Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Policy and solutions => Topic started by: ivica on June 08, 2013, 10:41:24 AM

Title: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: ivica on June 08, 2013, 10:41:24 AM
What is the plan for that not to happen?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on June 17, 2014, 09:35:40 PM
Climate engineering can’t erase climate change
http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2014/climate-engineering-cant-erase-climate-change.html (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)
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/130030 (http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/130030)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on August 16, 2014, 10:44:37 AM
About geoengineering... (I do not necesseraly share the infos just think it is good to bring that for thinking)
Why In The World Are They Spraying ? / Pourquoi sont ils en train de pulvériser dans le monde ? VOSTFR - 1de2 (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv262j)

A site for infos : (Don't know what it is worth...)
http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/geoengineering.html (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on August 28, 2014, 09:17:13 PM
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 (http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2533432/geoengineering_the_declaration_that_never_was_may_cause_real_harm.html)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on November 27, 2014, 05:17:36 PM
Geoengineering the planet: first experiments take shape
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429974.000-geoengineering-the-planet-first-experiments-take-shape.html?cmpid=RSS (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429974.000-geoengineering-the-planet-first-experiments-take-shape.html?cmpid=RSS)|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment#.VHdONo93_tQ
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on November 28, 2014, 10:01:26 AM
How could man intervene to change the climate?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30229874 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30229874)

The specter of margaret is roaming, his name is TINA (there is no aternative)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 07, 2014, 08:29:18 PM
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/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/05/3599762/geoengineering-newsweek-hobbits/)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: solartim27 on February 11, 2015, 05:57:04 PM
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 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/10/385065816/scientific-pros-weigh-the-cons-of-messing-with-earths-thermostat)
It makes it seem rather inconsequential, but of course the payload is not being deployed to the atmosphere in this case.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on February 14, 2015, 01:47:00 AM
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 (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 (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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 14, 2015, 03:58:06 AM
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 (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: solartim27 on February 15, 2015, 06:50:36 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 17, 2015, 07:41:41 PM
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 (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 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,452.0.html)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 21, 2015, 01:04:38 AM
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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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) (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on February 21, 2015, 06:06:59 AM
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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on February 21, 2015, 09:02:09 AM
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).
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 21, 2015, 04:21:16 PM
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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on February 21, 2015, 08:32:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on February 21, 2015, 10:56:57 PM
"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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 22, 2015, 12:29:34 AM
"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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on February 22, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 22, 2015, 05:13:28 PM
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/ (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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on February 23, 2015, 06:17:56 PM
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...
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 23, 2015, 10:16:42 PM
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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 24, 2015, 11:18:24 PM
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 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/02/24/free_air_carbon_capture_a_climate_engineering_idea_worth_considering.html)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 25, 2015, 05:47:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 25, 2015, 06:28:54 PM
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/ (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 (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 (http://phys.org/news/2015-01-vegetation-soil-erosion-due.html#inlRlv)

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 26, 2015, 03:03:06 AM
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:  ;D
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 (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 (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/ (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.")
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on February 26, 2015, 04:16:55 AM
"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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on February 26, 2015, 05:20:50 PM
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.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 26, 2015, 07:43:00 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 26, 2015, 10:26:54 PM
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.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: viddaloo on February 26, 2015, 11:04:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 27, 2015, 05:31:14 PM
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 (http://www.ethanpublishing.com/uploadfile/2014/1225/20141225103315331.pdf)
 
Seven pages , worth the read.
     
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on February 27, 2015, 05:45:50 PM
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.


Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 27, 2015, 05:48:17 PM
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 (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: viddaloo on February 28, 2015, 03:26:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 28, 2015, 03:30:46 PM
  ...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/ (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 28, 2015, 05:33:42 PM
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.     
 
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Neven on February 28, 2015, 06:25:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on February 28, 2015, 11:37:40 PM
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 (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.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: viddaloo on February 28, 2015, 11:53:17 PM
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 ....
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 01, 2015, 07:13:12 PM
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/ (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- (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/Climate_engineering)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on March 01, 2015, 08:17:54 PM
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 (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.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Fpics%2Fenergy-sources-2100.PNG&hash=c06e32933e5b78136a6611f277c8a53c)

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 01, 2015, 09:42:05 PM
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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 01, 2015, 10:02:22 PM
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.)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on March 02, 2015, 05:03:30 AM
"we must cut energy growth"

Yup.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 02, 2015, 06:37:16 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 03, 2015, 05:21:04 PM
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://thebulletin.org/not-enough-time-geoengineering-work7963)
http://www.iagp.ac.uk/ (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 06, 2015, 08:03:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 06, 2015, 08:22:57 AM
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 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/reducing-sunlight-by-geoengineering-will-not-cool-earth-16861)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 06, 2015, 08:13:17 PM
Admiral David Titley and others explain why we should study geoengineering -- but please don't call it that.
The scientists also would like us to stop using the term geoengineering and start saying “climate intervention.” Geoengineering is a confusing term, they say, because geo- refers to the earth, not specifically to the climate, and engineering is generally something people do with systems they can control—not a system as complex as the climate.

“Engineering is something you do to a system you understand very well,  where you can try out new techniques thoroughly at a small scale before staking peoples’ lives on them,” writes Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and a member, like Titley, of the NRC committee that prepared the report.

“Hacking the climate is different—we have only one planet to live on, and can’t afford any big mistakes.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/02/25/four-reasons-to-study-a-bad-idea-geoengineering/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/02/25/four-reasons-to-study-a-bad-idea-geoengineering/)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 07, 2015, 03:51:34 PM
Given the predicament, the research, trials and deployment of both modes of geoengineering seem to me appropriate under a range of limiting conditions.

The first, as Neven rightly remarks above, is the systemic change of society as an accompanying transformation - without which Geo-E is patently insufficient.

A second is of governance, with a UN scientific agency mandated for the supervision of proposals' research and trials, and potential accreditation, with any deployment being by the collective decision of the UN member states, with such decisions for the Albedo Restoration mode being valid only after a credibly stringent Emissions Control treaty is in operation.

A third is of the need for both modes' deployment alongside Emissions Control, as there is no case for any individual approach or any two of the three approaches offering a viable means of the mitigation of AGW.

A starting point of the debate is the need of a stringent Emissions Control treaty, without which, as Wili rightly points out above, the RCP 8.0 massive renewables' deployment doesn't cut emissions since any fossil fuels locally displaced by them would continue to be bought and burnt elsewhere.

Yet Emissions Control alone demonstrably cannot resolve the advanced and accelerating threat we face. As Prof. Mann pointed out on 18/3/14, under BAU we are on track for 2.0C by 2036, or by 2046 if ECS were as low as 2.5. :  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/)  Given that even a cut not in anthro-emissions but in anthro-CO2 stocks will provide a cooling only after the ~35 yr timelag of ocean thermal inertia, even the best case of Emissions Control cannot avoid the hazards of passing the 2.0C threshold.

Taking that best case to be "near-zero global GHG output by 2050" exposes further limitations. Beside the substantial warming unveiled by the closure of of the 'fossil sulphate parasol' the majority of warming from 2050 emissions is not realized until the 2080s, allowing the eight Major Interactive Feedbacks [MIFs]~70 years of continuous anthro-warming, plus warming from their own direct and indirect interactions, escalating their CO2_e outputs far past the point of fully offsetting our best case of emissions control. While the precise levels of those outputs cannot be calculated, the MIF outputs' track records to date strongly affirm this perspective.

For example, consider the paper by Ramanathan et al from Jan 2014 :  http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract)  It is a study of the Arctic sea-ice decline fraction of Cryosphere decline in the satellite record since '79, which found that warming from the resulting Albedo Loss was equal on average to 25% of the warming from anthro-CO2 stocks during the period. This is roughly equal to a new China's-worth of annual CO2 output, and given the progress of the sea ice loss it is on a strongly rising trend, but has thus far been masked by ocean thermal inertia. With ~43% of anthro-CO2 outputs going into natural sinks, we should need to cut outputs not by 25% but by 43.8% to offset the warming from ASI decline Albedo Loss.

Given that this is only a part of overall Albedo Loss, and that that is only one of the eight MIFs, it is rather obvious that we are fully committed to the MIF outputs exceeding our best case of Emissions Control if they are not constrained by Geo-E.

Unfortunately even the best case of the simpler mode of Geo-E, "Carbon Recovery for Food Security" cannot provide a timely cooling to halt the MIFs' escalation. While techno options such as DACCS have just their CO2-capture function costed at "at least $600/TCO2" by the American Physical Union ($600Bn /GtCO2), the benign option of native Coppice Afforestation for Biochar offers a second revenue stream via the production of Methanol from the retorts' surplus hydrocarbon gasses.

Yet even with the massive deployment incentives of minimal infrastructure, plus two revenue streams plus raised global food security, and even using efficient village-scale retorts across the 1.6Gha.s of suitable non-farmland identified in the joint WRI-WFN study, there is little prospect of full scale harvests of 10-yr-old growth before the 2040s. This indicates that if this approach was used alongside the best case of Emissions Control, its global cooling could not even begin before the late 2070s, and thus offers no useful control of the MIFs. The real and indispensable functions of a new global industry in Carbon Recovery for Food Security are thus of helping to stabilize global food security ASAP, of minimizing the peak of airborne CO2 ppm potentially before 2050, and of fully cleansing the atmosphere by around 2100, thereby conserving at least a part of the oceans' ecology by limiting the peak and the period of ocean acidification.

The Albedo Restoration mode of Geo-E has had a rising chorus of bad press over the last two years that has been oddly concerted in using standard easily refuted charges - on exactly the model of concerted climate denial. The most obvious of these can be seen in this thread's title, when in reality the very eminent Prof. Holdren (Obama's chief science advisor) while critiquing the sulphate aerosols proposal has pointed out that its costs "could be met by a middle rank economy out of its petty cash" - i.e. there are no vast profits to be made.

While the patently deficient sulphate aerosols proposals are widely cited as the standard option, in reality there are potentially benign options such as 'Cloud Brightening', where seawater is lofted to low clouds as a very fine mist. This option is targettable to provide regional cooling (e.g. of the arctic) and to have any extra rains fall over oceans, and can be halted within the fortnight required for treated clouds to rain out. Its infrastructure costs would comprise around 2,000 wind-powered vessels of 100ft length, and its operation would need to be maintained for the most of the duration of the Carbon Recovery program.

From this perspective Dr Pierrehumbert's shrill denunciation of Geo-E is simply bizarre for a formerly reputable scientist - pretending that we'd be committing future generations to maintaining Albedo Restoration for millennia is intellectually dishonest in assuming, without mentioning, that no Carbon Recovery technique is employed in his scenario.

However, there is a long lead time before any benign Albedo Restoration option could be deployed, consisting of the years needed for negotiating the appropriate governance, for the mandated agency's supervision of proposals' research and their shortlisting for trials, for observations of the chosen option's effects over at least a decade, and then for the negotiation of its full deployment. If that summed to as much as 21 years, it could take us to Prof Mann's 2036 deadline.

The difficulty with this is not only another 21 years of the escalation of the MIFs, whose momentum is then far harder to control (e.g. Methane Hydrates' melt), but that we are liable to see two or more major food producing regions having extreme droughts simultaneously during the 2020s, thus imposing the onset of serial global crop failures and severe geopolitical destabilization. The increasingly erratic annual harvests, going from serious shortages, exceptional prices, national hoarding and unrest to a bumper harvest within a few years indicates that a climatic destabilization of agriculture is already under way and we are already on that track. Whether such geopolitical destabilization generates global conflict is an open question, but it almost certainly curtails the global co-operation essential for the mitigation of AGW, thereby tightening a vicious spiral of hunger and conflict.

From this perspective it is extremely urgent that the negotiation of appropriate UN governance of the R,D&D of Geo-E is formally established without delay. Prof. Forster (an IPCC lead author) wrote an article: http://thebulletin.org/not-enough-time-geoengineering-work7963 (http://thebulletin.org/not-enough-time-geoengineering-work7963)  that is aptly titled as "Not enough time for geoengineering to work ?" and is well worth reading for a more authoritative background on the issue.

Regards,
Lewis












Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on March 07, 2015, 04:50:17 PM
Lewis

The first, as Neven rightly remarks above, is the systemic change of society as an accompanying transformation - without which Geo-E is patently insufficient.

A second is of governance, with a UN scientific agency mandated for the supervision of proposals' research and trials, and potential accreditation, with any deployment being by the collective decision of the UN member states, with such decisions for the Albedo Restoration mode being valid only after a credibly stringent Emissions Control treaty is in operation.

A third is of the need for both modes' deployment alongside Emissions Control, as there is no case for any individual approach or any two of the three approaches offering a viable means of the mitigation of AGW.

A starting point of the debate is the need of a stringent Emissions Control treaty, without which, as Wili rightly points out above, the RCP 8.0 massive renewables' deployment doesn't cut emissions since any fossil fuels locally displaced by them would continue to be bought and burnt elsewhere.

I agree with Neven in the sense that geo-engineering without systemic civilizational change is just providing the axe murderer with an axe.  It is worse by far than a waste of time it is insane.  So the basic answer to geo-engineering has to be a giant f**k no!  I expect sometime in the future that people taking this path will face deadly violence.

The core problem here is systemic civilizational change.  IF we were capable of that we would not need to resort to geo-engineering as we would rationally make the changes needed 'now' and thus avoid the worst effects of collapse.

We would have no requirement for the global dictaorship implied by your item on UN control and governance.  Me and a lot of others will readily agree that democracy is heading for the dust bin as you indicate is needed.  But there is absolutely no chance what so ever of the UN ending up in charge of anything much less telling powerful countries what to do and trying to enforce such dictates.  Surely you recognize this.  Almost no country on earth would allow such control except at gunpoint.  If you even suggested such to the US we would burn your house down with you in it.  Harsh words but the reality of the world.  Global governance is just not going to happen. It is a giant pipe dream.

Collapse brings with it decreasing complexity not the opposite.  Global governance is the ultimate level of civilizational complexity.  We simply do not have the wealth to pull it off.  That level of civilizational change is well beyond our capabilities.  We are going in the opposite direction currently and the pace of decline is picking up steam.

The worlds dominant players like the US are clearly losing their ability to make all the decisions and control events.  Germany is losing ground the same way in Europe.  Empires are crumbling.  We are not heading for global governance but towards a world which is much more Balkanized than it is today.  One of the signatures of collapse is the breakdown of the various forms of centralized governance and control. 

So I guess we can just move on from such suggestions as they fall into the realm of highly unlikely.

The civilizational change we need is to immediately start the process of managed de-growth of our consumption, population and economic systems.  If we could actually do that (it would be perhaps our greatest human achievement) we would likely be able to mitigate and adapt to future global conditions.  Technology does not offer a solution here, reason does.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 07, 2015, 05:03:15 PM
Lewis C,  ASLR posted a 2013 piece from climatecentral that has comments you made?Dec. 2013.
on geo-x.  I am glad you are including acidification in your current arguments .
 If acidification does impede the carbon pump in the southern oceans then carbon capture will need to sequester a few more Gt CO2 to stay even with failing natural systems of carbon capture and storage.
SRM may have some benefit if the diatom sensitivity to light intensity under acidified conditions can be moderated. If we do start to lose the efficacy of the biological carbon pump and that is a real possibility then we will need miracles.
   By Lewis Cleverdon (Wales)
on December 27th, 2013
“The argument for geoengineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer; governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?
Such things can be done by pumping soot or aerosols into the stratosphere to dim the skies a fraction, or even floating mirrors in Earth orbit to reflect some of the sunlight back into space.
Either way, the result is the same: you have global temperature control, tuned perhaps to the average at the beginning of the last century, and you can then go on burning as much petrol or coal as you like.”

Quite why Climate Central should choose to publish such journalistic tosh is obscure.
The strawman proposed above as being “The argument for geoengineering” has been used as the basis of perhaps a score of articles by opponents of Geo-E in the last two years, often with the deceit of implying that sulphate aerosols Are geoengineering, and almost always with the deceit of pretending that geo-engineering means ‘solar radiation management’ [SRM], as above.

Have tracked developments in Geo-E over the last two decades, it is worth noting that I’ve never yet seem a serious proposal of SRM as an alternative to global emissions control. Not once.

Even the USA’s ‘Bipartisan Policy Committee’ has been at pains to make clear that none of its participants see SRM as anything more than a potentially useful addition to emissions control. At the other end of the spectrum, the UK’s ‘Royal Society’ (that predates all other national academies of science) has made crystal clear in a formal study that both modes of Geo-E (SRM and Carbon Recovery) may have roles to play as accessories to emissions control and should therefore be researched, but that they have no role as an alternative to emissions control.

The actual conclusions reported above “that climate geoengineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming” is thus merely repeating extant science provided by the Royal Society and others. Yet the manner of the reporting gives an impression that this is a damning condemnation of Geo-E as an option, which is wholly untrue and misleading.

Given that the US govt has yet to ‘pledge’ more than a 3.67% cut of CO2 output by 2020 off the legal 1990 baseline, it is obvious that international rivalry is dangerously obstructing the timely mitigation of the climate threat. Numerous highly reputable scientists have affirmed the the value of holding Geo-E capacities as a ‘backstop option’ should the negotiations fail to provide a timely effective treaty. 

Yet a still more pressing concern is that eight potentially major positive feedbacks are already observed to be accelerating, and that all are linked by multiple interactive reinforcement couplings. (For example, Albedo Loss in the form of the decline of arctic sea ice is sending warmer winds over the tundra where their signature is observed in the advance of Permafrost Melt up to 1,500kms inland). This means that the feedbacks are not only accelerated by AGW and, after the timelag of ocean thermal inertia by each one’s warming outputs advancing AGW and thus all the feedbacks; they are also being accelerated by their current interactions via the couplings, thus multiplying the warming they’ll impose after the timelag. This level of integration means that in effect they form a single organic system with a high potential for the rapid escalation of its outputs.

The IPCC’s proposed mitigation under RCP2.6 offers a 2 in 3 chance of respecting a 2.0C ceiling of warming, but this is calculated without the inclusion of the seven major non-linear feedbacks - and so must logically be seen as describing only a fraction of the warming that the best-case of emissions control would impose over the next ~75 years of warming.

From this perspective, both modes of geoengineering will be required to avoid the untenable outcomes of passing 2.0C in terms of the onset of serial global crop failures and terminal ocean acidification, and the stringently supervised research of both modes is the primary factor of their availability. By publishing articles such as that by Radford that give the impression that geoengineering research is pointless and potentially malign, Climate Central is plainly not supporting the application of science to the climate predicament. It would be helpful if someone could explain why it has done so.

Regards,

Lewis

 

Reply to this comment
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 08, 2015, 01:04:03 AM
Bruce - thanks for your response.

Re the decline of the ocean carbon sink I've not seen anything that refutes the expectation of its decline - Given that ocean heating and acidification both reduce the intake of CO2 (not to mention the knock-on loss of plankton and the influx of large volumes of ex-glacier carbon dust) it would have to be something pretty spectacular that's been overlooked thus far to provide a cogent refutation.

