraly share the infos just think it is good to bring that for thinking)


A site for infos : (Don't know what it is worth...)
http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/geoengineering.html

I am keen to bring this kind of infos because in the recent Peter Wadhams, Peter say we have to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (wich I completely agree) but he also mention geoengineering (other than absorbing CO2) which I am totally skeptical.

[Laurent]

Geoengineering - the 'declaration' that never was may cause real harm
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2533432/geoengineering_the_declaration_that_never_was_may_cause_real_harm.html

[Laurent]

Geoengineering the planet: first experiments take shape
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429974.000-geoengineering-the-planet-first-experiments-take-shape.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment#.VHdONo93_tQ

[Laurent]

How could man intervene to change the climate?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30229874

The specter of margaret is roaming, his name is TINA (there is no aternative)

[Sigmetnow]

Joe Romm tears into Newsweek's "clickbait" article on geoengineering.

The media likes geoengineering stories because they are clickbait involving all sorts of eye-popping science fiction (non)solutions to climate change that don’t actually require anything of their readers (or humanity) except infinite credulousness. And so Newsweek informs us that adorable ants might solve the problem or maybe phytoplankton can if given Popeye-like superstrength with a diet of iron or, as we’ll see, maybe we humans can, if we allow ourselves to be turned into hobbit-like creatures. The only thing they left out was time-travel.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/05/3599762/geoengineering-newsweek-hobbits/

[solartim27]

An article on US research into fixing things.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/10/385065816/scientific-pros-weigh-the-cons-of-messing-with-earths-thermostat[/url

I don't think it will be very easy, I was wondering about the rocket booster pollution the other day and found this article:
[url=http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0298a.shtml]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0298a.shtml
It makes it seem rather inconsequential, but of course the payload is not being deployed to the atmosphere in this case.

[sidd]

As asdised, I am taking this discussion here:

AbruptSLR posted on the "Conservative Scientists ..." thread the following reference:

"Pete Smith , University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland
 
https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2015/webprogram/Paper14398.html

Abstract: "Efforts to date to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have failed to prevent continued increases in emissions, with the rate of emissions growth higher during the 2000s than in the 1990s, and with GHG emissions reaching an all-time high of ~50GtCO2-eq. in 2010. This failure to reduce emissions over the 20+ years since the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into being, now makes limiting increases in global warming to <2◦C (the threshold beyond which climate change is regarded as dangerous) extremely challenging. Since global GHG emissions are now much higher than they were when the UNFCCC was agreed, we are now facing the prospect of requiring “negative emissions technologies” (NETs: i.e., those that result in net removal of GHGs from the atmosphere), to reach atmospheric GHG concentrations consistent with a <2◦C target. NETs include: BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Capture of CO¬2 using Sodium (or Calcium) Hydroxide (NaOH DAC) or monoethanolamine (MEA DAC), and atmospheric CO2 removal by accelerated weathering of magnesium oxide-bearing rocks (AW-MgO) ..."

I posted in response :

"I am pessimistic on BECSS. Far better to reforest, and forget about bioenergy and biochar sequestration.

The proposal for accelerated weathering might go further. There are large olivine near surface deposits which might be milled and spread using solar power. I have cost seen figures of less than 10US$/ton CO2, but i don't necessarily believe them. There is another proposal to pump CO2 laden seawater into deep rock formations to create carbonates at depth, but i see no recent work.

It is quite clear that the scale of effort for effective CO2 capture from the air, and burial will have to be of the scale of the present fossil fuel mining industry worldwide.

sidd "

Since then, on realclimate, I see a comment by Prof. Pierrehumbert and a link to his article on why albedo engineering is "barking mad" at

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.html

I entire agree with Prof. Pierrehumbert.

sidd

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference (with a free access pdf) reviews different Negative Emission Technologies, NETs, and concluded that until 2050 afforestation is our best geoengineering option (see attached image of NET costs & readiness), but that all NET options will be insufficient to increase our carbon budget significantly; and that control of GHG emissions is the most important step in fighting climate change:

http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/Stranded%20Carbon%20Assets%20and%20NETs%20-%2006.02.15.pdf

Edit: Extract: "... characterising possible NET deployment scenarios up to 2050 and 2100 based
on the latest literature on technical potentials and limiting constraints on NET deployment. We find that between now and 2050, there may be the technical potential to attain negative emissions of the order of 120 GtCO2 cumulatively (~15 ppm reduction), with the vast majority of this potential coming from afforestation, soil carbon improvements, and some biochar deployed in the near term.

This potential represents an extension of the 2050 carbon budget by 11-13% for a 50-80% probability of meeting a 2-degree warming target. More industrial technologies (DAC, Ocean Liming, and BECCS) that rely on CCS are likely to have very limited potential by 2050, largely due to limits imposed by CCS development and more significant technical and policy challenges."

[solartim27]

Recent post above had duplicate links which I fixed.  Saw this new article on BBC to set up research in advance of the next big volcano
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761

The payload for the Saturn V to low earth orbit is 118,000 kg,  so a whole lot of those would be needed to mimic Pinatubo, about 150,000 rockets every couple of years.  Sounds reasonable to me, let's get started.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article implies that governments (USA, EU, China, Russia, etc.) are actively evaluating how to weaponized geoengineering:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2015/feb/16/can-the-cia-weaponise-the-weather-geoengineering

Extract: "Using the weather as a weapon to subjugate the globe sounds like the modus operandi of a James Bond villain, but a senior climate scientist has expressed concern over the US intelligence services’ apparent interest in geoengineering."

See also the "CIA-Funded Geoengineering Study" thread here:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,452.0.html

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article implies that governments (USA, EU, China, Russia, etc.) are actively evaluating how to weaponized geoengineering:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2015/feb/16/can-the-cia-weaponise-the-weather-geoengineering

Extract: "Using the weather as a weapon to subjugate the globe sounds like the modus operandi of a James Bond villain, but a senior climate scientist has expressed concern over the US intelligence services’ apparent interest in geoengineering."

See also the "CIA-Funded Geoengineering Study" thread here:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,452.0.html

Just to play the Devil's advocate.  Shell estimates that in the real world at best it will take until about 2100 to reach a Net Zero Emissions condition where anthropogenic emissions match that absorbed by the natural environment. Furthermore, several researchers believe that sometime after 2050 Negative Emission Technology, NET, will be economic to suck C02 from the sky (beyond what nature does). 

Therefore, it almost seems inevitable that between 2050 and 2100 several countries will band together to implement, solar radiation management (SRM), most probably using stratospheric aerosols, even though Pierrehumbert (& sidd) call this possibility "barking mad".  Nevertheless, Lockley says that Pandora's Box is already open so we should thoroughly investigate and evaluate this SRM, together with NET, option starting immediately.

Thus, I provide some links (& selected extracts) to(from) two Wikipedia articles, with the first on general SRM and the second on Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols geoengineering, including a partial list of risks associated with this approach.

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.html

Extract: "So yes, albedo hacking is still barking mad, but people are often driven to do barking mad things out of desperation, and we are heading to the breaking point now with our continued fossil fuel binge."

Andrew Lockley
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2533432/geoengineering_the_declaration_that_never_was_may_cause_real_harm.html

Extract: "However knowledge of the necessary methods cannot be erased, so Pandora's box is already open. Tough choices have to be made about what will be permitted - from basic scientific research to full deployment.
Studying this new-found power is now an important academic endeavour, and both public and academic interest is growing rapidly."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management#Stratospheric_aerosols
Extract: "Sulfate aerosols have been shown to enhance ozone depletion. However, other aerosol types may be more efficient at cooling the climate or less damaging to the ozone layer. Such aerosols include the highly reflective titanium dioxide.
United States Patent 5003186 suggested that tiny metal flakes could be "added to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude." Alternative proposals, not known to have been published in peer-reviewed journals, include the addition of silicon compounds to jet fuel to make silicon dioxide particles in the exhaust."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

Extract: "According to Paul Crutzen annual cost of enough stratospheric sulfur injections to counteract effects of doubling CO2 concentrations would be $25–50 billion a year. This is over 100 times cheaper than producing the same temperature change by reducing CO2 emissions."

Partial List of Risks Associated with Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols geoengineering:
Extract:
"• Drought, particularly monsoon failure in Asia and Africa is a major risk.
• Ozone depletion is a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols; and these concerns have been supported by modelling.
• Tarnishing of the sky: Aerosols will noticeably affect the appearance of the sky, resulting in a potential "whitening" effect, and altered sunsets.
• Tropopause warming and the humidification of the stratosphere.
• Effect on clouds: Cloud formation may be affected, notably cirrus clouds and polar stratospheric clouds.
• Effect on ecosystems: The diffusion of sunlight may affect plant growth. but more importantly increase the rate of ocean acidification by the deposition of hydrogen ions from the acidic rain
• Effect on solar energy: Incident sunlight will be lower, which may affect solar power systems both directly and disproportionately, especially in the case that such systems rely on direct radiation.
• Deposition effects: Although predicted to be insignificant, there is nevertheless a risk of direct environmental damage from falling particles.
• Uneven effects: Aerosols are reflective, making them more effective during the day. Greenhouse gases block outbound radiation at all times of day. Further the effects will not give a homogeneous effect across the regions of the world.
• Stratospheric temperature change: Aerosols can also absorb some radiation from the Sun, the Earth and the surrounding atmosphere. This changes the surrounding air temperature and could potentially impact on the stratospheric circulation, which in turn may impact the surface circulation.

Further, the delivery methods may cause significant problems, notably climate change and possible ozone depletion in the case of aircraft, ...

…

Use of gaseous sulfuric acid appears to reduce the problem of aerosol growth."

[sidd]

Prof Pierrerhumbert makes two points (among many very good ones) which particularly struck me.

1)The Sword of Damocles: Aerosols fall out, so you must continually do this for the millennium plus lifetime of CO2 in air. If you ever stop, all that pent up rad imbalance will appear at once.

2)The moral problem. You forcing future generations to carry on this process or fry. He points out that the one who forces such a "Sophie's Choice" is the morally repugnant actor.

Read the whole thing.

sidd

[Laurent]

It is not only morality but about the life and death of futur generations (note the s that I am used to forget). It is about criminality, that what it is now, not acting relevently now is criminal. Relevent meaning stoppping all fossil fuels now and start to collect CO2 (not underground).

[AbruptSLR]

Prof Pierrerhumbert makes two points (among many very good ones) which particularly struck me.

1)The Sword of Damocles: Aerosols fall out, so you must continually do this for the millennium plus lifetime of CO2 in air. If you ever stop, all that pent up rad imbalance will appear at once.

2)The moral problem. You forcing future generations to carry on this process or fry. He points out that the one who forces such a "Sophie's Choice" is the morally repugnant actor.

Read the whole thing.

sidd

sidd,

I think that you are giving the decision makers far too much credit in the area of self-control.  I recently read that poor governance is the number one risk factor for global disaster.  I can all too easily imaging that as we approach 2050 and climate stress is building-up and positive feedback factors are kicking into high gear that a coalition of somewhat strong governments (USA, EU, Japan etc) will package an argument that their use of SRM will only last a few decades until they reach Net Zero Emissions and that parallel, and following to that, NET (particularly afforestation) will bring CO2 levels back down to 350 ppm sometime after 2100.  Therefore, they will say that your imaged sword of Damocles, or your "Sophie's Choice" analogies are nothing but alarmist fears intended to deny a world of the medicine that it needs to bring down its fever until it is well again.

If it turns out by 2050 that it is clear that the effective climate sensitivity is actually between 4.5 and 6 C, then such a coalition of strong governments will not hesitate to assume the "temporary" military authority to implement an SRM strategy using high flying military aircraft, and if some weaker (i.e. developing) countries need to temporarily suffer during such a strategy; well they were warned to cut emissions during COP21 back in 2015.

Obviously, such thinking is a form of poor governance, but where in the world today can you point to an example of good governance in action?  The strong likelihood that this type of "Climate Cad" thinking (note denalists are happy to admit that climate change is real if you will allow them to use geoengineering) will prevail by 2050 makes me think that this could well be another Dragon King type of climate change event were:
1. The SRM is hard to control and takes at least 10-years of practice, experimenting by trial and error just to help the coalition of strong countries (during which time the permafrost and the WAIS time bombs are exploding).
2.  The relatively weak countries that are getting the short-end of the SRM stick decide to put HCF into the atmosphere to counter act the Sulfates aerosols (or worse that shoot missiles at the coalition high flying aircraft).
3.  The ozone is degraded (particularly over Antarctica), which negatively impacts food production and health and accelerates the collapse of the AIS (due to the upwelling of warm CDW).