What concerns me is not the potential scale of the Ocean Heating & Acidification Feedback, which is relatively minor, but the number and degree of direct coupling mechanisms it has with all other major feedbacks except possibly Soil Desiccation. In particular I'm looking for any papers on the potential rates of cooling of the upper oceans to below the depth of the most vulnerable Methane Hydrates, since cooling the SAT is nice but SFA use if the oceans' warmth then penetrates the Hydrates for too long. I hope you'll post anything worth seeing on this.

Re the need of a miracle I'd well agree - and I rather think that it's here but is not yet widely recognized, let alone employed. - What are the odds of an agricultural practice ~2000 years ago that demonstrated across an area the size of France and Spain a reliable means of Carbon Recovery - that uses only coppice harvest and agricultural wastes, is exothermic in production, offers a co-product liquid fuel, and that not only raises poor tropical soils' fertility but also acts as a soil moisture regulator ?! The odds are quite astounding in my view, which I find helps with maintaining the faith that we can resolve the predicament we face.

You're right that the comment deconstucting the standard bullshit article on Geo-E in Climate Central was mine - as I recall the editor ducked the question of why he accepted it. Since then, with the NAS report on the issue with its timid call for research, there have been scores of such articles worldwide (Google tracks all of those in English for me) pushing the same range of absurdly brittle claims.

The best one in my view is the strawman of "Space Mirrors" which anyone with half a brain - let alone scientists - can see through in a second if they stop to look. Why Mirrors ? Why not rocks, thistledown, ladies' handbags or dead rabbits ? All will block sunlight at least as well a mirror can. The fact that this option would permanently shade the planet, and cannot be tested at local scale, and is beyond any estimation of costs, are a few further pointers to some very influential agency wishing to steer public opinion into strongly opposing Geo-E.

The only conceivable objective I've seen to date is far fetched from a "received wisdom" perspective, but should none the less be considered on its merits -
In the event of the onset of serial global crop failures, famine and mass migration, with some govts being partly destabilized, a population strongly opposed to Albedo Restoration will be far slower to pressure its govt into lifting its veto at the UN on using the Geo-E option, thereby allowing climatic destabilization to continue its work. Any govt with the capacity to produce large per capita food surpluses is then holding the cards that matter, without firing a shot.

This is of course conjecture, but it's the only objective I've seen that fits both the required level of influence across the corporate proletarian media and tamer green websites such as Grist & Climate Central, while also yielding an outcome of interest to the dominant state. Any other explanations would be very welcome.

Regards.
Lewis


Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 08, 2015, 01:04:47 AM
Small-scale geoengineering?  Boston using black sand to melt snow in Fenway stadium.

@weatherchannel: RT @JimCantore: Grounds crew at #Fenway spread black sand last week. Snowpack shrunk >2ft so far.
Photo: David Mellor http://t.co/dGVr9RYNQ4 (http://t.co/dGVr9RYNQ4)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 09, 2015, 12:51:14 PM
It is worse by far than a waste of time it is insane.  So the basic answer to geo-engineering has to be a giant f**k no!  I expect sometime in the future that people taking this path will face deadly violence.

The core problem here is systemic civilizational change.  IF we were capable of that we would not need to resort to geo-engineering as we would rationally make the changes needed 'now' and thus avoid the worst effects of collapse.
Jim -
I'm sorry to see this ill-informed and aggressive post from you. Taken at face value it plainly opposes Geo-E on false grounds, when even the US and EU govts are in process of formally committing to the Carbon Recovery mode in Paris, with their widely reported aims of achieving "Net-zero global GHG outputs" "by 2100" and "in the 2nd half of the century" respectively.

Geo-E is far from a waste of time, alongside Emissions Control it is a necessity to which GHG emissions to date commit us, both to avoid the terminal acidification of the oceans and to halt the escalation of the 8 Major Interactive Feedbacks and to avoid the onset of serial global crop failures and their consequent geopolitical destabilization. Both modes of Geo-E are also already a fact on the ground with rising popular commitment to both tree-planting and the white painting of roofs etc.

If you are really unaware of the urgency of the predicament you might benefit from reading Prof. Mann's account of our track past 2.0C by 2036  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/)  While this is a projection under BAU, there is no prospect of lowering atmospheric CO2 stocks by that date, so Emissions Control has little or no bearing on that outcome.

Your claim that "The core problem here is systemic civilizational change" is arse-about-face since systemic civilizational change is clearly the core solution.  The climate predicament is evidently far beyond mitigation merely by civilizational change altering our conduct on emissions. Your idea that we wouldn't need Geo-E "IF we we're capable of civilizational change" actually acknowledges the need of Geo-E, but your assertion that enacting that capability would "avoid the worst effects of collapse" is patently fatuous. It is unclear whether you read more of my post than you quoted, but as I laid out in detailed evidence in it ". . . it is rather obvious that we are fully committed to the Major Interactive Feedbacks' CO2_e outputs exceeding our best case of Emissions Control if they are not constrained by Geo-E." This in turn means that without Geo-E we are fully committed to the onset of serial global crop failures in a world that faces not a mere population explosion but an absurdly heavily-armed population explosion. Quite what worse effects of collapse you envisage you've yet to make clear.

. . . .there is absolutely no chance what so ever of the UN ending up in charge of anything much less telling powerful countries what to do and trying to enforce such dictates.  Surely you recognize this.  Almost no country on earth would allow such control except at gunpoint.  If you even suggested such to the US we would burn your house down with you in it.  Harsh words but the reality of the world.  Global governance is just not going to happen.
Your remarks on the UN and nations' refusal to accept constraints and commitments on their conduct are simply bizarre. The US operates like almost all other nations under the terms of dozens if not hundreds of UN agreements which limit its freedom of action. Some you may have heard of are the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the World Bank. The very act of a nation signing up as a UN member places constraints on its conduct.

Your idea that the UN seeks global dictatorship is a paranoia that seems quite strongly propagandized in the US, when in reality the UN actively encourages a wide range of the basic conditions in which democracy can flourish, including education, poverty reduction, access to communications, etc. What the propaganda is at pains to hide is the plain fact that the UN can by its mandate do only what its member nations instruct it to do. It does not have and it does not seek any power to do other than it is instructed to do. It does, as instructed, actively encourage instructions which, from its global vantage point, it can see will serve the common good. When it is instructed to establish a scientific agency for the global governance and supervision of Geo-E R&D it will do so, just as it will assist the formulation of a protocol defining the process of member-nations' collective decision on Geo-E deployment. To put it bluntly, if we didn't already have the UN as a global parliament, we would have to invent it.

Where we may agree is that it is reason, not new technology, that offers the solutions to our predicament. The Carbon Recovery mode of Geo-E is a case in point, given that the technology of the charcoal retort is an invention of the 19th or possibly 18th century. Biochar, going back over 2,000 years is another. Coppice forestry, going back over 6,000 years is a third. What is new and relevant is the reasoning for their joint application to resolve the damage of stupid unreasoned fossil fuel dependence. Using our capacity to reason it is very plain that running away from a complex society is no solution and does nothing even to delay a crash, let alone to mitigate it. On the contrary, the more that intelligent people are persuaded to run away, the lower the chance of effective mitigation. We have no option but to re-orientate the vessel that carries us while also re-organizing the reasoning in its decision-making processes to deflect rogue actors like the US. Those who want to jump ship and head for the hills to play at survivalism are of course free to do so, but they abdicate any influence over the vessel's destination, on which they remain dependant.

Your post above appears to me to reflect a common misapprehension that the loss of US global economic dominance leads necessarily the end of civilization - which is perhaps most clearly promoted in the failed ASPO thesis of assuming that the decline of one key resource would terminate the concerted global effort to maintain the material expansion of society and would cause its collapse. Had ASPO's study been of "the Peak of Crude Oil", accepting that other oils would be brought online as required, it wouldn't face credibility problems now, when the reality includes not only a passing glut of fracked oil etc but also the vast potential resources of Coal-Seam-Gasification for liquids and of Methane-Hydrates for liquids.

I've long noted that the ASPO doctrine pushed by Heinburg and others for many years dismissed the possibility of AGW being a serious threat on the ludicrous grounds of insufficient FF supply, then as this became untenable it switched to a defeatist position of claiming that it is beyond society's capacity to mitigate AGW and that, since collapse was inevitable, we should refrain from concerted global efforts to do so and instead focus on grass-roots 'adaption'. I have to say that I'm unable to distinguish these arguments from those promoted by the opponents of timely action to mitigate AGW.

And no, I am not saying you (or Heinberg) are intentionally acting for the delayers, but yes, I suspect you have been conned by one of their several potent propaganda programs.

Regards,
Lewis

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Neven on March 09, 2015, 05:03:29 PM
There are obviously different kinds of geoengineering. If it's about taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, I would say f**k yes! If it's about spraying aerosols, seeding the oceans or putting up giant mirrors in space, I say f**k no, you crazy idiot!

Life can be simple sometimes.  8)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on March 09, 2015, 05:27:37 PM
I would like to second Neven's point and ask Lewis to clarify which kind(s) of geo-engineering he means to be discussing here.

As to Lewis's claim:"doctrine pushed by Heinburg [sic] and others for many years dismissed the possibility of AGW being a serious threat on the ludicrous grounds of insufficient FF supply"

I have read much of what Heinberg has written and heard many of his talks, but I have never heard him espouse this position. Please identify a specific passage where he does so, or retract the claim.

(I have known others in the PO camp to make this ridiculous claim, just not Heinberg.)

"...it is beyond society's capacity to mitigate AGW and that, since collapse was inevitable, we should refrain from concerted global efforts to do so..."

I don't see Heinberg saying this (the second part) anywhere, either. Again, please cite passages if you have found some.

And as to: " Using our capacity to reason it is very plain that running away from a complex society is no solution..."

Well, let's just say that lots of very logical historians who have studies this issue much more than you or I have come to a very different logical conclusion than you have here.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 09, 2015, 11:08:03 PM
There are obviously different kinds of geoengineering. If it's about taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, I would say f**k yes! If it's about spraying aerosols, seeding the oceans or putting up giant mirrors in space, I say f**k no, you crazy idiot!

Life can be simple sometimes.  8)

It used to be this simple for me, too, Neven.  But reading about the potential storage problems with CCS now makes me concerned about whether we can do that safely, either. 
Not saying we should rule it out!  I'm just saying we need to take a hard look at where we are with, say, nuclear storage, and not be so sure that CO2 storage will work as flawlessly as we think it will.  Underground storage, in particular, seems to have a lot of risks not yet adequately accounted for.  I think we have a lot more research and testing to do first.

http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Carbon+capture+and+storage#Injection (http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Carbon+capture+and+storage#Injection)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Neven on March 10, 2015, 10:55:07 AM
Hmmm, okay, thanks for complicating matters, Sigmetnow.  ;D

I was referring more to the coppice/biochar stuff Lweis talks about. A key component of the solution lies in agricultural practices, I believe.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 10, 2015, 02:34:37 PM
New worry:

What if we have passed the point where planting more trees will help us?  The Amazon rainforest may be changing to a carbon source rather than a carbon sink.

  Tropical rainforests have been popularly thought of as the "lungs" of the planet. Here, we show for the first time that during severe drought, the rate at which they "inhale" carbon through photosynthesis can decrease. This decreased uptake of carbon does not decrease growth rates but does mean an increase in tree deaths. As trees die and decompose, the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase, potentially speeding up climate change during tropical droughts.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150304141458.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150304141458.htm)

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/drying-amazon-carbon-concern-18241 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/drying-amazon-carbon-concern-18241)


Southern U.S. forests appear to have breathing problems, too.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150202/southern-forests-ability-suck-carbon-air-may-be-slowing (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150202/southern-forests-ability-suck-carbon-air-may-be-slowing)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 10, 2015, 03:17:46 PM
While you are weeping quietly into your favorite beverage, enjoy this article on the psychology of "chemtrails."  :)  A good reminder of the importance of communication with all this geoengineering stuff.

http://blackbag.gawker.com/chemtrails-dont-exist-or-did-the-government-pay-me-to-1690357705 (http://blackbag.gawker.com/chemtrails-dont-exist-or-did-the-government-pay-me-to-1690357705)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on March 10, 2015, 03:59:07 PM
Another post about climate communication--does one stress consensus or geo-engineering?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/10/consensus-and-geoengineering-how-to-convince-people-about-global-warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/10/consensus-and-geoengineering-how-to-convince-people-about-global-warming)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 10, 2015, 04:22:14 PM
Another post about climate communication--does one stress consensus or geo-engineering?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/10/consensus-and-geoengineering-how-to-convince-people-about-global-warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/10/consensus-and-geoengineering-how-to-convince-people-about-global-warming)

wili,

In addition to geo-engineering maybe we need to start talking about "emotioneering" with the understanding that almost all people base their decisions on emotions and that we are in a fight with the denialosphere for the hearts and minds of the general public and policymakers.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 10, 2015, 06:30:22 PM
Neven - thanks for your response.

What expertise I have is a few decades study and practice of native coppice forestry, so on the Carbon Recovery for Food Security mode of Geo-E I can say with some confidence that in concert with rapid Emissions Control it has the potential to minimize the peak of CO2 ppm and to cleanse the atmosphere of anthro-CO2 by around 2100.

Howevers -
1/. The re-emission of CO2 from the oceans as airborne ppm falls is potentially large - the 2100 target includes ~40% of what's gone in - so every scrap of available ag & urban & forestry biomass wastes may also be required - allowing for other ag uses' continuation. If needed non-boreal paper-pulp forestry could be replanted as extra coppice as it's harvested.
2/. The scale envisaged is of the 1.6Ghas of suitable non-farmland seen in the WRI-WFN report.
3/. That scale is an immense planting program in its own right, and is at best completed by the 2030s, meaning full harvest of 10yr-old growth doesn't start till the 2040s, meaning that first marginal cooling doesn't start till the 2070s.
4/. Without the Albedo Restoration mode of Geo-E being successfully applied the MIFs + Anthro-CO2 outputs would very likely impose a climate destabilization heavily degrading the program's forests well before 2070.
5/. Carbon Recovery is thus a necessary but not sufficient addition to rapid Emissions Control for a sustainable outcome.

DACCS & BECCS in my view are nowhere remotely near competitive with CRFS either in terms of $/T CO2 sequestered, nor in benign results /TCO2, nor in their physical scaleability, noting that CRFS has a potential second revenue stream from coproduct methanol made from charcoal retorts' surplus hydrocarbon gasses.

Pasture Carbon sequestration certainly appears to have a significant potential where circumstances allow, but I've yet to see cogent research identifying the actual scale that is viable. Item no. 473645 for greater research, ASAP.

Regarding Albedo Restoration, of the several serious proposals Cloud Brightening and Cirrus Cloud Thinning currently appear most promising, given that they can be effectively trialled at local and regional scales and trials' effects can be halted within a fortnight (by raining out the catalysts) and that the former can be deployed by about 2,000 wind-powered vessels of 100ft length. But on this I've no expertise, just some study.

Given the strong potential for unilateral deployment of harmful forms of Geo-E to generate warfare, it is only through the UN member states' decision that deployment could occur sustainably. And that in turn indicates the need of the governance of a concerted research and selection process under a UN scientific agency. To avoid any risk of suppressing nations' ambition on rapid Emissions Control I'd urge the adoption in the decision-making protocol of a clause stating that a decision to deploy the Albedo Restoration mode cannot be valid until a credibly stringent Emissions Control treaty is agreed, ratified and in force.

However - a decade or more of research and observations of the effects of the leading option is needed to be confident of having identified a reliably benign system of targeting and intensity of effects, on top of which is the time needed to negotiate the UN governance protocol and then finally the time needed for the decision to deploy.

An overall schedule may thus be somewhere between 10 and 20 years for this sequence, which is very late indeed from the perspective of the looming threat of the onset of serial global crop failures during the 2020s. Once they hit, we'd be very likely to lose the geopolitical coherence needed to operate the Emissions Control treaty, as well as the Carbon Recovery and Albedo Restoration programs.

From a risk avoidance perspective the negotiation of the Geo-E governance protocol is thus a matter of the greatest urgency - certainly no less than the Emissions Control treaty.

All of which is a seriously difficult mountain to climb, but I observe that actually humanity doesn't have anything better to do, so we might as well get on with it.  8)

Regards,
Lewis




Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell on March 10, 2015, 07:13:01 PM
1.  Current emissions trajectories hold that there will be insufficient reductions of CO2 emissions to keep us below climate responses that will be catastrophic.  Indeed, we have already exceeded those atmospheric abundance levels and have a current, "locked-in" warming of an additional 1.7-3.5C when current anthropogenic aerosol emissions impacts on arctic albedo and near term feedbacks are considered.

2. Within the next 10 years we are going to see considerably increased regional destabilizations caused by water and food shortages.

3.  The mere existence of the potential for this technology is enough of a moral hazard to justify continued emissions, much as the existence of CCS has been used to justify further emissions.

4.  The only IPCC scenarios that allow for a continuation of modern civilization (< 2C warming) already include atmospheric carbon extraction technologies, so much so that they produce net negative emissions after 2050 (even with significant residual anthropogenic emissions due to food production)

5.  increased regional destabilization and resource scarcity will make the necessary emissions reduction strategies even more difficult than they are today.

Therefore:

We will be seeing stratospheric sulfate deposition within the next 10-20 years, especially if the secondary aerosol effects are at the high end of the uncertainty and China successfully implements their aerosol reduction pollution controls.  In other words, we will implement this technology to make up for the current sulfate parasol that is keeping things they way they are now.  However,  current resource decline trajectories (fishery collapse, damage loss effects from increased storm activity, increased regional conflicts) are going to continue so that the implementation of further emission reduction strategies will be much more difficult in coming decades.

However, with any grace, sufficient societal mobilization forces, combined with true international cooperation will lead to radically effective carbon reduction and atmospheric extraction technologies to take place. 

None of these things will happen fast enough to prevent the loss of over 50% of the world's human population and 80% of the globe's species to extinction from climate and acidification related impacts.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 10, 2015, 07:39:05 PM
Jai - I note you offer no evidence to back your assertion that the chosen mode of Albedo Restoration will be sulphate aerosols, depite the range of patently preferable options.

Could you explain this ?

Regarding the moral hazard issue of Geo-E's potential undermining ambition in Emissions Control, I personally doubt the strength of that hazard given a simple clause in the requisite UN protocol for Geo-E governance, whereby the member states' eventual decision to deploy is not valid without a credibly stringent Emissions Control Treaty being in force.

Your assertions of human and other species' losses seem speculative without accompanying data on AGW controls decade by decade. I'd well agree that losses could be that severe or worse, but with care and massive effort they could equally be a lot better.

Regards,
Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell on March 10, 2015, 08:13:48 PM
Could you explain this ?

least cost and proven technology, also the most likely to replicate current anthropogenic aerosol loading.

I have enjoyed reading your posts.