In short I find it difficult to believe that the quality of leaders extant in the world today could resist using SRM after our efforts to control emissions falls far short of the goal.

Best,
ASLR

[JimD]

The quote that appears on the bottom of all  my posts is very appropriate here.

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

As long as we fail to understand that technology almost always causes problems at least as big as what it is being used to solve we will forever continue to make the geo-engineering type of mistakes.

Barking mad?  You bet and anyone doing such a thing is the same as the pathological criminal carrying the axe.  Self defense in such a circumstance is fully justified.

[sidd]

"I think that you are giving the decision makers far too much credit in the area of self-control."

Actually, I said nothing about the self control of decision makers, but had I done so, I would probably have commented on the lack thereof ...

sidd

[AbruptSLR]

"I think that you are giving the decision makers far too much credit in the area of self-control."

Actually, I said nothing about the self control of decision makers, but had I done so, I would probably have commented on the lack thereof ...

sidd

mea culpa

[JimD]

A perfect place for this I guess.  One of our favorite geoengineering ideas.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/carbon-sequestration-may-not-work-says-study.html

Looks like carbon sequestration may not work as designed.

...
Carbon sequestration promises to address greenhouse-gas emissions by capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and injecting it deep below the Earth’s surface, where it would permanently solidify into rock. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that current carbon-sequestration technologies may eliminate up to 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

While such technologies may successfully remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, researchers in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT have found that once injected into the ground, less carbon dioxide is converted to rock than previously imagined.

The team studied the chemical reactions between carbon dioxide and its surroundings once the gas is injected into the Earth — finding that as carbon dioxide works its way underground, only a small fraction of the gas turns to rock. The remainder of the gas stays in a more tenuous form.

Abstract
CO2 sequestration in subsurface reservoirs is important for limiting atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, a complete physical picture able to predict the structure developing within the porous medium is lacking. We investigate theoretically reactive transport in the long-time evolution of carbon in the brine-rock environment. As CO2 is injected into a brine-rock environment, a carbonate-rich region is created amid brine. Within the carbonate-rich region minerals dissolve and migrate from regions of high concentration to low concentration, along with other dissolved carbonate species. This causes mineral precipitation at the interface between the two regions. We argue that precipitation in a small layer reduces diffusivity, and eventually causes mechanical trapping of the CO2. Consequently, only a small fraction of the CO2 is converted to solid mineral; the remainder either dissolves in water or is trapped in its original form. We also study the case of a pure CO2 bubble surrounded by brine and suggest a mechanism that may lead to a carbonate-encrusted bubble due to structural diffusion.

[AbruptSLR]

JimD,

Just as you frequently cite that the unsustainability of our coming situation represents a call to the common man to tear-down the modern international capitalist system that is driving climate change; I would like to point-out that the 1% can see the unsustainability of our coming situation as an opportunity to declare Martial Law (under their control) for several decades in order to implement SRM together with NET, until they stabilize the multiple threats not only from climate change but also from all of the associated threats that were intensified by climate change including: terrorist activity (ISIS), strong-man brinksmanship (Putin), disease (Ebola), food/water shortages, etc. .
While you point-out that sequestering CO₂ sucked from the atmosphere into rock may not be as effective as once thought, it will not be hard for the 1% to hire spin doctors who will make NET look eminently practical such as the attached figure shows that even today the use of biomass in construction is fully practical, and research such as the following linked article (see extract) will make it sound like planting and harvesting native tropical trees such as the alder as being highly sustainable and effective at carbon capture and sequestration.  Whether such biomass for construction NET is scalable to the magnitude of our coming problem will be irrelevant to the suffering 99% who will be looking for a savior such as "benevolent martial rule" for a few decades until they feel safe again.

http://www.tum.de/en/about-tum/news/press-releases/short/article/31918/

Extract: "Afforestation with alder and pine species proved particularly sustainable. In addition, forested regions offer the best protection against erosion in the long term. “Our study also showed that afforestation with the native Andean alder had a much more positive impact on the climate and water balance than the other land use options,” adds Prof. Jörg Bendix from Phillips-Universität Marburg."

Best,
ASLR

[JimD]

ASLR

No argument.

A bit of explanation of my writing style and methods.  I vary what I write a bit in order to avoid being 'harsh'? all the time.  I fully think that the facts and trends, when coupled with the dictates of human nature, put us in a room with no doors.  We are not getting out of this situation without suffering a catastrophic collapse because we lack the intelligence and courage to overcome our basic natures.  Not that we have already passed the point where some level of collapse could be mitigated or avoided (not all but some), but that we won't do that because of our weaknesses and failings.

That being said I don't actually beat people up every time over their posts which epitomize those very failures; to wit the constant stream of tibits about insignificant advances in the green BAU industries. It is comforting for some to focus on the tree in front of them and ignore the bulldozers knocking down the forest off in the distance.  I don't have the heart to smack them in the head every time they do this.

Some things I just post because I find them interesting or relevant to the discussions.  I don't have opinions on them per say and wait for folks like yourself to provide depth and detail.  I must admit I don't have your dedication.  I pretty much accept what is going to happen and why.  I don't really think that I can have any positive effect on getting people to get serious (look at how little meaningful change has occurred among those who seem to fully accept that climate change is going to destroy us).  And then we have the 99% who are pretty much clueless.

We have the Germans destructing the EU and the US trying to start more wars.  The Chinese and Indians trying to figure out how to live like the US and EU.  The developing world wanting to be developed.  It is endless.  There is not one trend which has a chance of leading to a real solution other than the slowly rising armies of the Four Horsemen.

As you say the 1% will do everything in their power to throw everyone else under the bus to make sure they ride this thing out.  Pitch forks and torches...

But it is all a big food chain too.  The developed and developing worlds will happily throw the undeveloped under the bus.  But then the developed will do the same to the developing.  And then the upper parts of the developed will throw the middle class on down into the maelstrom.  Until it ends.  Civilization is 3 meals deep or something like that...

[AbruptSLR]

JimD,

Thanks for your last post.  I must confess that I am still learning about our changing situation, but I concur that it is almost unavoidable that things will get so bad around 2050 that many countries will at least flirt with the idea of martial law, with a strong probability that they will at least try SRM & NET to at least help themselves and allies.  However, the implementation of geoengineering will require more accurate projections from scientists as they will not be able to effectively control geoengineering while erring on the side of least drama.  Anthropogenic climate change results because of mankind's inability to face reality as it is, rather than as we wish it to be.  If scientists don't learn how to monitor & project climate change in a big hurry the world could see a lot of blowback from poorly managed geoengineering; which could make WWIII all but inevitable.

Best,
ASLR

[Sigmetnow]

Perhaps nanotechnology will provide a way to efficiently sequester carbon.
Until then, bring on the artificial trees--the least crazy form of geoengineering.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/02/24/free_air_carbon_capture_a_climate_engineering_idea_worth_considering.html

[AbruptSLR]

The following extract is from the book Antifragile, by Nassim Taleb:

Extract: "A turkey is fed for a thousand days by a butcher; every day confirms to its staff of analysts that butchers love turkeys “with increased statistical confidence.” The butcher will keep feeding the turkey until a few days before Thanksgiving. Then comes that day when it is really not a very good idea to be a turkey. So with the butcher surprising it, the turkey will have a revision of belief—right when its confidence in the statement that the butcher loves turkeys is maximal and “it is very quiet” and soothingly predictable in the life of the turkey.…The key here is that such a surprise will be a Black Swan event; but just for the turkey, not for the butcher….

“Not being a turkey” starts with figuring out the difference between true and manufactured stability. "

With regard to SRM the lesson is that such climate stability is manufactured and thus fragile for reasons including:

- In a non-stationary climate the scientists managing the SRM could push the climate in the wrong direction for a decade or so, which could cause such chaotic systems as the ENSO, and atmospheric rivers to cause extreme weather and associated damage for decades unnecessarily.
- An out break of a global war could disrupt the SRM project, and/or could encourage countries suffering from a poorly executed SRM plan to implement an anti-SRM plan of their own.
- If sufficient damage occurs to the global economy (which is being made fragile by quantitative easing) before an aggressive SRM plan is put into effect (say both due to bureaucratic inertia or due to the thermal inertia of both the ocean and many "slow" response positive feedback mechanisms such as permafrost degradation and/or Arctic subsea methane hydrates [due to thermal inertia of the ocean and teleconnection of ocean heat into the Arctic Ocean basin by ocean currents from at least the Atlantic, and possibly the Pacific, Oceans]); then the implementing governments many not be willing to continue to pay for a long-term SRM project.

[AbruptSLR]

The first linked reference (by Yu et al 2015) published online indicates that much of the health of the Amazon Rainforest is linked to nutrient in dust from Africa.  However, the second linked reference by Bergametti et al indicate that vegetation growth can sharply reduce dust from African deserts.  Therefore, if SRM implemented when atmospheric CO₂ levels are above 500ppm (which promotes vegetation growth particularly in deserts) and restores rainfall to the dust generating parts of Africa; then SRM could contribute to deforestation in the Amazon basis before the end of this century (which would be a positive feedback):

Hongbin Yu, et al, (2015), "The Fertilizing Role of African Dust in the Amazon Rainforest: A First Multiyear Assessment Based on CALIPSO Lidar Observations", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL063040

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2015GL063040/

Abstract: "The productivity of the Amazon rainforest is constrained by the availability of nutrients, in particular phosphorus (P). Deposition of long-range transported African dust is recognized as a potentially important but poorly quantified source of phosphorus. This study provides a first multiyear satellite-based estimate of dust deposition into the Amazon Basin using three dimensional (3D) aerosol measurements over 2007-2013 from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP). The 7-year average of dust deposition into the Amazon Basin is estimated to be 28 (8 - 48) Tg a-1 or 29 (8 - 50) kg ha-1 a-1. The dust deposition shows significant interannual variation that is negatively correlated with the prior-year rainfall in the Sahel. The CALIOP-based multi-year mean estimate of dust deposition matches better with estimates from in-situ measurements and model simulations than a previous satellite-based estimate does. The closer agreement benefits from a more realistic geographic definition of the Amazon Basin and inclusion of meridional dust transport calculation in addition to the 3D nature of CALIOP aerosol measurements. The imported dust could provide about 0.022 (0.006 - 0.037) Tg P of phosphorus per year, equivalent to 23 (7 - 39) g P ha-1 a-1 to fertilize the Amazon rainforest. This out-of-Basin P input is comparable to the hydrological loss of P from the Basin, suggesting an important role of African dust in preventing phosphorus depletion on time scales of decades to centuries."

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-massive-amounts-saharan-fertilize-amazon.html

Pierre, C., G. Bergametti, B. Marticorena, L. Kergoat, E. Mougin, and P. Hiernaux (2014), Comparing drag partition schemes over a herbaceous Sahelian rangeland, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 119, 2291-2313, DOI: 10.1002/2014JF003177

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-vegetation-soil-erosion-due.html#inlRlv

[Sigmetnow]

ASLR

No argument.

A bit of explanation of my writing style and methods.  I vary what I write a bit in order to avoid being 'harsh'? all the time.  I fully think that the facts and trends, when coupled with the dictates of human nature, put us in a room with no doors.  We are not getting out of this situation without suffering a catastrophic collapse because we lack the intelligence and courage to overcome our basic natures.  Not that we have already passed the point where some level of collapse could be mitigated or avoided (not all but some), but that we won't do that because of our weaknesses and failings.

That being said I don't actually beat people up every time over their posts which epitomize those very failures; to wit the constant stream of tibits about insignificant advances in the green BAU industries. It is comforting for some to focus on the tree in front of them and ignore the bulldozers knocking down the forest off in the distance.  I don't have the heart to smack them in the head every time they do this.

...

The only way to guarantee the world's population will succumb to climate change is if we do nothing.

Trying gives us a chance of success.  Highlighting small successes and the availability of new, cleaner options provides psychological and economic support for more people to adopt, and improve upon, the new solutions as we discover what works best.*

Until every living being on earth gives up and says, "I quit," there's still a chance.  (And after that there's A.I. -- but I digress.)  Slap your forehead over our puny attempts to heal the world if you must, but try not to stand in the way.  We just might end up saving your life.  Apologies if that doesn't fit in with your plans for the apocalypse.  You'll think of something. 