Your understanding of human motivation is off if you think that the forces current opposing climate mitigation activities for their own economic gain will NOT utilize the moral hazard of Geo-E as a means of self-justification, because they fear UN treaty compacts must be developed before implementation.

re: human and species loss.  I don't think you really understand the systemic response that will occur under a regime of June 21 ice-free arctic and 2.5C globally averaged temperature anomalies, with an additional 1.5-4.5C of locked-in warming due to feedback effects.

see:  https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1170.msg47189.html#msg47189
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on March 11, 2015, 01:12:07 AM
Lewis

.Your remarks on the UN and nations' refusal to accept constraints and commitments on their conduct are simply bizarre. The US operates like almost all other nations under the terms of dozens if not hundreds of UN agreements which limit its freedom of action. Some you may have heard of are the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the World Bank. The very act of a nation signing up as a UN member places constraints on its conduct...

Your naivety about how the world functions and who controls and determines what the above organizations do is simply amazing.  There are few organizations which have done more harm in the world than the IMF and the World Bank.  They are the primary financial control and funding mechanisms of the American Empire.  They help us run our colonies.  The UN does nothing significant that the US does not want it to and we follow none of its rules we object to.  This is pretty much common knowledge by the way.

It is not just the US populace which would never comply with external governance.  The Russians and Chinese and Indians come to mind. We are not going to get a global governing body to manage anything.  Human nature would not allow it.  We simply do not trust each other that much.

I won't even go into how stupid most geo-engineering schemes are and others have provided some good replys.  What I would point out to you is that your entire argument is structured around a globally governed program.  This simply is not possible in todays world and it is very unlikely that human nature is going to allow such a thing in the future.  Not to mention how one would find the wealth and energy to do such things in a world undergoing collapse.

I don't doubt that some of these projects will eventually happen, but it will be powerful countries executing them.  As desperate measures.  One can be pretty certain that there will be lots of desperate measures taken eventually.  That certainty is one of the reasons we must act now and stop delaying with the BAU nonsense.  We might be able to avoid a few of those desperate measures.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 11, 2015, 06:37:50 PM
 
least cost and proven technology, also the most likely to replicate current anthropogenic aerosol loading.


Jai - the least cost option is that of "Cloud Brightening", using ~2000 wind powered hoats of 100ft length, as compared with the purchase, maintenance, operation and fuelling of a fleet of cargo jets shuttling to the stratosphere each day and staying there while gradually releasing their load.

The sulphates option does have the example of Pinatubo's cooling effect as a theoretical demo, but that is very different from delivery in small lots by jet being proven, which would require long research. Given that it cannot be effectively researched at less than global scale (whatever volume is released then spreads round the stratosphere) and that it takes ~2 years to rain out, and that it is liable to cause very damaging disruptions to global rainfall patterns (being untargettable) and given that the alternative of using titanium oxide would at least avoid the massive acid rain effect,
the sulphate aerosols option seems the least likely of the 4 most prominent proposals to end up being selected.

If opposition to well supervised research were to mean that at the point where serial global crop failures began to generate geopolitical destabilization zero research had been achieved, then I'd agree that sulphates and titanium oxide might be seen as the only 'ready' options and the latter then being deployed by default - but that would involve enough people being sufficiently stupid to oppose the demonstrably necessary scientific research.
 
Re the moral hazard question, getting a credibly stringent Emissions Control treaty into operation is the starting point of actually cutting global GHG output, not least because without it any fossil fuels locally displaced by renewables are simply bought, shipped and burnt elsewhere. At that point all nations are committed, and the subsequent deployment of the Albedo Restoration mode of Geo-E can no longer have an effect on what nations' commitments are under the treaty.

In addition, I think our assessment of just what forces are at the core of opposition to the mitigation of AGW are probably rather different. More on this anon.

re: human and species loss.  I don't think you really understand the systemic response that will occur under a regime of June 21 ice-free arctic and 2.5C globally averaged temperature anomalies, with an additional 1.5-4.5C of locked-in warming due to feedback effects.

In response I can only say that studying the systemic response under such warming since the early 1990s is the reason that I understood the innate deficiency of the Emissions-Control-alone approach some years ago and so began to write of the necessity of a commensurate 'Troika' strategy that includes both modes of Geo-E. While it is not yet a popular position, it is heartening to see it gaining support wherever it gets a fair hearing rather than being merely shouted down by opponents. I hope you'll give it further consideration.

Regards,
Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell on March 12, 2015, 01:50:06 AM
Lewis,

I also agree with you (and the IPCC) that atmospheric CO2 extraction is a necessary function.  I have seed LCOE studies show that only a very moderate cost of carbon subsidy would allow agricultural waste (mostly grain chaff) to be carbonized to char and generate electricity at a profit.  While this is a necessary activity, it will not produce the reductions needed, on the order of billions of tons of carbon dioxide removed per year.  In addition, other activities will be necessary, likely CCS and amine-driven extraction methods, at very high incident costs, though not relative costs compared to the world-ending climatic response we are running up against.

The technology associated with the model you describe does not exist.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1974/4217 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1974/4217)

While that doesn't mean that it won't in the future, I believe that there will be multiple dimming and albedo efforts in future decades as we move into a regime of intense climate extremes.  And these before the arctic completely melts out.  Once that does occur, we will find that we have simply waited too long and there will be a terrible reshuffling of resources and population centers.  This is a very uncertain future for us all.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: JimD on March 12, 2015, 07:18:05 PM
jai

...I have seed LCOE studies show that only a very moderate cost of carbon subsidy would allow agricultural waste (mostly grain chaff) to be carbonized to char and generate electricity at a profit.  ...

I would point out the bad side of this idea as a former organic farmer.  Any action like this depletes the soil of needed nutrients.  If we are going to stop using fossil fuels then we have to consider the very harmful effects of not returning the chaff to the soil.  We cannot depend on untold amounts of artificial fertilizers made from natural gas to be offsetting (only partially of course) our poor agricultural processes.  Industrial agriculture practices aside, we must stop doing anything which removes nutrients from the soil unless it is for feeding people.  And we need to return far more organic waste products back to the land if we want to be more sustainable (not actual sustainability but just to do much better than we do now).  So the above is not a good idea nor are all the bio-fuel schemes folks come up with (not that you said you were in favor of them, but to make a point).
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell on March 12, 2015, 10:55:55 PM
worms. . .

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715001370 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715001370)

When the vermicompost–biochar mixture was applied, further growth and yield improvements were recorded in some cases. When applied alone, biochar had a positive influence on maize yield and growth, thus confirming its interest for improving long-term soil productivity.

In addition, this study showed for the first time that the combination of vermicompost and biochar may not only improve plant productivity but also reduce the negative impact of agriculture on water quality.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Revillo on March 14, 2015, 04:26:08 AM
Looking at the Mauna Loa CO2 curve today, I noticed something interesting with regards to CO2 rise and volcanic activity:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.esrl.noaa.gov%2Fgmd%2Fwebdata%2Fccgg%2Ftrends%2Fco2_data_mlo.png&hash=a94eab13777d9a23acd997d22f107623)

In 1992, average mean CO2 rise was 0.48ppm. This is astonishingly low in a period when global mean CO2 rise was and is typically between 1.5-2.5ppm. This unusual year coincides with a global cooling of ~half a degree commonly associated with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (SO2 aerosols). Contrast this with the sharp annual mean increase of 2.93ppm witnessed in 1998, after the intense el niño of that year led to record warming.

Considering that anthropogenic emissions did not change significantly between these years, it's safe to say that the extra CO2 ended up in the oceans. This makes sense, as CO2 concentrations in water increase with decreasing temperature. (I'm not an expert in this so by all means help me fill in the details here).

Since CO2 leads to carbonic acid in water, would it be safe to assume then, that any efforts to cool the Earth by albedo modification would increase the acidity of the oceans considerably by directing and excess of atmospheric carbon into the oceans? Of course, sulfate aerosols in particular would precipitate out as sulfuric acid and compound the effect.

Scientists often refer to albedo modification as an option with "winners and losers" but I fail to see how anyone could be a winner in a world of a rapidly acidifying ocean, unless you happen to be a jellyfish. We depend on the health of the ocean ecosystem more than we care to admit, and there's plenty of research extrapolating ocean acidification to a dire future. Speeding this process along could very well lead to more severe results than our steady warming.



Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on March 14, 2015, 05:57:42 AM
"any efforts to cool the Earth by albedo modification would increase the acidity of the oceans"

Yes, I think that is likely true.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 14, 2015, 07:34:37 AM
- In 1992, average mean CO2 rise was 0.48ppm. This is astonishingly low in a period when global mean CO2 rise was and is typically between 1.5-2.5ppm. This unusual year coincides with a global cooling of ~half a degree commonly associated with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (SO2 aerosols).

- Contrast this with the sharp annual mean increase of 2.93ppm witnessed in 1998, after the intense el niño of that year led to record warming.

Revillo -

Your assertion of cold water taking in more CO2 than warm water is a rather basic part of various marine sciences, but the attempt to use an El Nino year and the Pinatubo year as a new evidence of this seems both spurious and as yet somewhat under-researched. How many other factors are you willing to consider while trying to find a pair of causal relationships ?

Joe Romm has a good post up that you may find interesting discussing a 2014 paper that identified the long expected decline of the oceans' function as a natural carbon sink. As this leaves more of anthro-CO2 output in the atmosphere each year it is confirmation that Ocean Heating and Acidification is the eighth Major Interactive Feedback. : http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/12/3632373/carbon-sinks-climate-action/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/12/3632373/carbon-sinks-climate-action/)

However, to propose that Albedo Restoration would significantly increase ocean acidification on the strength of your uproven hypothesis is both premature and patently irrational as a critique of Albedo Restoration's utility.

When two techniques each addresses one crucial part of a critical problem, do you really discard one and ignore the other because neither can by itself address the whole problem ?

When you break a leg you could tell the doctors on arrival at hospital that you won't have a plaster cast because that would just leave the bones out of alignment and unable to heal up - Or would you respect their expertise in applying Two techniques to the One broken leg ?

The technique that is the complement to Albedo Restoration can be described as Carbon Recovery. It is employed to recover airborne carbon dioxide, at best to the extent of drawing the excess CO2 back out of the oceans to restore their natural alkalinity.

Neither of these two modes of geo-engineering can resolve our climate predicament alone, nor in tandem with the essential rapid emissions control.

Rapid emissions control alongside both modes of geoengineering could potentially serve to minimize the peak level of CO2 and the peak level of warming and its associated climate destabilization. In this Troika format global temperature is restrained during the many decades required for the cleansing of the atmosphere, thereby conserving the necessary forestry that would otherwise be lost to the impacts of warming.

As yet the best proposals for Albedo Restoration need at least a decade of stringently supervised research before there could be any confidence of their reliably benign function in operation. The starting point is the development of that necessarily global supervision capacity.

Regards,
Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 14, 2015, 07:40:24 AM
"any efforts to cool the Earth by albedo modification would increase the acidity of the oceans"

Yes, I think that is likely true.

Wili - you know that is patently untrue.

Why pretend you don't ?

Regards,  Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on March 14, 2015, 04:20:50 PM
What exactly is patently untrue about it?

Is it the 'any' part. Of course, if it is combined with a (somehow) successful effort not just to stop all further emissions, but also to draw down considerable carbon out of the atmosphere, then, yes, in theory I suppose the 'any' part might not be true.

But I have a sense that I'm missing some point, here. Do you think that a cooler ocean would absorb less CO2 for some reason? Do you think cooling the planet by this method would not cool the oceans? Where is the flaw that you intend to point out, exactly?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 15, 2015, 02:38:44 PM
Wili,
yes, beside there being no quotes I've seen of any serious scientist or politician proposing the use of Albedo Restoration as being sufficient without both Carbon Recovery and rapid Emissions Control,
there is also the fact that the US and EU and others are aiming for "Net-Zero" emissions targets in Paris, which is a de facto commitment to both Carbon Recovery and Emissions Control.
There is thus no serous prospect of Albedo Restoration being deployed in isolation.

However there are at least three other factors which negate the possibility of Albedo Restoration "increasing ocean acidifcation".

- An effective deployment of Albedo Restoration provides sufficient cooling to decelerate the 4 warming-driven carbon-emitting Major Interactive Feedbacks [MIFs] (Permafrost Melt, Forest Loss, Soil Desiccation & Methane Hydrates' Melt) thereby preventing their otherwise inevitable addition to airborne CO2ppm, thereby actively reducing the intake of CO2 and its increase of ocean acidification.
- In halting those feedbacks' raising of CO2ppm, Albedo Restoration also halts the CO2-driven MIF of Fertilized Peatbog Decay, which will otherwise continue to escalate its output of CO2 adding to ppm and thus to ocean acidification.
- In halting (eventually) the warming-driven Methane Hydrates' Melt, Albedo Restoration would avoid its direct addition to the oceans of substantial volumes of CH4 (that are dissolved before reaching the surface) where they are quite rapidly converted to CO2 by methanotrofic bacteria, thereby avoiding a substantial direct addition to ocean acidification.

From this perspective Albedo Restoration is absolutely essential as part of the Troika strategy if terminal ocean acidification is to be avoided.

In my view this is an extremely urgent issue, given not only the loss of most corals under 1.5C of warming, but also the likely onset of serial global crop failures by that point, while at present we are 10 or 20 years away from having a technique of Albedo Restoration sufficiently researched to allow its deployment.

In this light what we face can be seen as the third and final 'window of opportunity"

Regards,

Lewis

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: wili on March 15, 2015, 03:26:48 PM
Lewis wrote:

- An effective deployment of Albedo Restoration provides sufficient cooling to decelerate the 4 warming-driven carbon-emitting Major Interactive Feedbacks [MIFs] (Permafrost Melt, Forest Loss, Soil Desiccation & Methane Hydrates' Melt) thereby preventing their otherwise inevitable addition to airborne CO2ppm, thereby actively reducing the intake of CO2 and its increase of ocean acidification.
- In halting those feedbacks' raising of CO2ppm, Albedo Restoration also halts the CO2-driven MIF of Fertilized Peatbog Decay, which will otherwise continue to escalate its output of CO2 adding to ppm and thus to ocean acidification.
- In halting (eventually) the warming-driven Methane Hydrates' Melt, Albedo Restoration would avoid its direct addition to the oceans of substantial volumes of CH4 (that are dissolved before reaching the surface) where they are quite rapidly converted to CO2 by methanotrofic bacteria, thereby avoiding a substantial direct addition to ocean acidification.

Good points (and I see we share an obsession with carbon feedbacks :)), but technically these mean that albedo geoengineering (again, alone) would decrease alkalinity less than allowing the earth to heat up to the point that these feedbacks kick in. It does not show that albedo geoengineering would not decrease alkalinity.

(Sorry if this seems picky, but I do like to be as clear as possible...though my need to use all those double negatives doesn't help on that front.  :-\)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 15, 2015, 04:20:22 PM
Lewis, Although with enough carbon capture and geo-e you may help prevent some of the positive feedbacks you describe the oceans will continue to acidify until surface oceans get closer to equalizing with current atmospheric Co2 concentrations . Biological processes will continue to reduce surface ocean pH via the biological carbon pump but it takes a long time for the ocean water masses to mix and for the biological processes to remove the surface water acidification. Remember the carbon land sink has taken ~ 25% of anthropogenic carbon , the ocean ~ 25% and the atmosphere ~50%. The 50% that has already gone into the atmosphere will continue to acidify surface waters until most of it has gone back into deep oceans sinks. This will take hundreds of years and although the ultimate pH of the worlds oceans will be determined by the gross volume of carbon emitted you can't stop a certain amount of future acidification even if you stop all emissions today. " Terminal Acidification " is some pretty scary terminology . This terminology implies all ocean life will expire and that is simply erroneous . There has been lots of stress testing of various lifeforms that can handle 7.8 pH and we will need to emit another 2000 GT carbon on top of the 500 GT we have already released to get there.
So life won't end but corals are in serious trouble. I can't really venture a guess on how much extra acidification will happen with the extra CO2 that may come from the positive feedback loops you describe but for them to take over our anthropogenic inputs they will need to feed in that 2000GT carbon I mentioned earlier. I guess the scary part is it doesn't really matter if those feedbacks take a thousand+ years to deliver their carbon it is the gross volume and not time that will determine the ultimate amount of acidification that will take place and like I have said before it takes tens of thousands of years for the natural system to return ocean pH to status ( at 8.2 )  In short the oceans will continue to acidify even with carbon capture and geo-e , we can only stop it if we actually can draw down atmospheric CO2to pre industrial revolution ( or close to )numbers of 280ppm.
 That is why we are struggling to figure out how to adapt our fisheries to expected future conditions.
I hate to say we aren't going to save the coral but in my opinion we already pulled the trigger. We will be living with that loss for the rest of human existence .   
   
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 15, 2015, 04:56:02 PM

.....However, to propose that Albedo Restoration would significantly increase ocean acidification on the strength of your uproven hypothesis is both premature and patently irrational as a critique of Albedo Restoration's utility.

When two techniques each addresses one crucial part of a critical problem, do you really discard one and ignore the other because neither can by itself address the whole problem ?

I always view with a jaundiced eye persons who employ hyperbolic prose as well as vitriol like "patently irrational" to describe the opinions of others.

I have been reading this thread and, generally, have been enjoying the back and forth. With regards to the last comment you made that I have just quoted, the answer as it relates to the issue of AGW is yes. Discard them both as neither addresses the root cause of the problem.

When you encounter a problem, any effort to address mere symptoms of the problem will always result in a proliferation of new symptoms. When the system you are working with is complex (I can't think of many systems more complex than the climate system in its entirety.) the unanticipated outcomes caused by monkeying around with symptoms will always surprise. In general, geo-engineering can only make our problem worse. I view even the proposing of geo-engineering as a means to avoid the nastiest effects of CO2 emissions as a serious problem in that it allows us to avoid addressing the only real solution. The root cause of AGW is human driven CO2 emissions. The only safe solution is the elimination of these emissions.

Geo-engineering proposals are the equivalent of whistling past the graveyard.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 15, 2015, 05:47:05 PM
". . .technically these mean that albedo geoengineering (again, alone) would decrease alkalinity less than allowing the earth to heat up to the point that these feedbacks kick in. It does not show that albedo geoengineering would not decrease alkalinity."

Wili -
To get it technically precise then if Albedo Restoration had been deployed in isolation before the first of the warming-driven carbom MIFs had taken off - which Dr John Gribben reported in his 1990 book "Hothouse Earth" was Permafrost Melt in Russia in the 1970s - it might be said to have advanced the oceans' uptake of CO2 up to the date where those MIFs would otherwise have started raising airborne CO2ppm.

However this is a rather hypothetical assesment given that in practice the carbon MIFs are already kicking in wholesale, for instance with significant Mts CO2 emitted by each of the Amazon's majoir droughts let alone other Forest Loss worldwide, and with Fertilized Peatbog Decay's CO2 output rising at >6%/yr on track to exceed present anthro-CO2 output in the 2060s.

In practice Albedo Restoration is thus a critical component of the Troika strategy for its role in avoiding termainal acidification, as well as for avoiding the onset of serial global crop failures and the loss of the requisite afforestation for Carbon Recovery.