*Examples: 
Solar power is contagious: Installing panels often means your neighbors will too
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7059995/solar-power-is-contagious-neighbor-effects-panels-installation

Survey of UK Nissan LEAF owners finds 95% said they would recommend the LEAF (or electric cars in general, one can assume) to friends.  More than 50% swear off gasoline forever.
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/survey-uk-nissan-leaf-owners-finds-more-half-swear-gasoline-forever.html

Tanzania’s Off Grid Electric Target 200,000 Solar Connections In 2015
http://afkinsider.com/87879/tanzanias-off-grid-electric-target-200000-solar-connections-2015/
(See the 4-minute video:  "It's the easiest sales pitch I've ever seen...  30 to 40% adoption rates... Tanzania is ahead of us in mobile payments. Everybody, even if they don't have electricity in their home, has a cell phone, and there's an incredible network of mobile payments distributors.  So they just send us money over their mobile phone, we send them a text message that unlocks the system on their wall, and then their lights go on. ...This is a for-profit enterprise.")

[wili]

"The only way to guarantee the world's population will succumb to climate change is if we do nothing."

Actually, "nothing" is mostly what most of the global wealthy need to "do" a lot more of if we are going to have a chance avoiding the worst possible consequences of climate change:

Nothing, for example, in the direction of:

Flying
Shopping
Meat eating
Dairy eating
Over-consumption
Over heating
Over cooling
Driving
Most other travel
Over lighting
Over washing
.
.
.

What we mostly need most urgently is for most of, especially the global rich, to mostly do A WHOLE LOT LESS of the things that produce the most emissions.

A widespread successful "DO NOTHING" movement would be the fastest way to immediately and drastically bring down the levels of carbon emissions, and immediately and drastically is exactly what is needed.

But yes, picking up what's left with some increases in solar and wind would be a good idea. And effective activism that reins in the influence of FF corporations would be a nice idea, too.

[JimD]

Sigmetnow

The only way to guarantee the world's population will succumb to climate change is if we do nothing.

Trying gives us a chance of success.  Highlighting small successes and the availability of new, cleaner options provides psychological and economic support for more people to adopt, and improve upon, the new solutions as we discover what works best.*

Until every living being on earth gives up and says, "I quit," there's still a chance.  (And after that there's A.I. -- but I digress.)  Slap your forehead over our puny attempts to heal the world if you must, but try not to stand in the way.  We just might end up saving your life.  Apologies if that doesn't fit in with your plans for the apocalypse.  You'll think of something. 

Then why are you doing nothing?

Trying only gives one a chance of success when what you are 'trying' to do makes sense or has a possibility of working.  What you are doing is BAU.  It is just a continuation of the subconscious human responses to short and long term threats   It is not based upon reason and logic.  It is worse than foolish.  It is suicidal.  A tidal wave is coming at you.  Making sand castles on the beach is not going to make a breakwater.  "Trying" to pile up sand might seem like you are holding out hope but there is another word for it...just saying.

We MUST take our primitive emotions out of this calculation.  Faith in progress and miracles is immature, childish and utterly foolish.  That is BAU.  Admittedly painful, but workable solutions are staring us in the face and we won't even talk about them. 

The time for incremental improvements passed long ago.  We simply do not have the time to dither along for 20-30 more years.  Your approach is the definition of slow and time consuming.  Time is on the other side.  Have you not noticed that CO2 levels are still increasing?  Population is out of control? Nothing you have ever posted on these incremental improvements has a snowball's chance in hell of changing the critical metrics quickly.   Most of them actually make many of those metrics worse not better. 

You want desperately to make people feel like things will get better, but what that does is tell their subconscious that the problem is not that bad and we just need to ride out the hard times for a bit.  So they delay and drag their feet.  The problems are not going to get better but worse, much much worse. 

People are like the frog put in a pan of water that is slowly heated.  They will never jump out and will eventually die.  They don't recognize the long-term threat of the slowly heating water.  Drop them or the frog in hot water and they jump.  Short term threat.

People like you have been saying such things as you do for the entire span of this crisis and look where we are compared to 10 years ago.  All metrics are worse.  Much worse.  Our current approach is suicidal.  Give the future a chance and don't be so selfish.  We are not that important, they are.

We must do everything in our power to make people jump.  Your approach is telling them that the water is comfortable.  It leads to utter catastrophe.  There is no middle ground here.  It is time to jump not order another Cuba Libre and kick back in the hot tub.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked New York Times opinion article contains some color commentary on the road to geoengineering:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/opinion/fighting-back-against-climate-change.html?_r=0

While the authors make a good point that geoengineering at best is "... a possible tourniquet that might crudely blunt, in an emergency, some of the most horrible effects of climate change."; nevertheless, I see no downturn in the current rate of increasing GHG concentration in the atmosphere (in fact they are still accelerating).  If policymakers are serious about limiting emissions then they would do something sooner rather than later.  It is possible that COP21 in Paris will prove me wrong, but I think that without experiencing sufficient climate change damage to almost mandate the use of geoengineering as a crutch, that policymakers will find it impossible to limit emissions effectively below RCP 6 (at best) through 2070.

[Sigmetnow]

JimD,

LOL.  You have it exactly backwards! 

While I am encouraging action here by noting the importance of voting, and adoption of improved technology and more sustainable lifestyles, you bemoan that nothing is working and everything is getting worse and people are idiots and nothing matters anyway because collapse is inevitable.  Then you punctuate your ideals with visions of violence.  How does that solve anything?

It really is too bad you cannot see that it is your approach, your fixation, that says to everyone, "It's hopeless.  You can't do anything that will avoid collapse -- why bother to change at all?  Enjoy the warm water for as long as you can."

Apparently you think nothing short of a huge asteroid collision is sufficient progress.  Well, it ain't gonna happen that way, so learn to embrace the slow and celebrate every sign of quickening we find.  We may be almost at the point on the exponential curve where progress ramps up sharply. 

  Then why are you doing nothing?

Interesting you bring this up.  I have already made dozens of changes in my life and home to lower my carbon footprint, and expect to invest in solar power and electric car soon.  I use my experiences and discoveries almost daily to inform and encourage my friends and acquaintances to also make positive changes.  It's what we all can do.