Regards,

Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 15, 2015, 06:03:27 PM
Since the rapid elimination of human caused CO2 emissions are an incomplete solution, leaving us with unacceptably high levels of atmospheric CO2 for hundreds of years, we will have to engage in some form of geo-engineering. The only safe and, in my mind, acceptable geo-engineering approaches are methods to accelerate the uptake (after the complete elimination of human driven emissions) of atmospheric CO2, sequestering it in solid form. The best of these will be natural processes like the greening of the planet through reforestation, aggressive practices of capturing CO2 in plants and turning these plants into the soil or accelerated aging. I am sure there are many more that can be employed that harness or enhance other natural processes that capture CO2.

If we fail to do the above, I am with Jim D in that I fully expect we will employ every manner of geo-engineering that we can dream up to address a bewildering array of symptoms. These increasingly desperate attempts will be all the evidence we will need to know we have lost the war.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 15, 2015, 07:11:21 PM
Bruce -
thank you for your response.

I'm afraid that through an error of mine it is partly at cross purposes, in that I wrongly assumed the term 'Carbon Recovery' was widely enough used not to need definition as a term for the recovery of airborne carbon and its sequestration, as opposed to referring to the techniques of power stations' CO2 Capture and Storage.

Having some expertise in forestry and having run my own small (40acre) coppice woodlands since 2006, I'm reasonably confident that a very major program of Carbon Recovery utilizing Native Coppice Afforestation for Biochar (for plowing in with farms normal cultivation as a valuable soil moisture regulator and fertility enhancer) could achieve the cleansing of the atmosphere by around 2100.

The Conditions for such an outcome would include a rapid contraction of anthro emissions - at best cutting to near-zero by 2050 -, as well as the deployment of a reliably benign mode of Albedo Restoration as soon as it has been sufficiently researched - by say 2030? - in order to cut the risks of crop failure and halt the feedback outputs as rapidly as possible.

Those conditions would also include the use of efficient village-scale charcoal retorts across the 1.6GHa.s of suitable non-farmland identified as available in the joint WRI-WFN study, with the retorts' surplus hydrocarbon gasses being converted on site to the basic liquid fuel methanol to provide both fuel for the product's distribution and a second product and revenue stream to help defray costs.

A further consideration is that to function well it must be done well and for the right reasons; that is it needs to be developed and operated under the governance of a UN scientific agency for both social and ecological benefit, while its purpose is preferably not as carbon offsets for nations' residual fossil fuel burning but at best as the means by which nations can contribute to costs as a verifiable means of the gradual recovery of their cumulative emissions.

From this perspective I'm looking to the best case of the Troika strategy, implementing rapid Emissions Control with Carbon Recovery and with Albedo Restoration - all of which is aiming high, but I see nothing to lose by doing so.

With regard to the idea of the terminal decline of the oceans, I'd use the term intentionally in the political sense to describe the point where there is nothing left of their ecology that is much use to us for food. This is also of course a point of massive ecological collapse but it is not, as you rightly remark the end of all lifeforms. In my view we need to use alarming language (and always be ready to provide definitions) just as we need to start getting very angry indeed with the bipartisan US policy of obstructing the mitigation of AGW in hopes of maintaining its own dominance.

As you are clearly far better informed than I on the science of ocean acidification, I wonder if you might be persuaded to run some evaluations of the outcome out to say 2150 of the Troika's best case above ? The base case would mean cutting warming back to the pre-industrial level during the 2030s, followed by peaking CO2ppm around 2050, followed by its slow decline to 280ppm around 2100, but any variations on this format showing particular strengths and weaknesses would also be very welcome.

From this perspective I think we still have a chance of resolving the predicament if appropriate action is taken sufficiently swiftly, but I'd be the first to agree that the window of opportunity is closing by the year.

Regards,

Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 15, 2015, 07:59:53 PM
I'm reasonably confident that a very major program of Carbon Recovery utilizing Native Coppice Afforestation for Biochar (for plowing in with farms normal cultivation as a valuable soil moisture regulator and fertility enhancer) could achieve the cleansing of the atmosphere by around 2100.

I think this is an idea we should explore.  I really doubt the 2100 date, but I'm open to being convinced.

I think it could take more like 150 to 250 years to make a significant dent in atmospheric CO2 levels rather than only 50.  We've burned an incredible amount of coal and oil over the last 100+ years.

Char orchards, where all the growing and harvesting was done using renewable energy.  Shipping the char where it would be useful (lots of soils aren't benefitted) or simply burying it.  We might be able to speed up atmospheric CO2 declines.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 15, 2015, 09:08:14 PM
Lewis, CO2 is always trying to equilibrate gas partial pressures between the atmosphere and surface waters. The biological pump removes surface carbonates and organic matter to depth and thereby maintains enough of a difference between surface water pCO2( dissolved CO2 ) and atmospheric gaseous CO2 so that the oceans remain a sink. When deep waters upwell  they can bring that CO2 back to the surface in concentrations above atmospheric levels ( > 400ppm ) and become a source rather than sink.
 In answer to your question, if atmospheric CO2 levels are returned to 280 ppm almost all acidification will disappear in offshore open waters. Coastal eastern boundary currents and eastern equatorial upwelling regions will still return CO2 to the atmosphere . The majority of anthropogenic carbon remains in surface and intermediate waters so that portion of antCarbon held by intermediate waters  upwells after about fifty years. If your projection is for 2035-2050 to be ant C max and somehow to actually pull atmospheric CO2 down to 280 by 2100 then acidification will be largely a non issue.
You will need to sequester about over 250 billion tons of carbon in fifty years  to achieve that goal. This means you will somehow need to double the terrestrial carbon sink from current 2.5 Gt per annum to 5 Gt and that number will need be larger to the degree that the ocean carbon sink is compromised by heat.
 Part of that increase in the terrestrial carbon sink can be improved with a change in agricultural practices that include craver crops and no till. If that transition to no till necessitates select sprays to control weeds then society may need to reevaluate organic standards and goals. Energy needs a full accounting in agriculture and that includes ag forestry and coppicing as well as organic standards.
 I am a farmer too and honestly even with good intentions and a certain amount of financial flexibility a transition to the levels of soil carbon that you envision putting away will require some compromises with nature. Coppiced forests are not natural ones, cover crops aren't compatible with multiple crops per season, and oh ya no fossil fuels. I'm in but then maybe my values are sideways to civilization anyhow. My solar runs my pumps these days but if we don't get water soon I won't be growing much next year, I will be losing fruit trees and as you well know coppicing trees require rain also.
   
     
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 17, 2015, 12:43:00 AM
A possible advancement in CCS:  tiny bubbles.
The polymer bubbles are filled with the entirely pedestrian ingredient of baking soda, long known to absorb carbon dioxide, but it’s the bubbles themselves that are the breakthrough. They’re permeable, which means that CO2 gets trapped and absorbed by the baking soda solution inside them. In theory, you could affix the bubbles to the inside of a power plant smokestack and trap the CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/these-tiny-bubbles-may-save-the-planet (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/these-tiny-bubbles-may-save-the-planet)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 17, 2015, 12:56:58 AM
A call for "regenerative farming" in place of quick-fix geoengineering.
Unlike geoengineering’s quick fix, regenerative agriculture cannot be implemented at scale without deep cultural changes. We must turn away from an attitude of nature-as-engineering-object to one of humble partnership. Whereas geoengineering is a global solution that feeds the logic of centralisation and the economics of globalism, regeneration of soil and forests is fundamentally local: forest by forest, farm by farm. These are not generic solutions, because the requirements of the land are unique to each place. Unsurprisingly, they are typically more labour-intensive than conventional practices, because they require a direct, intimate relationship to the land.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/09/we-need-regenerative-farming-not-geoengineering (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/09/we-need-regenerative-farming-not-geoengineering)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 17, 2015, 05:39:46 AM
A possible advancement in CCS:  tiny bubbles.
The polymer bubbles are filled with the entirely pedestrian ingredient of baking soda, long known to absorb carbon dioxide, but it’s the bubbles themselves that are the breakthrough. They’re permeable, which means that CO2 gets trapped and absorbed by the baking soda solution inside them. In theory, you could affix the bubbles to the inside of a power plant smokestack and trap the CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/these-tiny-bubbles-may-save-the-planet (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/these-tiny-bubbles-may-save-the-planet)

Better yet.  Install renewable generation and shut the damn plant down.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 17, 2015, 05:56:51 AM
I think this is an idea we should explore.  I really doubt the 2100 date, but I'm open to being convinced.

Bob - I'm of course open to correction on the numbers and thus the feasible target date for 280ppm, but from what I know at present 2100 looks like a high but viable goal.

The volume to be recovered is indeed immense, and must reflect both the current 120ppm of anthro-Carbon held in the atmosphere, plus the net addition by the end of anthro emissions (proposed as 2050), plus the volume that can be expected to be emitted by the oceans as airborne CO2 declines. There must also be an allowance for a small inevitable anthro-output such as from rice-growing CH4 converting to CO2.

Under the Conditions outlined at #85 above, the scenario I'm working with allows 25 years for the negotiation, organization and establishment of 1.6Gha.s of native coppice afforestation, (~4.0Bn acres) meaning that the first full harvest of 10-yr-old growth occurs in 2040.
The global average yield is set at 12Ts Dry Wood /ha /yr (TsDWd/ha/yr) which is quite modest given tropical rates under a stabilized climate.
(Without the application of Albedo Restoration all bets on the growth of forest, let alone food crops, are off by the 2030s).

Using moderately efficient retorts that convert 35% of wood to charcoal (the best being ~42% using a high tech microwave system) 12TsDWd = 4.2TsC (charcoal)
Overall yield then equals 1.6Gha.s x 4.2TsC = 6.72GtC /y
Dividing by 2.135GtC per ppm of CO2 = 3.15ppm buried per year
By 2100 this implies a recovery of 60yrs x 3.15ppm = 189ppm
Allowing 120ppm of this to clear the current antCO2 leaves only 69ppm to meet future outputs.

From here on the numbers are hazy.
Michael Mann proposes 50ppm as the feasible target for remaining antCO2 outputs, but I suspect we could do rather better given :
a/. the rapidly falling costs of N-F power and diverse storage options, and
b/. the rising corporate demand to halt FFs by a carbon price of Allocate, Cap & Trade, and
c/. enough people being willing to risk what they have to end society's FF dependence.

The allowance for remaining antCO2 is thus set at 40ppm,
leaving 29ppm to meet the CO2 re-emerging from the oceans.
A rule of thumb puts the amount gone into the oceans at a bit over half what's held in the atmosphere, i.e. around 70ppm, and the most knowledgeable scientist I've spoken to advised a figure of 40% of that being re-emitted as airborne CO2 falls, which is 28ppm.

Against the plain fact that either or both of remaining antCO2 output and ocean CO2 output may in practice be larger than projected above,
is the equally plain fact that we have both additional biomass resources in view including agric, urban and forestry wastes that could be sequestered as biochar;
and also the potential of agricultural practice C sequestration which certainly offers a useful additional sequestration,
as well as the possibility of an advance in DACCS cutting its costs from >$600Bn/GtCO2 to less than $50Bn, (but fortunately we don't appear reliant on this possibility).

Overall there thus seems a good viability case for setting 2100 as the target date for 280ppm,
on top of which is the presentational case of such a beautifully round number,
and on top of that is the actuarial case that we'll be long under the sod by 2100
- so we won't have to listen to whingeing about a goal that was some number of years off.

But to meet the trend of that goal the negotiation of the protocol governing the global program of Carbon Recovery needs to be under way ASAP!, and the concept of a major new global industry in "Carbon Recovery for Food Security" needs to be propagated very widely.

Regards,
Lewis




Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 17, 2015, 06:38:33 AM
Bruce - thanks for your thoughts on acidification under the Troika strategy - Having recently seen a paper showing severe suppression of shellfish along the N & W coasts of Canada by the late 2020s, I've been rather concerned as to quite how bad our best case of acidification will be.

In the post above to Bob I've put an outline of the numbers required for getting 280ppm by 2100 as best I see them. They are inevitably hazy given the circs, but anything you care to add to give them better definition would be very welcome.

Very sorry to hear of your trials with drought on the fruit trees and coppice. One technique I'd mention in case you're not already using it in the orchards is laying low-grade sheep fleeces around the stem to shade the ground and slow down the evaporation of any pumped water you can get to them. Re-laying the fleeces after watering is laborious but if done while watering the next tree it doesn't cost much time. OTOH a commercial orchard of hundreds or thousands of hectares isn't going to water many trees individually . . .

God willing the El Nino development will turn the weather to a better outlook.

Regards,
Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell on March 17, 2015, 07:00:30 AM
FYI

Boreal forests occupy large areas of the northern hemisphere and are mainly found in Canada, Russia, Alaska and Scandinavia. Biodiversity in these forests is generally low. Plant biomass is much higher than in the tundra, with roughly 60–100 tonnes of carbon per hectare, of which around 80% is in the above-ground biomass (Mahli et al. 1999; Luyssaert et al. 2007

I don't think that billions of tons of carbon is going to be removed from the atmosphere from this process.  The scope and scale would be equal to the entire human endeavor of the past 100 years! (estimate)

http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/natural-fix/page/3725.aspx (http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/natural-fix/page/3725.aspx)

I am not saying that high carbon soil fixing farming practices and char is a bad idea, I am just saying that it won't be enough.  Especially if we are still burning coal in 20 years.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 17, 2015, 08:16:49 AM
Jai -
I'm not clear as to the relevance of the Boreal forests' carbon stock densities, given that coppicing for biochar is necessarily a sylviculture of the temperate and tropical zones, where both growth rates and stocks/ha are far higher.

Three posts up at #91 I laid out some basic numbers on the prospect for rapid carbon recovery which you might want to evaluate. If you can propose amendments I'd be interested to see them, as getting the carbon back out of the atmosphere is plainly highly significant to all other aspects of the predicament.

Regards,

Lewis

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell on March 17, 2015, 05:10:38 PM
Lewis,

the size of the nation of brazil is 849 million hectares.

what would be the carbon footprint of falling and dragging, chipping and then processing to char, then grinding, shipping and then burying a forest that is almost 2 times the size of the nation of brazil?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 17, 2015, 06:37:00 PM
the size of the nation of brazil is 849 million hectares.

what would be the carbon footprint of falling and dragging, chipping and then processing to char, then grinding, shipping and then burying a forest that is almost 2 times the size of the nation of brazil?

Jai - good question.

There are three strands to the answer - distance, energy and carbon efficiency.

Re Distance - it has always been the practice in charcoal making to minimize the haulage effort, and this factor shapes the proceedure and the scale of conversion facilities.
- The wood is stacked at the edge of the coup, the felled area traditionally of 1 to 2 acres, where it's allowed to dry out thus shedding about a third or more of its weight.
- It is then hauled a maximum of 2 or 3 miles to the conversion yard, (beyond which distance the economics rapidly go into reverse) with this being well within the proven economic range of teams of draft animals hauling wainloads at a time (though old cheap tractors may also be useful)
- The yard is necessarily of 'village scale' rather than being maximized under the increasingly criticized "economies of scale", and includes sufficient retorts to handle the annual harvest from the catchment area, plus a milling, mixing, tote-bagging and storage facility for distribution by light truck (or by river barge whenever feasible).
- The retorts produce a surplus of hot wood gas after the fraction used for their ignition, (after which the charring is highly exothermic) which contains around 28% of the wood's energy potential. This crude mixture of nitrogen, a little CO2 and hydrocarbon gasses and vapours can be readily purified and converted to the liquid fuel methanol, [CH3OH] that offers exceptionally clean rapid combustion characteristics and about 55% of the energy of petrol per unit of volume. A part of the heat output may be used via the highly durable Stirling Engine for the production of process power.

Re Energy - a series of energy inputs are listed above, all of which are met either by draft animals requiring some grazing land and cerial crops for feed, or by the heat and methanol outputs from the plant.

Re Carbon Efficiency - There is certainly some embedded fossil carbon within the equipment used at all stages, most notably in delivery trucks and metal retorts, but when set against the volumes of carbon being delivered in the form of biochar on a daily basis for plowing in by farmers, that is a negligible volume.

The short answer is thus that the carbon footprint of the extraction, haulage, processing and delivery of the requisite scale of Biochar supply is of only negligible significance.

Regards,

Lewis





Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell on March 17, 2015, 10:29:21 PM
Lewis,

I meant carbon emissions from the soil:  http://www.borenv.net/BER/pdfs/ber9/ber9-199.pdf (http://www.borenv.net/BER/pdfs/ber9/ber9-199.pdf)

When you chop down the trees, the roots die and decompose, in addition, you dry out the tropical soil and change rainfall patterns.  not to mention biodiversity loss.  I wonder if you have truly thought through this idea.

Please consider the manpower, logistics and environmental devastation such a scheme would entail.  You are talking about clear cutting a significant fraction of the tropical forest belt. 
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 17, 2015, 11:03:15 PM
The linked research indicates that prior scientific assumptions about the advisability of converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland were overly optimistic (see extract).  The application of "Coppice Afforestation for Biochar" to the tropical rainforest may be even more inadvisable:

Searchinger, T.D. et al. (2015), "High carbon and biodiversity costs from converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2584

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2584.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2584.html)

Abstract: "Do the wet savannahs and shrublands of Africa provide a large reserve of potential croplands to produce food staples or bioenergy with low carbon and biodiversity costs? We find that only small percentages of these lands have meaningful potential to be low-carbon sources of maize (~2%) or soybeans (9.5–11.5%), meaning that their conversion would release at least one-third less carbon per ton of crop than released on average for the production of those crops on existing croplands. Factoring in land-use change, less than 1% is likely to produce cellulosic ethanol that would meet European standards for greenhouse gas reductions. Biodiversity effects of converting these lands are also likely to be significant as bird and mammal richness is comparable to that of the world’s tropical forest regions. Our findings contrast with influential studies that assume these lands provide a large, low-environmental-cost cropland reserve."

See also:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/farming-africas-wet-savannahs-would-have-high-environmental-costs-study-warns/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/farming-africas-wet-savannahs-would-have-high-environmental-costs-study-warns/)


Extract: "As the global population rises, some scientists have suggested that Africa's wet savannahs could be ideal for growing the extra crops needed to meet the growing demand for food and bioenergy.
But it isn't quite the solution it seems, according to new research. The idea that Africa can provide food and biofuels while keeping emissions low "does not add up", the researchers say."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 18, 2015, 12:03:41 AM
Jai - I answered the question you wrote:

what would be the carbon footprint of falling and dragging, chipping and then processing to char, then grinding, shipping and then burying a forest that is almost 2 times the size of the nation of brazil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,

Lewis



Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 18, 2015, 03:58:38 AM
The linked research indicates that prior scientific assumptions about the advisability of converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland were overly optimistic (see extract).  The application of "Coppice Afforestation for Biochar" to the tropical rainforest may be even more inadvisable:

ASLR -

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

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

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


 
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 18, 2015, 04:04:11 AM
Jai - I answered the question you wrote:
what would be the carbon footprint of falling and dragging, chipping and then processing to char, then grinding, shipping and then burying a forest that is almost 2 times the size of the nation of brazil?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,

Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 18, 2015, 04:40:17 AM
Lewis, Changing agriculture and forestry practices are IMO two of the only ways I can think of to sequester some small part of the growing atmospheric load of CO2 we are daily delivering. Scale is of course a huge issue but at least it's a start, and done correctly the Carbon can be stored in a measurable form. It's also something somebody can set out to accomplish solo, without a big technology advancement. Holes in the ground that somebody uses huge amounts of energy to cram
CO2 into holes where we suck out the oil first isn't a viable option and likely more snake oil from the experts at snake oil.
 And congratulations on your coppiced trees.
 I am going to work on no till + winter cover crops. It is merely a start but it's a a start. I do not have coppiced trees yet Lewis but I will put some work into getting that going.
 I have a fascination with converting solar into food calories. The garden is an obvious effort but I am convinced with a small e car I can collect enough acorns, walnuts, and olives to fatten up pigs. I have tried to use small hand powered /solar assisted tools for gardening to some success but scaling above a couple acres puts a lot of stress on the battery tools. Again just a start. To be honest scale is of course hugely important but using some proven techniques and making a living while doing the footwork for others to follow is also hugely important. If I am a lucky man maybe someday I can say I did both.   
   