But you are the one doing nothing.
In December, ccgwebmaster asked:
"So long story short, what are you doing to help those in the future? Promoting early collapse and acceptance? Anything else?"

Your response was:

  ... But I guess the plain answer to your question is, No, there is not much else I am doing right now, though over the years I have strongly emphasized and promoted old fashioned self sufficiency - it is the engineer and farmer in me I guess.  I am a bit worn down with beating my head upon the wall of lizard brain thinking.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1097.msg42118.html#msg42118

Until you personally start living in a cave and eating bugs, it's hypocritical of you to complain that "Green BAU is still BAU."  Have you done any better?  Seems more like, "Do as I say, but not as I do."

Your outlook and reason for acting revels in depression and violence.  Gee, I wonder why it doesn't catch on?  Imminent Collapse may inspire you to write, but you'll need to find a better approach if you want more people to listen.  Just saying.

[viddaloo]

Until you personally start living in a cave and eating bugs, it's hypocritical of you to complain that "Green BAU is still BAU."  Have you done any better?  Seems more like, "Do as I say, but not as I do."

I know why I side with the realists in this debate; it's because their logic is better and not so panicky. Your thinking here is like saying:

«You say '2+2 is 4', but have you done any better?»

I.e a meaningless argument that only reveals desperation, I'm afraid. My position will always be that in the face of massive problems we need good thinking. Why would we only need good thinking for the very small problems?

[Bruce Steele]

Most geoengineering schemes ignore acidification, aerosol sulfur increases the problem. I know the whole subject of geoengineering isn't viewed very favorably around here but there are  processes that might be augmented to benefit both an additional atmospheric drawdown of CO2 and also reduce ocean acidification. I also think giving the conservatives some way to tinker with ameliorating the co2 problem that has a lot less chance of causing additional problems than most geoengineering schemes might be a positive rather than a negative for getting more conservatives on board. None of these plans should be viewed as a panacea but getting some real numbers about their effectiveness does in my opinion deserve some real world experimentation, with quantifiable results and costs.

 http://www.ethanpublishing.com/uploadfile/2014/1225/20141225103315331.pdf
 
Seven pages , worth the read.
     

[JimD]

Sigmetnow you are just sticking your head in the sand like people always do.  Your fears lead you to take the easiest path always.  You are not encouraging people to deal with this situation you are leading them to take the path of least resistance by letting them think there is no real change required of them.

The blindness of the average person to peril is simply amazing.  You need to start over and learn what is happening.  Look at the FACTS and get off your silly horse of indignation about hard answers.  Your knee jerk reaction to anything that sounds bad clouds your thinking.  Your fear of short term hardships leads you to a point where you will be responsible for much worse results long term. But then you won't have suffered and your children and grandchildren will have.  But hey! Let them look out for themselves.  Selfish and immoral are the people who pursue life this way.

Climate change is the greatest challenge of human history, not some little problem that is amenable to incremental improvement.  It IS, not maybe, going to utterly change the world we have to live in.  It requires no advanced degree to see (if you manage to pull your head out of the sand) that our current civilizational structure is incompatible with the future that is going to arrive in the not to distant future.  Continuing to try and grow our global economy, continuing to grow our population, continuing to degrade the Earth's carrying capacity, promoting rising affluence, working like dogs to find technical solutions to live just another version of our rich lifestyle is just brain dead stupid. It is suicidal.  It is what you are promoting.  That is worse than doing nothing by far.  It will make you complicit in a form of genocide.

You think I revel in the thought of the destruction that is coming.  Think again.  If I did I would be helping you to convince people to make stupid life choices.  Then I could sit back and have a beer with my popcorn and watch the world burn.  I have experienced front line war and significant amounts of up front and personal mayhem in my life and have a very clear understanding of what I am talking about.  Read the news and watch U-tube a bit to clarify things.  Pick up a few history books.  What you see in the Middle East, in Greece, the Ukraine, Nigeria, and so on today will be coming to a theater near you sometime in the next few decades - maybe sooner.  You don't make it go away by not talking about it and trying to ridicule those warning people what is going to happen if they don't change their ways.  And when it comes it will wash away all your incremental efforts.

We must stop what we are doing and we must stop right now.  We do not have decades for gradual change for several reasons.  One is that the type of change you promote does not solve any of the core problems.  It just makes people feel good and lets them forget that the real problems are not being addressed.  Another is that it bakes into the cake several more decades of emissions which will result in even more dramatic climate change effects and it will burn vast quantities of resources needed to rebuild (presuming your efforts don't result in no survivors at all).

We some time ago reached the point where there is no way out of this situation where it is possible to end up with an infrastructure, population and civilization which is like the one we have today.  That is sad, but it is just the reality of where our actions took us.  There is no time for recrimination.  There is only time for dramatic change.  Even dramatic change will not do any more than lessen the inevitable painful results of the ongoing collapse.  But it will at least lessen it.  And provide much greater opportunities to those who come through the bottleneck.  The moral choice is to take upon oneself as much of the burden as possible not put it on an innocent yet to be born.

You want respect for your little changes but they do not address the kind of changes we need.  You want an electric car.  We need to get rid of cars.  BAU is BAU.  You are just trying to find a way to maintain the lifestyle you have today via different technology when the facts say that you need to give up at least 90% of your affluence.  Do not forget that even if we all lived the lifestyles of the average African that would still result in worsening climate change metrics.  Change is necessary.  Real change.

[AbruptSLR]

The simple geoengineering cases examined by the linked 2012 reference (with an open access pdf) show that delaying mitigation (i.e. reducing emissions and preventing activation of positive feedback mechanisms, and absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) measures (as we are currently doing) will be very costly, and may require SRM to be sustained for centuries (if we do not control emissions soon enough):

Naomi E. Vaughan , Timothy M. Lenton, (2012), "Interactions between reducing CO2 emissions, CO2 removal and solar radiation management", Philosophical Transactions A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0188


http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1974/4343

Abstract: "We use a simple carbon cycle–climate model to investigate the interactions between a selection of idealized scenarios of mitigated carbon dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Two CO2 emissions trajectories differ by a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity. SRM is modelled as a reduction in incoming solar radiation that fully compensates the radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Two CDR scenarios remove 300 PgC by afforestation (added to vegetation and soil) or 1000 PgC by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (removed from system). Our results show that delaying the start of mitigation activity could be very costly in terms of the CDR activity needed later to limit atmospheric CO2 concentration (and corresponding global warming) to a given level. Avoiding a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity is more effective at reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations than all but the maximum type of CDR interventions. The effects of applying SRM and CDR together are additive, and this shows most clearly for atmospheric CO2 concentration. SRM causes a significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to increased carbon storage by the terrestrial biosphere, especially soils. However, SRM has to be maintained for many centuries to avoid rapid increases in temperature and corresponding increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to loss of carbon from the land."