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 18, 2015, 06:32:00 AM
What if you don't haul?

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

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

Even if hauled it would see that biochar would be cheaper to move than even dried plant matter.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 19, 2015, 06:05:23 AM
Bruce - I share your doubts of the CO2CS proposals - both BECCS and DACCS - in spades. I've not seen anything remotely feasible proposed on a marginally significant scale in either of them.
Scaling Carbon Recovery for Food Security [CRFS] is a very different matter for a series of reasons -

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

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

Regards,

Lewis

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

   http://winfieldfarm.us/store/?page_id=696 (http://winfieldfarm.us/store/?page_id=696)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on March 19, 2015, 06:54:21 PM
careful with the methanol vapor, it goes boom as you noted. Make sure you have explosion proof breakers and pumps. But worse, methanol is very toxic: blindness, madness and death in that order.

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

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

take care, stay upwind ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 20, 2015, 02:31:08 PM
It might be a better investment to stop destruction of our natural environment (especially deforestation) before speculating about Negative Emissions Technology, NET.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/amazon-rainforest-and-great-barrier-reef-need-better-care-say-scientists (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/amazon-rainforest-and-great-barrier-reef-need-better-care-say-scientists)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 20, 2015, 06:01:11 PM
Bruce - fantastic pigs. What is the breed's history ? Were the coats bred in or basically inherited from a wild breed ? I'd like to know more about them.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Lewis C on March 22, 2015, 03:16:59 PM
It might be a better investment to stop destruction of our natural environment (especially deforestation) before speculating about Negative Emissions Technology, NET.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Lewis
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 22, 2015, 03:34:05 PM
It might be a better investment to stop destruction of our natural environment (especially deforestation) before speculating about Negative Emissions Technology, NET.

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

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

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

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

We're going to need a lot of sodium bicarbonate to deal with acid indigestion.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 22, 2015, 03:40:33 PM
I'd suggest that Carbon Recovery is now a critical component of a commensurate strategy to mitigate the damage caused by industrial society to date, and that the longer its applicalion is delayed the greater will be the irreversible losses. That said I'd of course agree that equitable measures to halt deforestation and end the pollution and other damage to the GB Reef are absolutely necessary - but I see no case for ranking their priority ahead or behind that of Carbon Recovery, particularly as there is no conflict between them.

Regards,

Lewis

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

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

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

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

Link to IPCC discussion of differences between deforestation, reforestation & afforestation:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=47 (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=47)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on April 16, 2015, 09:53:52 PM
Warning over aerosol climate fix
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32334528 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32334528)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 19, 2015, 05:22:49 PM
Warning over aerosol climate fix
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32334528 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32334528)


This article indicates that:

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

But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly ( http://www.egu2015.eu (http://www.egu2015.eu) ) have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 29, 2015, 04:41:20 PM
The linked research indicates that any potential geoengineering effort to whiten the Arctic Ocean may restore the some of the lost sea ice but will not reverse climate change:

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

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


Abstract: "The Arctic Ocean is expected to transition into a seasonally ice-free state by mid-century, enhancing Arctic warming and leading to substantial ecological and socio-economic challenges across the Arctic region. It has been proposed that artificially increasing high latitude ocean albedo could restore sea ice, but the climate impacts of such a strategy have not been previously explored. Motivated by this, we investigate the impacts of idealized high latitude ocean albedo changes on Arctic sea ice restoration and climate. In our simulated 4xCO2 climate, imposing surface albedo alterations over the Arctic Ocean leads to partial sea ice recovery and a modest reduction in Arctic warming. With the most extreme ocean albedo changes, imposed over the area 70°–90°N, September sea ice cover stabilizes at ~40% of its preindustrial value (compared to ~3% without imposed albedo modifications). This is accompanied by an annual mean Arctic surface temperature decrease of ~2 °C but no substantial global mean temperature decrease. Imposed albedo changes and sea ice recovery alter climate outside the Arctic region too, affecting precipitation distribution over parts of the continental United States and Northeastern Pacific. For example, following sea ice recovery, wetter and milder winter conditions are present in the Southwest United States while the East Coast experiences cooling. We conclude that although ocean albedo alteration could lead to some sea ice recovery, it does not appear to be an effective way of offsetting the overall effects of CO2 induced global warming."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on April 29, 2015, 06:57:52 PM
China is building a Great Wall of Trees to fight climate change and the encroaching Gobi Desert.
http://qz.com/391797/china-is-building-a-great-wall-of-trees-to-fight-climate-change-and-the-encroaching-gobi-desert/ (http://qz.com/391797/china-is-building-a-great-wall-of-trees-to-fight-climate-change-and-the-encroaching-gobi-desert/)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: F.Tnioli on July 14, 2015, 12:13:46 PM
What is the plan for that not to happen?
None, as far as i know. In fact, "local geo-engineering" a.k.a. "weather control" is already practiced by few dozens countries, in some cases on a billion-dollar scale (US and China, possibly few other countries). And they are going to do more of it. Net effect from it on climate, i doubt anyone can quantify, but it's growing.

Some links about it and other related things are in my recent post here (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg56666.html#msg56666) . I hope it won't be deleted by moderators for being off-topic there. Please put any related discussion not there, but into this topic.

P.S. I just found this topic, and it's excellent read, at least at the start. I am grateful to everyone who honestly contributed to it. Good job!
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 02, 2015, 10:42:17 PM
Geoengineering of Mars, not earth, but:

Elon Musk won't nuke Mars, he'll just give it 2 temporary suns
http://mashable.com/2015/10/02/elon-musk-nuke-mars-two-suns/ (http://mashable.com/2015/10/02/elon-musk-nuke-mars-two-suns/)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 03, 2015, 06:18:07 PM
While the media has generally slowed-down talking about geoengineering; research on this topic is quietly continuing as indicated by the linked (open access) reference that indicates that of the options that it examined, the use of sulfate aerosols looks to be the technically most promising option:

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

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

Abstract: "In this paper, we examine the potential climatic effects of geoengineering by sulfate, black carbon and titania injection against a baseline RCP8.5 scenario. We use the HadGEM2-CCS model to simulate scenarios in which the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative imbalance due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations is offset by sufficient aerosol injection throughout the 2020–2100 period. We find that the global-mean temperature is effectively maintained at historical levels for the entirety of the period for all 3 aerosol-injection scenarios, though there are a wide range of side-effects which are discussed in detail. The most prominent conclusion is that although the BC injection rate necessary to produce an equivalent global mean temperature-response is much lower, the severity of stratospheric temperature changes (> +70 °C) and precipitation impacts effectively exclude BC from being a viable option for geoengineering. Additionally, while it has been suggested that titania would be an effective particle because of its high scattering efficiency, it also efficiently absorbs solar ultraviolet radiation producing a significant stratospheric warming (> +20 °C). As injection rates for titania are close to those for sulfate, there appears little benefit of using titania when compared to injection of sulfur dioxide, which has the added benefit of being well modelled through extensive research that has been carried out on naturally occurring explosive volcanic eruptions."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 30, 2015, 10:17:16 PM
Bloomberg Businessweek article.  Wasn't it only about a year ago that the financial gurus were completely shrugging off the idea of climate change?  Some seem to have skipped right to the "Reaching out for a miracle" stage of denial. (Although this article is mostly a cautionary tale of why the sulfuric acid solution should not be tried.)

How to Slow Climate Change With a Fake Volcano
Mimic an eruption by spraying sulfuric acid into the stratosphere.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/how-to-slow-climate-change-with-a-fake-volcano (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/how-to-slow-climate-change-with-a-fake-volcano)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 05, 2015, 09:03:16 PM
Six Ways to Cool the Earth and Why They’ll Never Happen
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/six-ways-to-cool-the-earth-and-why-they-ll-never-happen (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/six-ways-to-cool-the-earth-and-why-they-ll-never-happen)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 03, 2016, 04:20:47 PM
The linked reference examines the feasibility of adding surfactants to ship wakes, and to possibly increase the number of ships and routes, in order to increase albedo for geoengineering:

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


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

Abstract: "Solar radiation management schemes could potentially alleviate the impacts of global warming. One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing. We use a global climate model to simulate brightening the wakes of existing shipping by increasing wake albedo by 0.2 and increasing wake lifetime by ×1440. This yields a global mean radiative forcing of -0.9 ± 0.6 Wm-2 (-1.8 ± 0.9 Wm-2 in the Northern Hemisphere) and a 0.5 °C reduction of global mean surface temperature with greater cooling over land and in the Northern Hemisphere, partially offsetting greenhouse gas warming. Tropical precipitation shifts southwards but remains within current variability. The hemispheric forcing asymmetry of this scheme is due to the asymmetry in the distribution of existing shipping. If wake lifetime could reach ~3 months, the global mean radiative forcing could potentially reach -3 Wm-2. Increasing wake area through increasing bubble lifetime could result in a greater temperature reduction but regional precipitation would likely deviate further from current climatology as suggested by results from our uniform ocean albedo simulation. Alternatively, additional ships specifically for the purpose of geoengineering could be used to produce a larger and more hemispherically symmetrical forcing."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: solartim27 on February 03, 2016, 08:13:58 PM
I would think putting a chemical film over the ocean may interfere with a lot more than just albedo.  I wonder how happy the fish and plankton would be, and the effects on evaporation, and gas exchange.

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

One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 03, 2016, 11:01:09 PM
I would think putting a chemical film over the ocean may interfere with a lot more than just albedo.  I wonder how happy the fish and plankton would be, and the effects on evaporation, and gas exchange.

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

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

Good points.  I just provide the reference to stimulate discussions & so that people are not surprised when in several decades desperate governments (when climate refugees number in the hundreds of millions and a larger number are dying) start trying geoengineering on the fly.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 09, 2016, 04:05:03 AM
The linked article discusses the moral hazard associated with the use of geoengineering:

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

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

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

...

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

As the global climate change conversation heads into middle age, geoengineering proposals are likely to become more specific and differentiated. Perhaps this emerging familiarity will save us from both dismissing the field as a whole and from seeing it as a glittering new landscape filled with exciting solutions. Climate change of the speed and magnitude that we may experience in the coming century is entirely new territory, at least for human beings, and of the vast range of responses that have been proposed, only suffering is truly familiar."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 09, 2016, 11:43:01 AM
As a follow on to my last post about the moral hazard associated with geoengineering, see:

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

Extract: "... many pointed to important objections, including the concern that albedo modification presents a moral hazard: the danger that small fixes might dissuade us from pursuing larger solutions. Others worried that it requires too long a commitment for too little effect, as did one who echoed Pierrehumbert’s cautions: “The argument against geoengineering by albedo hacking … I find most convincing is that you have to commit to keep doing it basically forever, and if you are ever forced to stop, the world will face catastrophic rapid warming.” Some suggested that their concerns weren’t so much scientific as political, since geoengineering would “require strong and adaptive social institutions, institutions which currently are not up to the task.”"
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 11, 2016, 04:05:40 PM
The linked article indicates that implementation of the Negative Emissions Technology, NET, could do more harm than good:

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

Extract: "Paris negotiators did not specifically discuss carbon removal, but Williamson argues their deal implicitly relies upon large-scale mitigation projects, because nations are not on track to cut fossil fuel burning enough to meet the pact's targets.
For example, he offers stark numbers on the potential impact of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)—or the growing of crops, from grasses to trees, that can be burned at power stations for electricity while the carbon emitted is captured and stored. Williamson calculates that for the cuts envisioned under the Paris deal, crops solely for carbon removal would have to be planted on 430 million to 580 million hectares (1,060 million to 1,440 million acres) of land—about one third of the total arable land on the planet, or half the land area of the United States.
Such dependence on BECCS could cause a loss of terrestrial species at the end of the century perhaps worse than the losses resulting from a temperature increase of about 2.8 °C above pre-industrial levels, Williamson wrote."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 22, 2016, 07:32:18 PM
The linked reference discusses the possibility that albedo imparts from black carbon associated with biochar technology, may limit the value of biochar as a negative emissions technology, NET:

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

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 29, 2016, 02:43:05 AM
 ::)

A CRAZY PLAN TO HALT GLOBAL SEA RISING -- IT WOULD TAKE 7 PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S ENERGY
Thanks to climate change, scientists expect sea levels to rise about three feet by the end of the century, flooding islands and coastal cities. But some researchers have a (slighly insane) plan, published earlier this month in Earth System Dynamics, to prevent this: Pump a vast volume of seawater to Antarctica, where it will freeze. In this video, our friends at Nexus Media delve into just how much water would have to be pumped, the time it would take, and the power this plan would require—about seven percent of the world's annual energy supply.
http://www.popsci.com/crazy-plan-to-halt-global-sea-rising (http://www.popsci.com/crazy-plan-to-halt-global-sea-rising)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 29, 2016, 05:41:54 AM
I bet it would be cheaper to build "7%" generation than to rebuild all our cities, houses and infrastructure that would need replacing.

Lots of wind in that part of the world. 

Wonder if the ice would stay melted as global temps rise?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on March 29, 2016, 07:40:04 AM
i dont think that proposition to pump water on antarctica is to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 29, 2016, 08:03:26 AM
i dont think that proposition to pump water on antarctica is to be taken seriously.

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

10 Mar 2016

Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in Antarctica

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Richard Rathbone on March 29, 2016, 02:08:30 PM
Why not Alaska? There's already a pipeline thats not going to be needed any more soon. Just break it halfway along and pump the ocean from both ends rather than oil from one end to the other.  ;)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on March 29, 2016, 08:04:26 PM
---
"The magnitude of sea-level rise is so enormous, it turns out it is unlikely that any engineering approach imaginable can mitigate it," said co-author Anders Levermann, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which led the study.

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

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

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

sidd
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 29, 2016, 08:44:13 PM
---
"The magnitude of sea-level rise is so enormous, it turns out it is unlikely that any engineering approach imaginable can mitigate it," said co-author Anders Levermann, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which led the study.

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

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

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

sidd

It is a cost issue, is it not?

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

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

I'm not advocating this idea, I'm just trying to avoid waving things aside because they seem to not make sense at first glance.  We've dialed in a large amount of climate change, even if we drop GHG emissions to zero well before 2050 we're still going to get hurt.  Are there some things we can do to limit that hurt?  Can we figure out how to pull GHGs back out of the atmosphere quickly and affordably?  Can we find affordable ways to "treat the symptoms"?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Laurent on March 29, 2016, 09:30:14 PM
I think we should not try to save what does exist because it is simply to late for that. At 400 ppm we know, we have to expect 40 to 50 meters of sea level rise. Can we stop emitting globally, well I have posted some solutions as links but lets imagine it is possible, realistically I would say we can limit if the international will is there, CO2 to 450 ppm of CO2 in 2050, other gazes would have to be limited also and absorbed (that mean being vegan for most of the world). We have to limit the size of cities also to their ecological foot print. Helping strongly solar organic even if it is less efficient. Building water dams along the rivers is not a good idea, we should build water storage on the sides not hindering the flow completely. To come back to sea level rise, once it is launched we won't stop it, nothing will, so we'd better hurry. It won't go in 50 years, but it will continue to melt even if we can bring CO2 and other gazes in suitable range (290 ppm of CO2). I would fix 10 meters as the limit, that mean everything below should be abandoned progressively, every year asses an other limit depending of the current situation.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on March 30, 2016, 05:52:51 AM
I think the Frieler paper is a gedanken, a thought experiment on the magnitude of sea level rise. They do not really explore the idea, merely outlined it.

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

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

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

More important, i think the smart people like Levermann are so much better employed in creating smart ice models than giant engineering projects.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Martin Gisser on March 30, 2016, 05:02:48 PM
"Carbon Recovery for Food Security" needs to be propagated very widely.

Regards,
Lewis
Wow! Serious stuff. Not the usuaal rocket scientist wet dreams!
Alas I'm coming a year late to this thread. (Have suggested similar things.)
Lewis C for chief biogeoengineer!
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 21, 2016, 12:43:03 AM
Studying geoengineering is now in the federal 2017 budget; which begins Oct 1, 2016:

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

Extract: "Budgetmakers in the U.S. Senate want the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the possibility of making Earth reflect more sunlight into space to fight global warming. Earth's reflectivity is known as its albedo, and the request to study "albedo modification" comes in the details of a proposed spending bill passed by the Senate appropriations committee to fund DOE, the Army Corps of Engineers, and related agencies for fiscal year 2017, which begins 1 October. The bill does not specify how much money should be spent on the research."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 27, 2016, 10:46:11 PM
The linked article indicates that we cannot count on geoengineering keep us below a 2C increases:

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

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

Now, with the carbon clock ticking, and new ambitious targets post-Paris, approaches that were once unthinkable fantasies increasingly underlie the very models that climate negotiators rely on, some researchers warn. Kevin Anderson of the UK’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research calls them “exotic Dr Strangelove options.” Many activists and scientists alike are wary that we’re learning to love the bomb."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 11, 2016, 09:52:45 PM
The linked (open access) reference suggests that it is practicable to limit global warming to between 1.5 and 2C by the use of Iron Salt Aerosols (ISA) geoengineering, with acceptable impacts on other Earth Systems:

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

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

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

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

The ISA method proposed integrates technical and economically feasible tools.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 25, 2016, 10:16:06 AM
The ACP now has a special issue devoted to GeoMIP:

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

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/special_issue376.html (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/special_issue376.html)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 27, 2016, 12:14:10 AM
The Verge has posted (see link) the first of a series of article on Climate Hacking.  My general impression is that no group of governments will implement global climate hacking before 2050; and by then Hansen's ice-climate feedback, ocean acidification; permafrost & forest degradation will be so advanced that the hacking will not be very effective and may well make matters worse (if not lead to war):

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

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

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

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

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

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

But others see geoengineering as a reckless attempt at playing God. They argue that scientists can’t possibly predict or control the consequences of an experiment conducted at the scale of a planet, and shouldn’t be allowed to make guinea pigs of us all."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 27, 2016, 06:11:33 AM
ASLR
Attended a lecture by Keith last year. At that time he was advocating a geoengineering project to slow warming by 50%. His claim was that this was very affordable, avoided the worst of the unintended consequences, and could be done clandestinely, avoiding long approvals by global governments.
Scary stuff, as bypassing approval also means bypassing checks and controls. If one group was to surreptitiously block enough solar radiation what would prevent another, or a third group, from unknowingly doing the same. Multiplying the negatives until the unintended consequences became magnified, inevitable, and it became impossible to source the blame or to halt the process(s).
Perhaps geoengineering is inevitable. If so I hope it's undertaken by a responsible entity that has somehow garnered the support of at least a large majority of the worlds governing bodies.
Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: timallard on September 01, 2016, 07:58:41 PM
Being naive I started a thread on damming Bering Strait here on ARS forums as a geo-technical coastal civil engineering project to create a sea-ice refuge there, the point was heat-transfer, that led to realizing a way to refreeze the bottom, that led to refreezing seabed methane flares as goals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a different strategy than most energy-regulation to fill the real need to stop early melt-out, late freeze-up in Bering Straits where it started.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 13, 2016, 05:40:19 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Atmosphere an Antacid to Relieve Climate Change".  I find it impossible to believe that decision makers won't opt for the implementation of some form of geoengineering by 2050 (probably with many ill side-effects).

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

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

A group of Harvard researchers led by David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy, just proposed a different solution in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. An aerosol of calcium carbonate would have a similar cooling effect as sulfur dioxide on the upper atmosphere and help protect the ozone layer as a bonus."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on December 13, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Atmosphere an Antacid to Relieve Climate Change".  I find it impossible to believe that decision makers won't opt for the implementation of some form of geoengineering by 2050 (probablt with many ill effects).

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

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

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


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


Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jonthed on December 29, 2016, 03:41:03 PM
I've only just seen this about the 'antacid for the atmosphere'. If this avoids the worst side effects of a sulphur based aerosol, then surely this is a great step forward.

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

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

Trying to make use of the higher latitudes albedo potential seems to be one of our best tools to try to control the energy imbalance. That window is closing. This geo-engineering might be viewed as a last resort. But I think it's already reached the point that we need to be pulling out our 'last resorts'.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: DrTskoul on December 29, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
Yay!  Global dimming will be amazing for plant life.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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/ (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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 (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 (https://eos.org/editors-vox/good-night-sunshine-geoengineering-solutions-to-climate-change?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz021017)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: bairgon 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 (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: gerontocrat 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?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Pragma 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 (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: DrTskoul 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 (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...
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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 (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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 (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on March 25, 2017, 04:48:27 AM
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/ (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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Shared Humanity 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: DrTskoul 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Cate 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 (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......"
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bruce Steele 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/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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 (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 (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Archimid 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/ (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd 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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: oren 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM 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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Archimid 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.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd 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).
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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.
 
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: greylib 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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 (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’."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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/ (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.”
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: ghoti 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/ (https://climatecrocks.com/2017/08/11/paul-hawken-drawdown-and-reversing-climate-change/)

But of course this isn't what people want to hear.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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/ (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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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/ (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 (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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. 
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4409/36497422266_9f245c40bc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XB9Q69)

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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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/ (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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 (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."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: numerobis 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." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

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?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: numerobis 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd 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
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: oren 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: jai mitchell 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.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 15, 2017, 05:47:59 PM
(I don't think there's any chance at all of implementing (a).  And I don't think (d) is a real issue.)

The main point of my post, is that if mankind does not have the will-power now to restrict emission with the global economy in reasonably good shape; what chance is there that mankind will have the will-power to implement partially effective & partially damaging geoengineering a few decades into the future when climate change and geopolitical tension will have likely damaged the world's capability to implement & sustain a global geoengineering effort.  Furthermore, even if/when some partially effective geoengineering effort is mounted, it might well trigger a war between those who benefit from the geoengineering and those who are damaged by the same effort.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 15, 2017, 06:19:13 PM
(I don't think there's any chance at all of implementing (a).  And I don't think (d) is a real issue.)

The main point of my post, is that if mankind does not have the will-power now to restrict emission with the global economy in reasonably good shape; what chance is there that mankind will have the will-power to implement partially effective & partially damaging geoengineering a few decades into the future when climate change and geopolitical tension will have likely damaged the world's capability to implement & sustain a global geoengineering effort.  Furthermore, even if/when some partially effective geoengineering effort is mounted, it might well trigger a war between those who benefit from the geoengineering and those who are damaged by the same effort.

As the level of pain increases so will the amount of resolve to do something about global warming.

We are seeing that happen right now.

Geoengineering "lifeboats" will be launched if the pain gets bad enough.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 15, 2017, 06:56:37 PM
As the level of pain increases so will the amount of resolve to do something about global warming.

We are seeing that happen right now.

Geoengineering "lifeboats" will be launched if the pain gets bad enough.

Use of your "lifeboats" sound suspiciously like "othering"; intended to leave those negatively impacted by such geoengineering efforts to fend for themselves.  If those "others" (say China) have the means to "shoot" at your "lifeboats", then everyone may wind-up being losers.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 15, 2017, 08:01:30 PM
As the level of pain increases so will the amount of resolve to do something about global warming.

We are seeing that happen right now.

Geoengineering "lifeboats" will be launched if the pain gets bad enough.

Use of your "lifeboats" sound suspiciously like "othering"; intended to leave those negatively impacted by such geoengineering efforts to fend for themselves.  If those "others" (say China) have the means to "shoot" at your "lifeboats", then everyone may wind-up being losers.

How would one country put up a sunscreen that would lower only that country's temperature?

How would one country dump ground up stone into the ocean to sequester carbon without lowering the carbon content of the ocean for everyone?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 15, 2017, 09:22:42 PM

How would one country put up a sunscreen that would lower only that country's temperature?

How would one country dump ground up stone into the ocean to sequester carbon without lowering the carbon content of the ocean for everyone?


Thank The FSM that we have such a powerful deliberative body as the United Nations to weld us into a strong, global government in times such as these.
Now that all of the major players have willingly sacrificed a tiny portion of their sovereignty for the greater good of all humanity, the way out of our predicament becomes clear.


Free trade between all signatories of the Paris Accord, as well as strong sanctions against any rogue nation that pulls out, or misses their target, will break the rogue nation's economy and thereby force compliance even by the most recalcitrant.


Forced to live without Chinese crew socks, Canadian Tar Sands goop, and new model BMW's for the oligarchy, the rogue nation will begin to feed on itself and the very act of self cannibalization will lower her carbon footprint.
When forced to eat locally grown blueberries as opposed to imported Kiwi Fruit, the unwashed masses will rise from their collective couches, storm the halls of power in their electric scooters, and, demanding the latest I-Phone models, will wrest the levers of government from their evil, Koch inspired overlords.


Ramen
Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 16, 2017, 01:37:14 AM
How would one country put up a sunscreen that would lower only that country's temperature?

How would one country dump ground up stone into the ocean to sequester carbon without lowering the carbon content of the ocean for everyone?

First, Cao et. al. (2017) present some of the most advanced thinking/modeling on 'sunscreens'; and they conclude that even using a cocktail of both SAI and CCT (see definitions in the abstract below), would still result in changes in precipitation patterns that would result in some countries being subjected to increased drought impacts and some countries being subjected to increased flood impacts.  Thus even if one country managed to use geoengineering to keep themselves in a Goldilocks situation; other countries would be negatively impacted.

Long Cao, Lei Duan, Govindasamy Bala & Ken Caldeira (2017), "Simultaneous stabilization of global temperature and precipitation through cocktail geoengineering", Geophysical Research Letters. DOI: 10.1002/2017GL074281

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074281/abstract;jsessionid=CD4EEF992F073831F2A191EFA5491888.f03t02 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074281/abstract;jsessionid=CD4EEF992F073831F2A191EFA5491888.f03t02)

Abstract: "Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a backup plan to offset some aspects of anthropogenic climate change if timely CO2 emission reductions fail to materialize. Modeling studies have shown that there are trade-offs between changes in temperature and hydrological cycle in response to solar geoengineering. Here we investigate the possibility of stabilizing both global mean temperature and precipitation simultaneously by combining two geoengineering approaches: stratospheric sulfate aerosol increase (SAI) that deflects sunlight to space and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) that enables more longwave radiation to escape to space. Using the slab ocean configuration of National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Earth System Model, we simulate SAI by uniformly adding sulfate aerosol in the upper stratosphere and CCT by uniformly increasing cirrus cloud ice particle falling speed. Under an idealized warming scenario of abrupt quadrupling of atmospheric CO2, we show that by combining appropriate amounts of SAI and CCT geoengineering, global mean (or land mean) temperature and precipitation can be restored simultaneously to preindustrial levels. However, compared to SAI, cocktail geoengineering by mixing SAI and CCT does not markedly improve the overall similarity between geoengineered climate and preindustrial climate on regional scales. Some optimal spatially nonuniform mixture of SAI with CCT might have the potential to better mitigate climate change at both the global and regional scales."

Plain Language Summary: "Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide cause increase in both global temperatures and precipitation. Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a means to counteract this climate change by deliberately deflecting more sunlight from the Earth's climate system. Numerous climate modeling studies have shown that proposed solar geoengineering schemes, such as injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, can cool climate, but the amount of precipitation change per degree of temperature change is greater than that for CO2, meaning that such proposals cannot simultaneously globally restore both average temperatures and average precipitation. It has also been suggested that the Earth could be cooled by thinning cirrus clouds, but the amount of precipitation change per degree of temperature change for this method is less than that for CO2. Our climate modeling study shows, for the first time, that a cocktail of these two approaches would decrease precipitation and temperature in the same ratios as they are increased by CO2, which would allow simultaneous recovery of preindustrial temperature and precipitation in a high CO2 world at global scale. We show that although the average temperatures and precipitation can be recovered at global scale, substantial differences between the geoengineered and natural climates persist at regional scale."

See also: "Could 'cocktail geoengineering' save the climate?"

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-cocktail-geoengineering-climate.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-07-cocktail-geoengineering-climate.html)

Extract: "The team—which includes Carnegie's Ken Caldeira, Long Cao and Lei Duan of Zhejiang University, and Govindasamy Bala of the Indian Institute of Science—used models to simulate what would happen if sunlight were scattered by particles at the same time as the cirrus clouds were thinned. They wanted to understand how effective this combined set of tools would be at reversing climate change, both globally and regionally.

The good news is that their simulations showed that if both methods are deployed in concert, it would decrease warming to pre-industrial levels, as desired, and on a global level rainfall would also stay at pre-industrial levels. But the bad news is that while global average climate was largely restored, substantial differences remained locally, with some areas getting much wetter and other areas getting much drier."

Second, if putting ground-up stones into the ocean is such a cost effective solution that one country would volunteer to do it for the good of the whole world; then why doesn't that country implement that form of geoengineering right now?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd on August 16, 2017, 04:46:14 AM
Thank The FSM that we have such a powerful deliberative body as the United Nations to weld us into a strong, global government in times such as these.
Now that all of the major players have willingly sacrificed a tiny portion of their sovereignty for the greater good of all humanity, the way out of our predicament becomes clear.

Free trade between all signatories of the Paris Accord, as well as strong sanctions against any rogue nation that pulls out, or misses their target, will break the rogue nation's economy and thereby force compliance even by the most recalcitrant.

The United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom have veto powers over any substantive UN Security Council Resolution, which would include sanctions. So the UN will be unable to sanction a climate-denying US as the US will simply use its veto. Such as act could also be treated as an act of war, and the US has by far the biggest military in the world.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on August 16, 2017, 04:51:24 AM
How much would Caldeira, Cao et al be willing to bet that monsoons don't fail ? Their calculations are not finegrained enough to predict monsoon effects.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd on August 16, 2017, 04:59:09 AM
Given the short period that most of the proposed geo-engineering aerosol particles will stay in the atmosphere, there will most probably be proposals for short-duration/large-scale tests. Each time extending the period of the test to see the effects. Any bad effects, the test stops and the particles in the atmosphere are flushed out within a few weeks.

Add promises of food aid etc. and it does look like a viable option. Not one I actually want to see, but given the political realities quite likely at some point.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 16, 2017, 05:23:27 AM
Thank The FSM that we have such a powerful deliberative body as the United Nations to weld us into a strong, global government in times such as these.
Now that all of the major players have willingly sacrificed a tiny portion of their sovereignty for the greater good of all humanity, the way out of our predicament becomes clear.

Free trade between all signatories of the Paris Accord, as well as strong sanctions against any rogue nation that pulls out, or misses their target, will break the rogue nation's economy and thereby force compliance even by the most recalcitrant.

The United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom have veto powers over any substantive UN Security Council Resolution, which would include sanctions. So the UN will be unable to sanction a climate-denying US as the US will simply use its veto. Such as act could also be treated as an act of war, and the US has by far the biggest military in the world.


Sorry, sarcasm had been my intent, but not well expressed.


I'll try to be less opaque in the future
Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd on August 16, 2017, 09:01:33 AM
Being British I should have spotted that, too much time in Canada perhaps?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 16, 2017, 05:06:21 PM
Given the short period that most of the proposed geo-engineering aerosol particles will stay in the atmosphere, there will most probably be proposals for short-duration/large-scale tests. Each time extending the period of the test to see the effects. Any bad effects, the test stops and the particles in the atmosphere are flushed out within a few weeks.

Add promises of food aid etc. and it does look like a viable option. Not one I actually want to see, but given the political realities quite likely at some point.

While I concur with you that: (a) decision makers will find it irresistible to deploy some limited form of solar geoengineering; and (b) that currently we are most likely too far from any major tipping point for a limited deployment of solar geoengineering to do irreversible damage to the climate state.  That said, in the coming decades we will move from a CO₂-eq of over 521 ppm to something closure to the 680 ppm experience during the last equable climate, and as the two following reposts indicate, it is conceivable that the perturbation from a limited solar engineering deployment (say circa 2045 to 2050) might flip the NH atmosphere into an equable pattern:

First repost:
"I note that the first attached image shows how the atmosphere can abruptly bifurcate from our current saddle-node into an equable atmospheric pattern; while the following reference (and the associated second attached image) indicate that such a bifurcation could occur as soon as the CO2-equiv concentration reaches about 680ppm.  I note that our current CO2-equiv well exceeds 520ppm.  Furthermore, if Hansen's ice-climate feedback due to the possible collapse of the WAIS were to occur in the next few decades then we might bifurcate into an equable climate pattern sooner rather than later (which would be stupid for us to allow to happen).

Jagniecki,Elliot A. et al. (2015), "Eocene atmospheric CO2from the nahcolite proxy", Geology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1)


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1 (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1)

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf (http://ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf)

Edit: For those who do not know, it is easier to flip the northern hemisphere into an equable pattern (than the southern hemisphere), which is exactly what a collapse of the WAIS would do, due to the bipolar seesaw effect."

Second repost:
"The linked reference demonstrates for systems that can change abruptly, like Earth's climate (see the first attached image), why it is a bad idea for denialists to point at the large-noise in Earth's climate record to feel comfortable in the Holocene saddle-node that we have been resting in, as the second attached image shows that these large-noise fluctuations can kick us out of our comfortable saddle-node sooner, rather than later.

Corentin Herbert, and Freddy Bouchet (2017), "Predictability of escape for a stochastic saddle-node bifurcation: when rare events are typical", arXiv:1703.01450v1

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01450.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01450.pdf)

Abstract: "Transitions between multiple stable states of nonlinear systems are ubiquitous in physics, chemistry, and beyond. Two types of behaviors are usually seen as mutually exclusive: unpredictable noise-induced transitions and predictable bifurcations of the underlying vector field. Here, we report a new situation, corresponding to a fluctuating system approaching a bifurcation, where both effects collaborate. We show that the problem can be reduced to a single control parameter governing the competition between deterministic and stochastic effects. Two asymptotic regimes are identified: when the control parameter is small (e.g. small noise), deviations from the deterministic case are well described by the Freidlin-Wentzell theory. In particular, escapes over the potential barrier are very rare events. When the parameter is large (e.g. large noise), such events become typical. Unlike pure noise-induced transitions, the distribution of the escape time is peaked around a value which is asymptotically predicted by an adiabatic approximation. We show that the two regimes are characterized by qualitatively different reacting trajectories, with algebraic and exponential divergence, respectively."

Extract: "These results open new prospects for the analysis of time series exhibiting abrupt transitions such as those encountered in climate dynamics.""
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd on August 16, 2017, 08:53:13 PM
Is there any known process for the large scale reduction of cloud formation? If this could be done during the Arctic fall/winter it would allow for a greater escape of heat back out to space. Then aerosols and cloud brightening in the Arctic summer (a greater amount than in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere) to reduce incoming radiation (with light-coloured particles that would not reduce albedo when they fall out of the atmosphere). This would help stabilize the Arctic/Rest of Northern Hemisphere temperature gradient.

The "too clever for their own good" geo-engineers may have this kind of thought process. Once you start down the rabbit hole .....

Reminds me of my late brother-in-law's 20+ medications, half of which were to treat the side-effects of the other half.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 17, 2017, 04:20:41 PM
Al Gore feels that big money has hacked democracy, and to effectively combat climate change democracy first needs to be 'unhacked' (or he is suggesting that our socio-economic institutions need to be geoengineered as a jerry-rigged 'solution' to counter-act mankind's inability to overcome its addiction to monopoly-extraction of power/resource without due-process/mindfulness) :

Title: "Al Gore Q&A and video interview: Fixing democracy to combat climate change"

https://theconversation.com/al-gore-qanda-and-video-interview-fixing-democracy-to-combat-climate-change-82426

Extract: "Well, big money has hacked our democracy even before Putin did. And it accompanied the transition from the printing press to television, when all of a sudden candidates – especially in the US – were made to feel they have to spend all their time begging rich people and special interests for money so they can buy more TV ads and their opponents.

And that’s really given an enormous unhealthy and toxic degree of influence to lobbyists and special interests. Now just as television replaced the printing press, internet-based media are beginning to displace television and once again open up the doorways to the public forum for individuals who can use knowledge and the best available evidence.

If you believe in democracy as I do and if you believe in harvesting the wisdom of crowds, then the interaction of free people exchanging the best available evidence of what’s more likely to be true than not will once again push us toward a government of by and for the people."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 17, 2017, 04:27:02 PM
Al Gore feels that big money has hacked democracy, and to effectively combat climate change democracy first needs to be 'unhacked'

Are you suggesting we pause the growth of RE and EVs until we reform our government?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 17, 2017, 04:38:39 PM
Al Gore feels that big money has hacked democracy, and to effectively combat climate change democracy first needs to be 'unhacked'

Are you suggesting we pause the growth of RE and EVs until we reform our government?

No.  But I am suggesting that the growth of RE and EVs will be ineffective at preventing a climate change related socio-economic collapse this century; if for no other reason than because technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.

Edit: If the people on the 'trunk' of the first attached image of an 'elephant graph' are the exemplar of technology use in the world, then the people on the rest of the 'elephant graph' represent a huge appetite for today's technology (whose use requires consumption of resources); and if you create new technology then the appetite of the people on the entire 'elephant graph' increases.

Edit 2: The second attached image shows the change in the date of 'overshoot day' with time.  Which emphasizes that the Earth Systems are being overtaxed not only by GHG emissions but by many, many technological dis-utilities.