[viddaloo]

We must stop what we are doing and we must stop right now.  We do not have decades for gradual change for several reasons.  One is that the type of change you promote does not solve any of the core problems.  It just makes people feel good and lets them forget that the real problems are not being addressed.

Exactly. And that is exactly why supporting eg the Green BAU Party and associated lifestyles is NOT a way out here. It's not a question of trying to be a bit better than we presently are. A bit won't do, so we all need to think qualitatively different and come up with radically new solutions.

The Feel–Good Green BAU movement is and will be a *dangerous* opponent, though. People like to feel good. They don't like people telling them that feeling good is no good.

[Sigmetnow]

  ...It just makes people feel good and lets them forget that the real problems are not being addressed....
...There is only time for dramatic change....

So, other than making people feel miserable, what's your plan?  Oh, wait, that *is* your plan.  How's that working out for you? Had many converts to your side recently?

Meanwhile: "Every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar."
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/18/solar-summit-launches-us-solar-to-new-growth-spurt/

THAT is change.  Clearly not the change you want to see -- I get it, trust me -- but it's the direction we are going.  You want to feel bad about that, you go right ahead.  Most conservatives feel the same way.  But it's the direction that thousands of IPCC experts from 80 countries (and, most other scientists, too!) agree will work, if we get a move on.  Your little (albeit wordy) philosophy finds very little support -- amongst the majority of folks with advanced degrees.  It's just not persuasive -- which is probably why you are so frustrated and feel you must resort to violence.  Maybe if you actually, you know, did something, to support your claims, you would feel better.  Or found someone else who is acting on your claims.  So far, it's mostly been limited to spouting a lot of trash talk. That may work on talk radio, but not here.

[Bruce Steele]

As far a convincing people with advanced degrees... I don't know. Somewhere in those IPCC reports you will see we need to reduce all CO2 emissions to zero, I repeat zero, by 2100. When JimD says he has always had an interest in self sufficiency I think he means he has experimented with some of those time-honored trials like farming or hunting or tanning or fishing that can be done in a zero emissions future as they were in a zero emissions past. We don't talk much around here about that zero emissions future and part of the reason is it really doesn't fit into our current lives or lifestyles, it won't save the shining cities, it won't put you down the road at sixty, it won't get you on a plane to attend a funeral half a world away and frankly it doesn't fit into a broken neo-liberal construct. As scary as it is to say ,our values are not compatible with the future we are all soon to inhabit. If you were to somehow pull some of those hearty souls back from the dead and explain to them why this beautiful technologically dependent world is willing to continue full throttle towards destruction just so we can keep our cars,planes and supermarkets... Well they would wonder , What went Wrong?
So let me make this clear ,cars, planes and supermarkets are not compatible 
with human life for much longer. Ready to give them up? Ready to let those who don't die?  Future choices i guess but as 9 billion souls meet 2050 those will be choices made and it won't be pretty.     
 

[Neven]

What can't be greenified, can perhaps be compensated by geoengineering (to return to the subject)? Sounds like it has a lot of GDP potential. And it's the current GDP theory that brought us westerners all our wealth and entertainment, so can't possibly touch that.

Without the irony: I like green tech, I like smart solutions, but none of it will work or reach its portended goal without systemic changes. Geoengineering is like giving Charlie Manson a tranquillizer. It's insane.

And it's like weapon technology. Once you start 'looking into it', you've already committed yourself to using it eventually.  But I'd even be willing to accept some form of geoengineering, if those systemic changes would be made.

[JimD]

Yup the incremental approach is working out just fine so far.  Not.

Ignoring reality is what most do and some specialize in.  Deal with reality or it will deal with you.

This is our most successful geoengineering project to date.  And once again we have improved upon last years record.

Global Carbon Emissions Reach New Record High

Concentrations of carbon dioxide will surge to a new high in the atmosphere in 2014, scientists announced today in advance of the U.N. Climate Summit in New York City.

Global carbon dioxide emissions are projected to soar to 44 billion tons (40 billion metric tons) this year, a 2.5 percent increase from 2013 levels, according to joint studies published today (Sept. 21) in the journals Nature Climate Change and Nature Geoscience. The new estimates come from the Global Carbon Project, an international effort to track the global carbon cycle, from sky to sea...

http://www.livescience.com/47929-global-carbon-emissions-2014-record.html

Shit we can do better than that.  A few hundred million more people and more economic growth and we can hit 50 giga tonnes.  Maybe more if we try hard enough.

This is not a new conversation.  We had this conversation 5 years ago.  "Oh don't be mean and talk about having to change as that might be unpleasant or icky.  Let's just work on these nice sounding techno fixes and maybe something good will happen."  Well we did just that and where are we?  Want to bet we will be having the same conversation in 2020?

Continuing down the paths we are following is brain dead stupid.  That is reality.  But hey, if you at least take pride in being stupid you have something to hang onto I guess.

[viddaloo]

Some people just don't get it. Actually, it's quite fun, in a gallows–humour kind of way. Details like a planet to live on was something their opponents were stubbornly banging on about. Clearly egotistic maniacs ....

[AbruptSLR]

The first linked article indicates that PwC projects a 2.5% increase in CO₂ emissions in 2015 assuming that crude oil prices stay between $60-70 per barrel during the course of 2015 and finish around $80/barrel; however, the second linked article indicates that Woodward predicts crude oil prices will stay between $50 – 60 during 2015 increasing to about $65/barrel in 2016 and $70/barrel in 2017.  When factoring in other GHG emission trends (particularly methane) together with such low crude oil prices, it is most reasonable to estimate that carbon emissions will increase at about 3% in the 2015 – 2017 timeframe (not that COP21 will not kick-in until 2020).
As the world appears to be hell bent on consuming its carbon emissions budget as fast as practicable, the chances increase that both carbon pricing and geoengineering will be implemented before 2050.  Given that solar radiation management, SRM, can reduce solar forcing by at least 3.7 W/m² of globally averaged negative forcing (note that the number in the RCP scenarios is the anthropogenically driven radiative forcing in W/m²) , thus governmental use of SRM could drop us from RCP 6.0 to RCP 2.6 sometime after 2050 for at least several decades, even if society remains on a relatively high GHG emissions pathway through 2070.