Edit 3: While certainly sustainable technology can make a contribution, effectively combating climate change requires modifications to our crony (monopolistic) governmental/economic systems.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 17, 2017, 05:33:04 PM
No.  But I am suggesting that the growth of RE and EVs will be ineffective at preventing a climate change related socio-economic collapse this century; if for no other reason than because technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.

We have seen a flattening of electricity usage.  Efficiency is allowing us to satisfy our desires while not using more electricity. 

EVs may bring a small increase in miles driven due to lower per-mile costs.  But if we keep increasing our percentage of renewable generation we should still see a noticeable drop in CO2 as we use far less petroleum.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 17, 2017, 05:37:23 PM
”…technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.”


But technological fixes can also reduce a person’s (or a community’s) carbon footprint, such as solar ovens replacing wood or dung fires; or small solar panels powering lights in place of kerosene lanterns.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 17, 2017, 05:37:44 PM
No.  But I am suggesting that the growth of RE and EVs will be ineffective at preventing a climate change related socio-economic collapse this century; if for no other reason than because technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.

We have seen a flattening of electricity usage.  Efficiency is allowing us to satisfy our desires while not using more electricity. 

EVs may bring a small increase in miles driven due to lower per-mile costs.  But if we keep increasing our percentage of renewable generation we should still see a noticeable drop in CO2 as we use far less petroleum.


WHEN?
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 17, 2017, 05:41:44 PM
”…technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.”


But technological fixes can also reduce a person’s (or a community’s) carbon footprint, such as solar ovens replacing wood or dung fires; or small solar panels powering lights in place of kerosene lanterns.


I'm sorry, but I don't see dung fires or kerosene lanterns contributing significantly to the problems we face.


Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 17, 2017, 05:42:24 PM
No.  But I am suggesting that the growth of RE and EVs will be ineffective at preventing a climate change related socio-economic collapse this century; if for no other reason than because technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.

We have seen a flattening of electricity usage.  Efficiency is allowing us to satisfy our desires while not using more electricity. 

EVs may bring a small increase in miles driven due to lower per-mile costs.  But if we keep increasing our percentage of renewable generation we should still see a noticeable drop in CO2 as we use far less petroleum.
Attached is BP's statistics on worldwide energy consumption by source.  Some key Earth Systems may reach tipping points before 2050 and this graph seems (to me at least) to indicate that simple technological fixes (including physical geoengineering) will not sufficiently address our collective (worldwide) overshoot problem by that time to prevent a worldwide socio-economic collapse by 2060.

Edit, w.r.t. abrupt tipping points for key Earth Systems, see the linked article entitled: "Tipping points are real: Gradual changes in carbon dioxide levels can induce abrupt climate changes".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170623100414.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170623100414.htm)

Extract: "According to their findings, the increased CO2 intensifies the trade winds over Central America, as the eastern Pacific is warmed more than the western Atlantic. This is turn produces increased moisture transport from the Atlantic, and with it, an increase in the salinity and density of the surface water. Finally, these changes lead to an abrupt amplification of the large-scale overturning circulation in the Atlantic. "Our simulations indicate that even small changes in the CO2 concentration suffice to change the circulation pattern, which can end in sudden temperature increases," says Zhang.

As climate researcher Gerrit Lohmann explains, "We can't say for certain whether rising CO2 levels will produce similar effects in the future, because the framework conditions today differ from those in a glacial period. That being said, we've now confirmed that there have definitely been abrupt climate changes in the Earth's past that were the result of continually rising CO2 concentrations.""

See also:
Xu Zhang, Gregor Knorr, Gerrit Lohmann, Stephen Barker. Abrupt North Atlantic circulation changes in response to gradual CO2 forcing in a glacial climate state. Nature Geoscience, 2017; DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2974

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 17, 2017, 06:56:44 PM
ASLR


Your first graph makes it appear as though increased use of renewables has had absolutely no effect on the use of coal, oil, or any of the other fuel options.
Is it possible that this will continue into the future, and that as renewables increase their share of the pie, the pie of greenhouse generating fuels simply expands, regardless of the state of the renewables floating above it?
Could renewables simply cut the cost of coal, oil and gas, until they again offer the least expensive means of generating and distributing electricity?


Free wind or solar power isn't free if Billion$ are required to modernize the grid, install and maintain battery backup, or renew solar farms after a severe hail storm. Perhaps regions other than Northern Canada would benefit from very inexpensive diesel or LNG, if it saved the community from the expenses and losses inherent in running hot cables for very long distances?


I'm well aware that this conflicts with many cherished beliefs, but it was once believed that nuclear power would be so cheap that metering would be a waste of resources. Are we now claiming that solar and wind will be so cheap that the alternatives will simply be blown out of the field?


Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 17, 2017, 07:00:30 PM
No.  But I am suggesting that the growth of RE and EVs will be ineffective at preventing a climate change related socio-economic collapse this century; if for no other reason than because technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.

We have seen a flattening of electricity usage.  Efficiency is allowing us to satisfy our desires while not using more electricity. 

EVs may bring a small increase in miles driven due to lower per-mile costs.  But if we keep increasing our percentage of renewable generation we should still see a noticeable drop in CO2 as we use far less petroleum.


WHEN?

When?  As the numbers of EVs, electric buses and electric trucks increases a bit more. 

Tesla is going from < 100,000 EVs per year to 500,000 EVs per year right now.  China is starting to pump out EVs and will almost certainly produce more per year than Tesla.  Nissan is bringing out a new Leaf that is likely to sell in much higher rates than their first, limited range Leaf.

I can't give you the month when we'll see a drop in petroleum use but I won't be surprised to see it happen within the next five years.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 17, 2017, 07:01:26 PM
Could renewables simply cut the cost of coal, oil and gas, until they again offer the least expensive means of generating and distributing electricity?

No.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 17, 2017, 07:04:13 PM
his graph seems (to me at least) to indicate that simple technological fixes (including physical geoengineering) will not sufficiently address our collective (worldwide) overshoot problem by that time to prevent a worldwide socio-economic collapse by 2060

Please pay attention to the technological shift that is now firmly underway.

Do not mislead yourself by putting a ruler on the line of history and drawing the future as an extension of the past.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: numerobis on August 17, 2017, 07:29:20 PM
it was once believed that nuclear power would be so cheap that metering would be a waste of resources

Part of the issue is that meters got cheaper.

But the bigger issue is that while it is indeed pretty cheap to fuel a nuclear power plant, construction, maintenance, and disposal are fantastically expensive and wipe out all the gains and end up expensive despite cheap fuel. What we're seeing with wind and solar is that construction, maintenance and disposal are more expensive than fossil fuels but the cost has come down so much that now the total cost is often below that of a fossil fuel plant.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 17, 2017, 07:32:32 PM
What we're seeing with wind and solar is that construction, maintenance and disposal are more expensive than fossil fuels but the cost has come down so much that now the total cost is often below that of a fossil fuel plant.

In general, you can't build any fossil fuel plant and produce electricity as inexpensively as using wind turbines.  Solar panels are right at the verge of being the second cheapest new generation, starting to push CCNG into third place. 
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd on August 17, 2017, 07:54:39 PM
EVs may bring a small increase in miles driven due to lower per-mile costs.  But if we keep increasing our percentage of renewable generation we should still see a noticeable drop in CO2 as we use far less petroleum.

We may see a drop in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but this will only slow the rise in CO2 atmospheric concentrations. We would need to cut emissions by 70%+ to stabilize atmospheric concentrations, let alone reduce them. Also, other greenhouse gases (methane, N2O and F-gases) will continue to increase. We also have evidence from the latest El Nino that significant carbon sinks, such as the Amazon, can become sources without that much more of a temperature change.

We already left the safe zone, whether that is 350ppm (Hansen) or 450ppm (UN IPCC) CO2e and urgently need to get back within it. At the current rate CO2e concentrations are going up by 3.5ppm per year, and are already at 520/600+ depending on the warming period used for methane. The higher number is more relevant for the warming during the next couple of decades.

A reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will require 70%+ cuts in emissions, and/or technologies to suck the CO2 out of the air. An offsetting factor will be any problems with natural sources/sinks, including outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. Reductions in SO2 from coal burning will also have to be offset, as any reductions will create a net warming. Then, in addition we will need to reduce methane, N20 and F-gases.

This is a monumental task, which requires large-scale government intervention through such things as high carbon taxes, cutting all fossil-fuel subsidies, funding of alternatives (Tesla would not exist without government funding), and infrastructure changes. Without that we probably have 20 years at best before massive geo-engineering becomes an imperative rather than an option.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 17, 2017, 08:20:19 PM
his graph seems (to me at least) to indicate that simple technological fixes (including physical geoengineering) will not sufficiently address our collective (worldwide) overshoot problem by that time to prevent a worldwide socio-economic collapse by 2060

Please pay attention to the technological shift that is now firmly underway.

Do not mislead yourself by putting a ruler on the line of history and drawing the future as an extension of the past.


Ouch!
I'm not convinced that we have until 2060, nor that the technological shift that is now underway is enough to save society from collapse.


If nukes start flying everything is off the table, so we have to start with the belief that those in power, worldwide, are sane. - this belief is sometimes difficult to maintain -


Assuming they can keep their collective fingers off the buttons, we then need to believe that at least the worlds largest nations can cooperate together in the fight against Global Warming. - recent developments in Washington make this an increasingly unlikely proposition -


Societies in the past have collapsed when outside forces or internal turmoil simply tore a nation apart. Do we want the recent events in Ukraine, the bloodbath in France, or Americas own civil war as examples. In today's interconnected world, with last minute inventorying, the sudden loss of any of the major players to internal conflict could bring down the whole house of cards.


We haven't even considered the floods of refugees, the floods that Hansen wrote of, or the floods of litigation that sunken cities will create. These will all tear at the very fabric of society.


Will India wait until the 50's have past to begin machine gunning drowning Bangladeshis? Will our own BOE await the 60's? A good storm next year could do to Miami what Katrina did for New Orleans, will Trump's response pull the country together, or will Pence's response be an improvement?


Evs are good, but will they become ubiquitous before road maintenance ends.
Solar and windfarms are good, but will the grid still be maintained when the last smoke belching coal plant is mothballed?
Gigafactories spewing out high tech batteries are wonderful, but will trade with China allow lithium into our market?


I don't know the answer to these questions, and neither does anyone else. I do know that if any of these scenarios, or a myriad of others play out, it could be over well before the 2060 baby seizes old 2059's scythe.


Tell the children to sleep peacefully.
Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 17, 2017, 08:23:39 PM
”…technological 'fixes' just wet people's appetite for more technology and more consumption.”


But technological fixes can also reduce a person’s (or a community’s) carbon footprint, such as solar ovens replacing wood or dung fires; or small solar panels powering lights in place of kerosene lanterns.


I'm sorry, but I don't see dung fires or kerosene lanterns contributing significantly to the problems we face.


Terry


The desire of the large third world population to improve their standard of living is a common theme, with the implication that this will greatly increase the carbon footprint of that segment of the population.  I was just pointing out that third world's appetite for technological growth can occur in a way that actually lessens their emissions.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on August 17, 2017, 08:29:20 PM

The desire of the large third world population to improve their standard of living is a common theme, with the implication that this will greatly increase the carbon footprint of that segment of the population.  I was just pointing out that third world's appetite for technological growth can occur in a way that actually lessens their emissions.


Understood
I was being a bit of an ass.


Apologies
Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 17, 2017, 08:59:39 PM
The desire of the large third world population to improve their standard of living is a common theme, with the implication that this will greatly increase the carbon footprint of that segment of the population.

Why do you assume the developing world will chose a high carbon footprint when a low carbon footprint path is cheaper?

BTW, kero is a very inefficient way to produce light so the carbon footprint of kero light is much higher than that of coal or NG electricity.  Plus kero creates a lot of black carbon.
--

Would the economics of RE/EV absolutely get us to ~zero carbon emissions from energy and transportation by 2050?  I don't know.  Do we have until 2050?  I don't know.

What I do see that is very probable is an abandonment of fossil fuels by 2050 based on economics alone.

Am I saying that governmental action wouldn't drive the process faster?  Of course not.

I'm simply trying to bring a little reality to the hair on fire crowd.

CO2 emissions from agriculture, concrete and other sources are not covered in my analysis.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 17, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
The desire of the large third world population to improve their standard of living is a common theme, with the implication that this will greatly increase the carbon footprint of that segment of the population.

Why do you assume the developing world will chose a high carbon footprint when a low carbon footprint path is cheaper?

<snip>

Of course I don't assume that.  But increasing carbon emissions from a modernized third world is a common rejoinder around these parts. ;)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 17, 2017, 11:23:25 PM
I'm simply trying to bring a little reality to the hair on fire crowd.

CO2 emissions from agriculture, concrete and other sources are not covered in my analysis.

I would like to think that all parties in this discussion are being honest in their points of view; however, it would appear that the fundamental question is what is reality (as in what is the truth and what is 'fake news').  This fundamental question/difference between the 'hair on fire crowd' and the 'Pollyanna crowd' has been hashed back and forth in the "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough" thread. Nevertheless, in addition to your analysis not including "... CO2 emissions from agriculture, concrete and other sources ..."; I strongly suspect that your analysis does not include the following:
- AR5 carbon budgets are based on TCR (transient climate response) rather than on ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity); but the industrial era began circa 1750 which is 300 years before 2050 (meaning that it is Pollyanna nonsense to be using TCR).
- ECS is a function of global temperature and the longer that we wait (I have been waiting since Kyoto) to stop global warming more and more positive feedback mechanisms kick in and the more natural emissions occur that your analysis does not consider.
- The global increase in kleptocratic governance is slowing the effort to resist climate change, and many governments are already under-reporting their GHG emissions w.r.t. Paris commitments.

I could go on and on but I suspect that my 'hair on fire' issues may just be taken as 'climate porn'.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 18, 2017, 01:05:18 AM
ASLR,
You just made me lose a bet with myself.
I thought for sure you would quickly post the results of a study showing that modernization of the Third World would cause increased carbon emissions. ;D

But I guess we've gone off topic long enough.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 18, 2017, 01:34:56 AM
ASLR,
You just made me lose a bet with myself.
I thought for sure you would quickly post the results of a study showing that modernization of the Third World would cause increased carbon emissions. ;D

But I guess we've gone off topic long enough.

Sigmetnow,

I am curious to see whether you will become an ASIF Empress when you reach 10,000 posts. Also, I very much appreciate your various posts to date.  I certainly wish the people living in the Third World all the best; but I am concerned that by underestimating our growing mutual climate risks that we are not doing them any favors  :-\

All the best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 18, 2017, 05:14:35 PM
The linked article entitled: "Investigating the Enigma of Clouds and Climate Change", indicates that net positive cloud feedback may well be at the higher end of the CMIP5 assumed range; and that we need to carefully consider international ethics before we consider geoengineering measures like cloud brightening:

http://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change (http://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change)

Extract: "In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Marvel discusses what is known about the behavior of clouds in a warming world (they are migrating more toward the poles), explains why strict controls need to be imposed on geoengineering experiments with clouds …
..
e360: What are the consequences of this poleward and upward motion of clouds?

Marvel: Both of them give rise to what I think is the most confusing part of climate jargon. We call it a positive feedback, and you think “positive feedback” — that sounds great. I like getting positive feedback. But when climate scientists talk about a positive feedback, we mean some process that changes in response to warming, that accelerates that warming. So both of those changes are what we would call a positive feedback, meaning it enhances the warming.

Marvel: With geoengineering, I’m always very concerned because if I want to do an experiment on human subjects, as a university researcher, I have to go in front of a review board and convince them that all of my human subjects have given informed consent to participate in this experiment. And with a lot of geo-engineering experiments, I worry about how that consent is going to be obtained.  There are starting to be organizations thinking about this; there’s something called the Climate Geoengineering Governance Project, that’s starting to think about how would we design an international law regime to actually regulate this. And I think that’s something worth thinking about.

Marvel: People ask me, “Aren’t you just depressed all the time? How do you keep going in the face of this?” We’re all going to die. You know, there’s not a lot of good news there. But we all manage to find happiness and fun in our lives anyway. And I do have hope, I do think that we are an amazing species; and we do a lot of terrible things, but we also do a lot of very good things. I do have hope in human ingenuity."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 18, 2017, 09:37:41 PM

Sigmetnow,

I am curious to see whether you will become an ASIF Empress when you reach 10,000 posts. Also, I very much appreciate your various posts to date. 
<snip>

All the best,
ASLR

I'm holding out for Galactic President.  ;D
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 19, 2017, 07:22:29 PM
As just one of many many examples of what could go wrong with the implementation of solar geoengineering circa 2040, the first linked article discusses how the "8.2 ka event" (see below) had a major impact on weather around the world including in California; and if a synergistic series of collapses of key marine glaciers in both Greenland and West Antarctica were to occur in the say timeframe; then the interaction between the geoengineering and the ice-climate feedback mechanism would likely produce extreme weather around the world for decades:

Title: "Wet and stormy weather lashed California coast... 8,200 years ago".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170620093206.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170620093206.htm)

Extract: "The Golden State's 150-year stretch of unusually wet weather appears to have been marked by particularly intense winter storms and coincides with a climate anomaly in Greenland ice cores first detected in 1997. Before this "8.2 ka event" was discovered scientists thought the world's climate had been unusually stable during the Holocene, the geological epoch that covers the last 11,700 years of Earth's history.

Since then researchers have associated the distinctive, 3.3-degree Celsius temperature dip in the Greenland ice cores with a catastrophic event: The drainage of two giant glacial lakes (Lake Ojibway and Lake Agassiz) located in northeastern North America caused by the collapse of massive ice sheet that covered much of the continent during the last ice age. In short order, the two lakes dumped enough melt water into the North Atlantic to disrupt the world's oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns and raise the sea level by somewhere between two to 10 feet. The tremendous freshwater flood has been associated with an extended cold snap in Europe, increased drought in Africa, weakened monsoons in Asia and strengthened monsoons in South America.


Climatologists are particularly interested in this prehistoric event because it can provide insight into what would happen if global warming reaches a point where glaciers in Greenland and other parts of the globe melt rapidly enough to dump large amounts of fresh water into the ocean. In 2003, for example, the Office of Net Assessment at the U.S. Department of Defense produced a study of prospective climate change specifically based on this event."