I am not saying that such aggressive geoengineering is a good idea (see the Wiki – links at the bottom of this post); but as it appears likely to be in our future (whether we want it or not), and we should all realize that neither an early collapse of our economic system, or a green BAU, approach is likely to solve our climate change challenges before the 2070 – 2100 timeframe, by which time a great deal of climate change related damage (if for no other reason than to due to 1 to 2 meters of SLR, and continued acidification of our oceans).

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/01/02/global-carbon-emissions-to-rise-2-5-in-2015-pwc/


Extract: "Global GDP is expected to grow at 3.5% per year, and so if we’re decarbonising our economy about 0.9% per year, it’s reasonable to expect emissions to grow 2.5% in 2015,” said PwC’s sustainability director Jonathan Grant, who worked on their Global Economy Watch report.
Despite efforts to limit emissions around the world, the reduction in the amount of carbon used in a unit of GDP – known as carbon intensity – has stabilised at around 1% per year, said Grant.
PwC expect US economic growth to hit 3%, the highest since 2005, but China’s could slow to 7.2%, the country’s lowest since 1990.

Their projections estimate that oil prices will stay between $60-70 over the course of 2015 and finish at around $80.

But a further slump in crude oil prices could lead to rapidly increased demand, hitting global efforts to decarbonise transport systems."

http://www.interest.co.nz/business/74272/oil-prices-expected-remain-relatively-low-over-next-two-years-exploration-nz-slowing-

Extract: "Woodward predicts the price will linger around US$50 during the first half of the year, increase to US$60 in the second half of 2015, US$65 in 2016 and US$70 in 2017."

For geoengineering see also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management

[wili]

Speaking of green BAU: I was just perusing some info at SkS on the various Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), and I was surprised to see which one included the largest amount of energy from solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, bio-energy and nuclear...

Any guesses?

It's 8.5--the pathway that leads most directly to the deepest, hottest reaches of hell on earth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=3

If that doesn't convince one of what should be screamingly obvious--that mere massive development of alternatives to ffs does not by itself do anything to help us avoid the worst consequences of AGW--I'm not sure what would.

[AbruptSLR]

Speaking of green BAU: I was just perusing some info at SkS on the various Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), and I was surprised to see which one included the largest amount of energy from solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, bio-energy and nuclear...

Any guesses?

It's 8.5--the pathway that leads most directly to the deepest, hottest reaches of hell on earth.

wili,

Thanks for pointing-out some of the complexities of the RCP scenarios; which indicate that not only does RCP 8.5 have the largest amount of non-fossil fuel primary energy sources, but as the attached figure indicates, it most closely matches current global population projections with assumes a focus on growth of fossil fuels in the developing countries (also which most closely matches current economic projections).

Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone that the RCP scenarios assume equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS, values of about 3 to 3.3 C; while even if geoengineering avoids the worst activation of positive feedback mechanisms that could otherwise push the Earth System Sensitivity, ESS, to 6 C by 2100; nevertheless (due to possible deep atmospheric convectivity that may not be fully modeled in current GCMs), ECS could well be between 4 and 4.5 C; which (if true) could push the radiative forcing of RCP 6.0 to 9 W/m², or RCP to 12.75 W/m².   Thus if ECS is 4.5 C and Solar Radiation Management of 3.7 W/m² is implemented, still the effective radiative forcing following RCP 8.5 to 2100 could be at least 9 W/m², even with massive investments in green primary energies, negative emission technologies, NET and SRM.

Best,
ASLR

[Sigmetnow]

Speaking of green BAU: I was just perusing some info at SkS on the various Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), and I was surprised to see which one included the largest amount of energy from solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, bio-energy and nuclear...

Any guesses?

It's 8.5--the pathway that leads most directly to the deepest, hottest reaches of hell on earth.

Well, yes, but you can't just ignore the huge amount of coal RCP 8.5 also includes.  What that bar in the chart says to me is that we must cut energy growth (and, soon, total energy needs) using more-efficient products, lighter industry and changes in lifestyle. 

And use only clean energy for the power we do need, obviously.   
Get rid of coal, and we're looking more like RCP 4.5.  (Not that we should stop there; we can do better.)

[wili]

"we must cut energy growth"

Yup.

[AbruptSLR]

"we must cut energy growth"

Yup.

I propose that the most effective way to do this is that some form carbon fees & dividend plans (in addition to reasonable regulations) together with tariffs on goods imported from non-participating countries, need to be adopted by the majority of economically developed countries around the world.

[AbruptSLR]

The two following links point to research supporting my previously stated positions that no SRM plan could be implemented in less than several decades (say around 2050), and that it would take at least ten years to gradually calibrate any such system before it had a chance of being successful:


http://thebulletin.org/not-enough-time-geoengineering-work7963
http://www.iagp.ac.uk/

However, I am concerned that between 2050 & 2060 the jet-streams may be so variable and the other "slow" positive feedback mechanisms (e.g. permafrost degradation and Arctic albedo flip) maybe so activated that it may be very difficult to control any SRM plan; which could likely result in the SRM being poorly controlled and doing sufficient damage to help further destabilize what will likely be an already destabilized world economy by 2060. 
This increases the prospect that a major war could abruptly halt the implementation of such a SRM plan; which would likely trigger extreme weather events until the atmosphere once again reached equilibrium.  Therefore, it is quite reasonable to postulate that rather than helping any such SRM plan could contribute to a Dragon-King fat-tailed PDF for global societal collapse after 2060.

[AbruptSLR]

On a cloudy day, typical solar panels can produce 10-25% of their rated capacity.  Does anyone know how much electric generation capacity typical solar panels will lose due to the diffuse light from solar radiation management, SRM, plans?

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that any solar radiation management, SRM, plan will disrupt the normal pattern of the water cycle, and precipitation patterns, on Earth:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/reducing-sunlight-by-geoengineering-will-not-cool-earth-16861