Also see:

Jessica L. Oster, Warren D. Sharp, Aaron K. Covey, Jansen Gibson, Bruce Rogers, Hari Mix. Climate response to the 8.2 ka event in coastal California. Scientific Reports, 2017; 7 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-04215-5

&

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/apr/14/new-study-shows-worrisome-signs-for-greenland-ice (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/apr/14/new-study-shows-worrisome-signs-for-greenland-ice)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 23, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
While I certainly hope that policy makers manage to implement the proposed negative emissions scheme by stopping deforestation and forest degradation; alternatively this information could be used in a risk assessment to see how much damage would be done if such deforestation and forest degradation were to continue and/or accelerate:

R. A. Houghton & A. A. Nassikas (21 August 2017), "Negative Emissions from Stopping Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Globally", Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13876

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13876/abstract?utm_content=bufferd39be&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13876/abstract?utm_content=bufferd39be&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Abstract: "Forest growth provides negative emissions of carbon that could help keep the earth's surface temperature from exceeding 2°C, but the global potential is uncertain. Here we use land-use information from the FAO and a bookkeeping model to calculate the potential negative emissions that would result from allowing secondary forests to recover. We find the current gross carbon sink in forests recovering from harvests and abandoned agriculture to be -4.4 PgC yr−1, globally. The sink represents the potential for negative emissions if positive emissions from deforestation and wood harvest were eliminated. However, the sink is largely offset by emissions from wood products built up over the last century. Accounting for these committed emissions, we estimate that stopping deforestation and allowing secondary forests to grow would yield cumulative negative emissions between 2016 and 2100 of about 120 PgC, globally. Extending the lifetimes of wood products could potentially remove another 10 PgC from the atmosphere, for a total of approximately 130 PgC, or about 13 years of fossil fuel use at today's rate. As an upper limit, the estimate is conservative. It is based largely on past and current practices. But if greater negative emissions are to be realized, they will require an expansion of forest area, greater efficiencies in converting harvested wood to long-lasting products and sources of energy, and novel approaches for sequestering carbon in soils. That is, they will require current management practices to change."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 05, 2017, 10:53:13 PM
Copying in a comment in another thread...

Efficient Air-Conditioning Beams Heat Into Space
By Prachi Patel
Posted 5 Sep 2017 | 14:00 GMT
Radiative system could send heat from AC condensers out into space, reducing energy needed to cool buildings Photo: Aaswath Raman

Air-conditioners work hard in hot weather, hogging energy. With a warming climate and more people across the world cranking up ACs, more efficient cooling systems are going to become critical to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

 Stanford researchers have developed a cooling system that could cut the energy used by conventional building air-conditioning systems by over 20 percent in the middle of summer.

 Conventional air-conditioners use a refrigerant to absorb heat from inside a house and release it outdoors. Fans blow air over condenser coils to vent heat into the air, which takes a lot of energy. “The efficiency of cooling systems depends on air temperature,” says Aaswath Raman, an applied physicist at Stanford. “If the air is warmer then the system works harder and uses more electricity to reject that heat into the environment.”

 The Stanford team’s passive cooling system chills water by a few degrees with the help of radiative panels that absorb heat and beam it directly into outerspace. This requires minimal electricity and no water evaporation, saving both energy and water. The researchers want to use these fluid-cooling panels to cool off AC condensers.

 They first reported their passive radiative cooling idea in 2014. In the new work reported in Nature Energy, they’ve taken the next step with a practical system that chills water. They’ve also established a startup, SkyCool Systems, to commercialize the technology.

Radiative cooling relies on the fact that most objects release heat. “The sun heats up objects during the day, and at night the Earth’s surface or building roofs all radiate that back to the sky,” Raman says. Problem is, radiative cooling doesn’t work during the day while the sun’s beating down on the Earth, or when the ambient air temperature is very high.

So Raman and electrical engineering professor Shanhui Fan made panels containing layers of silicon dioxide and hafnium oxide on top of a thin layer of silver. These radiate in a unique way: They send heat directly into space, bypassing the Earth’s atmosphere. The panels do this by emitting heat at infrared wavelengths between 8 and 13 micrometers. To these waves, the Earth’s atmosphere is transparent. What’s more, the panels reflect nearly all the sunlight falling on them."

http://skycoolsystems.com/ (http://skycoolsystems.com/)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 05, 2017, 10:54:34 PM
Copying in my reply...

made panels containing layers of silicon dioxide and hafnium oxide on top of a thin layer of silver. These radiate in a unique way: They send heat directly into space, bypassing the Earth’s atmosphere. The panels do this by emitting heat at infrared wavelengths between 8 and 13 micrometers. To these waves, the Earth’s atmosphere is transparent. What’s more, the panels reflect nearly all the sunlight falling on them

OK, this is interesting.  If the panels are cheap enough to make then we might be able to make some building roofs with them.  Take some cheap wind and solar and reject some extra energy back outside our atmosphere (cheap wind at night).  In addition to creating some very efficient albedo when the Sun is striking them.

Could be a geoengineering solution.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: ghoti on September 06, 2017, 08:35:55 PM
These systems require clear skies and low humidity otherwise they can't radiate to the sky. Most conventional A/C is needed under hot humid conditions. Smoggy skies likely also block radiation to the sky.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Archimid on September 15, 2017, 05:27:21 PM
Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1)

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full)

If it were to become apparent that dangerous changes in global climate were inevitable, despite greenhouse gas controls, active methods to cool the Earth on an emergency basis might be desirable. The concept considered here is to block 1.8% of the solar flux with a space sunshade orbited near the inner Lagrange point (L1), in-line between the Earth and sun. Following the work of J. Early [Early, JT (1989) J Br Interplanet Soc 42:567–569], transparent material would be used to deflect the sunlight, rather than to absorb it, to minimize the shift in balance out from L1 caused by radiation pressure. Three advances aimed at practical implementation are presented. First is an optical design for a very thin refractive screen with low reflectivity, leading to a total sunshade mass of ≈20 million tons. Second is a concept aimed at reducing transportation cost to $50/kg by using electromagnetic acceleration to escape Earth's gravity, followed by ion propulsion. Third is an implementation of the sunshade as a cloud of many spacecraft, autonomously stabilized by modulating solar radiation pressure. These meter-sized “flyers” would be assembled completely before launch, avoiding any need for construction or unfolding in space. They would weigh a gram each, be launched in stacks of 800,000, and remain for a projected lifetime of 50 years within a 100,000-km-long cloud. The concept builds on existing technologies. It seems feasible that it could be developed and deployed in ≈25 years at a cost of a few trillion dollars, <0.5% of world gross domestic product (GDP) over that time.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 15, 2017, 06:47:37 PM
Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1

This, to me, sounds like something that might be able to keep us from cooking while we re-sequester carbon.  We've waited so long to deal with the cause of climate change that we very well may need some symptom relief.  And this approach seems to have minimal downsides.  Some 'global dimming' which would reduce plant growth but probably less than extreme heat making much of our agricultural lands unusable.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: rboyd on September 15, 2017, 08:19:32 PM
Cost of a "few trillion dollars" for a speculative technology that we may need? Crushing huge amounts of certain types of rock and spreading the powder over the tropics to draw down carbon and increase ocean ph values seems like bargain in comparison.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 15, 2017, 09:28:58 PM
If we've got two potential geoengineering solutions then that's great.

Now let's work to develop those ideas.  Figure out how to minimize the cost and determine any downside to both.

We know how to eliminate most fossil fuel use but we also need to deal with the heating we will have created even if we stop using fossil fuels ASAP.
---

Might it work to manufacture and fly the shields from the Moon with its lower gravity force?  Even if we had to ship all the fuel up?  (I'm way out of my knowledge pool here....)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Archimid on September 15, 2017, 10:05:25 PM
Cost of a "few trillion dollars" for a speculative technology that we may need? Crushing huge amounts of certain types of rock and spreading the powder over the tropics to draw down carbon and increase ocean ph values seems like bargain in comparison.

Ok, but what if crushing rocks end up being a very bad a idea for some unknown reason? There is no planet B. If a trillion dollar swarm of satellites causes unintended consequences, they can be just deorbited and scraped. No harm done.

Yeah, it is expensive, but it is reversible and chemically inert. 
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 20, 2017, 11:47:05 PM
An accidental discovery that might allow us to separate carbon from atmospheric CO2.  Eventually.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809140311.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809140311.htm)

Scientists working toward the elusive lithium-air battery discovered an unexpected approach to capturing and storing carbon dioxide away from the atmosphere. Using a design intended for a lithium-CO2 battery, researchers have developed a way to isolate solid carbon dust from gaseous carbon dioxide, with the potential to also separate out oxygen gas through the same method.

...

The researchers encountered the carbon fixation strategy when they tried to recharge a lithium-CO2 battery prototype. Instead of fully regenerating lithium ions and CO2 from the lithium carbonate and carbon produced during battery discharge, as would have taken place with a reversible Li-CO2 battery, the lithium carbonate decomposed, yielding additional carbon, as well as oxygen gas that was not isolated due to rapid reaction with the battery electrolyte.


"What is impressive about this work is the possibility to convert one-third of the CO2 species to carbon with a high theoretical energy efficiency above 70%,"

...

Looking ahead, the researchers are also excited by their system's potential to perhaps lead to a pathway for converting carbon dioxide into pure carbon and oxygen gas. "Attaining the release of oxygen gas upon charging, coupled with the accumulation of solid carbon, would realize an electrochemical carbon dioxide fixation strategy analogous to photosynthesis," says Zhou.


Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 24, 2017, 03:45:25 PM
An accidental discovery that might allow us to separate carbon from atmospheric CO2.  Eventually.

It would be interesting if, for the sake of the environment, the next generation of "eco-hippies" drives a slightly-less convenient lithium-CO2 EV, rather than today's closed-loop lithium battery EVs. :) (Beyond whatever large-scale projects that may happen.)
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 12, 2017, 02:42:49 PM
Don't be surprised when the Paris goals are not achieved via negative emissions technology (BECCS); and after the WAIS begins to collapse when GMSTA reaches around 2.5C circa 2040, that policy makers will implement some ill-conceived and poorly executed form(s) of geoengineering, that may well make matters worse:

Title: "Geoengineering: Scientists in Berlin debate radical ways to reverse global warming"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-scientists-berlin-debate-radicaly-ways-reverse-global-warming (https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-scientists-berlin-debate-radicaly-ways-reverse-global-warming)

Extract: "Research scientists, policymakers and ethicists gathered in Berlin this week to discuss the emerging field of “climate engineering” and what it could mean for the planet.

“The Paris goals of 2C and 1.5C require CO2 removal and at the moment most of our future scenarios of the global energy system and land use assume it’s being delivered by biomass energy carbon capture and storage. But the feasibility of this BECCS is difficult to assess – especially at this scale – because it’s highly interconnected with existing social systems around food, energy, water and biodiversity.”"
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 16, 2017, 04:43:41 PM
Of course, Trump will use geoengineering as an excuse not to reduce CO₂ emissions:

Title: "Geoengineering is not a quick fix for climate change, experts warn Trump"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/14/geoengineering-is-not-a-quick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/14/geoengineering-is-not-a-quick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump)

Extract: "Leading researchers and campaigners express concern that geoengineering research could be used as an excuse not to reduce CO2 emissions"
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 22, 2017, 02:22:33 PM
In response to the new movie, "Geostorm," the U.S. National Weather Service felt compelled to release a statement.

This has been a public service announcement from your National Weather Service.  :)
https://twitter.com/DRmetwatch/status/921539080705445889
Image below.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 22, 2017, 02:25:43 PM
But it didn't take long before these replies appeared:   ::)

Interesting. Their (NOAA) statement is conspicuously lacking a renouncement of their DESIRE to do so
https://twitter.com/rtfallgatter/status/921589209609117696

That was my thought.
https://twitter.com/stevebloom55/status/921596124544167937
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 14, 2017, 05:41:53 PM
The linked article (and associated linked open access study reference) makes it clear that if in some last minute desperation attempt by some local group of nations (say by economically developed NH nations, which would include China by 2049) to use 'stratospheric aerosol injection' to ease their suffering; they would make the climate situation worse for others (such as for the SH nations):

Title: "Unregulated solar geoengineering could spark droughts and hurricanes, study warns"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns

Extract: "Artificially cooling the planet through solar geoengineering could have some dramatic side effects – including an increase in droughts and hurricanes in some regions – if it is carried out in an unregulated way, a new study warns.

The study focuses on one proposed type of geoengineering, known as a “stratospheric aerosol injection”, which involves sending up substances to the stratosphere that are known to have a cooling effect on the climate.

It finds that if only one country, region or hemisphere were to pursue this type of geoengineering, other parts of the world could face adverse consequences. For example, if only the northern hemisphere were to release aerosols, the Sahel in Africa and parts of India would have to cope with more droughts."

See also the associated open access research reference at:

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01606-0

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: TerryM on November 15, 2017, 02:03:38 AM
The linked article (and associated linked open access study reference) makes it clear that if in some last minute desperation attempt by some local group of nations (say by economically developed NH nations, which would include China by 2049) to use 'stratospheric aerosol injection' to ease their suffering; they would make the climate situation worse for others (such as for the SH nations):

Title: "Unregulated solar geoengineering could spark droughts and hurricanes, study warns"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns (https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns)

Extract: "Artificially cooling the planet through solar geoengineering could have some dramatic side effects – including an increase in droughts and hurricanes in some regions – if it is carried out in an unregulated way, a new study warns.
I'd think that even if regulated, (by whom), the results could prove disastrous.
Terry
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: DrTskoul on November 15, 2017, 12:17:10 PM
The linked article (and associated linked open access study reference) makes it clear that if in some last minute desperation attempt by some local group of nations (say by economically developed NH nations, which would include China by 2049) to use 'stratospheric aerosol injection' to ease their suffering; they would make the climate situation worse for others (such as for the SH nations):

Title: "Unregulated solar geoengineering could spark droughts and hurricanes, study warns"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns (https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns)

Extract: "Artificially cooling the planet through solar geoengineering could have some dramatic side effects – including an increase in droughts and hurricanes in some regions – if it is carried out in an unregulated way, a new study warns.
I'd think that even if regulated, (by whom), the results could prove disastrous.
Terry
Regulated or not, it does not mean we know how the hell the system will respond. Talking about unintended consequences!! The results _will_ be disastrous....
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 15, 2017, 03:19:57 PM
Regulated or not, it does not mean we know how the hell the system will respond. Talking about unintended consequences!! The results _will_ be disastrous....

While I concur that collectively we will not likely know how to implement stratospheric aerosol injection by 2050 to avoid unintended consequences.  But I do not believe that that reality will stop future leaders in NH governments such as Russia, China, the EU and the USA from implementing a desperate action to try to stop the billions of climate refugees by targeting the SH.  To be clear, geoengineering can be weaponized by immoral government leaders.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 24, 2017, 05:47:51 PM
Distrust over the potential weaponization of geoengineering will make it difficult to even run tests to study such technologies:

Title: "Could a rogue nation alter clouds to combat warming?"

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067137

Extract: "Plans for two experiments to potentially slow global warming by deploying tiny particles into the atmosphere have sparked an international debate over whether such tests should be allowed without some form of government scrutiny.

The experiments are being planned by scientists who worry that the U.S. government, and others, is not equipped to move fast enough to mitigate greenhouse gases before the world reaches dangerous "tipping points." Those stages of planetary change could accelerate the heating effect, perhaps to life-threatening levels, they say."
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 25, 2017, 04:31:12 PM
Apparently the solution to reducing global warming is to eat more fried potatoes. ;)

Deep fat fryers may help form cooling clouds
Researchers believe the fatty molecules arrange themselves into complex 3-D structures in atmospheric droplets.

These aerosols persist for longer than normal and can seed the formation of clouds which experts say can have a cooling effect on the climate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42081892
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Susan Anderson on November 25, 2017, 10:27:30 PM
This might have been mentioned already, but if not it's an interesting article: Can Carbon-Dioxide Removal Save the World? CO2 could soon reach levels that, it’s widely agreed, will lead to catastrophe. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world)

It contains some truly staggering numbers, which to me has been the obvious point to the problems with carbon removal schemes. Also, so interesting ways of looking at the problem from various good thinkers such as this:
Changing the paradigm, Lackner believes, will change the conversation. If CO2 is treated as just another form of waste, which has to be disposed of, then people can stop arguing about whether it’s a problem and finally start doing something.

[lots of discussion and detail]

As a technology of last resort, carbon removal is, almost by its nature, paradoxical. It has become vital without necessarily being viable. It may be impossible to manage and it may also be impossible to manage without.

Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Sebastian Jones on November 26, 2017, 05:07:42 AM
I assume that I'm missing something here, because it seems so obvious to me.
CO2 (and most other GHG gasses) result from the combustion of hydrocarbons which are really stable- they are mostly millions of years old. So we need something that can be stored for millions of years. CO2 does not cut it- it is a gas that tends to escape, so stuffing it underground is not a long term viable solution. Ideally, we need a machine that inhales CO2 and poops out pure carbon- like diamonds or graphite. It could include hydrogen and oxygen too, providing it is stable- like anthracite.
Perhaps you see where this is going now.
We take carbon, burn it, get energy and emit CO2. CCS means we take that CO2 and transform it back into carbon....kind of like perpetual motion....Kolbert's New Yorker article says we can do it if we use non-CO2 emitting energy, like PV. She says a solar farm the size of Nigeria would do it. This is a daunting prospect, but it pales in face of the real problem- we currently have no machine that will inhale CO2 and exhale carbon. She interviews a scientist working on the problem. He is an alumnus of the fusion project.....he gave up fusion because it is too hard.....Please, somebody, explain how I am wrong.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: sidd on November 26, 2017, 07:05:44 AM
Pure carbon requires stripping oxygen from CO2, this costs energy. Better is to use a substitution as in weathering olivine.

I believe there are discussions on this forum of various schemes. See for example, my reply #8 on this thread.

sidd
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 26, 2017, 07:16:47 AM
so stuffing it underground is not a long term viable solution

If we could capture enough CO2 and store it underground where it would leak back out slowly we'd probably be OK.  If we could get ahead of the problem and put a lot underground then we could keep on doing that for a few centuries if that's what it took before the carbon was naturally sequestered.  (Or someone figured out a better solution.)

If we could get it underground into certain types of rock formations it would create a chemical bond and stay there. 

If we could get the carbon into a carbon solid form we could basically rebury it.  The reverse of open pit coal mining.

Creating machinery that could extract enormous amounts of CO2 from the air either as CO2 gas or as carbon without the oxygen seems almost undoable to me.  But we should try to invent that machine. 
----

In the meantime we need to be close to fossil fuel free in not much more than 30 years.  Hopefully within 20 years.

We should have a major global push to stop the use of coal.  Do that and the health care savings would likely finance the elimination of natural gas.
Title: Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 05, 2017, 09:50:11 PM
Policy makers are creeping slowly towards the implementation of a solar radiation management (SRM) plan (that would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year to operate):

Simon Nicholson, Sikina Jinnah& Alexander GillespieSolar radiation management: a proposal for immediate polycentric governance", Climate Policy, Pages 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1400944

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2017.1400944?utm_content=buffer887b3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "The stringency of the 1.5 degree goal under the Paris Agreement, coupled with the mismatch between that goal and domestic mitigation pledges, inevitably directs attention onto the potential future role of solar radiation management (SRM) technologies. Such technologies, however, remain controversial, and analysis of their environmental, social and ethical implications is at an early stage. In this context, this paper distils four key governance objectives and proposes three specific policy interventions for the near-term governance of SRM technologies. Specifically, we build from existing literature to argue that SRM governance must simultaneously: guard against the risks of uncontrolled SRM development; enable potentially valuable research; build legitimacy for research and any future policy through broad public engagement and ensure that SRM is only considered as one part of a broader mitigation agenda. We propose three interventions to work towards those objectives in the near term by: developing a transparency mechanism for research; creating a global forum for public engagement and including consideration of SRM in the global stocktake under the Paris Agreement. Finally, we argue that carrying out these interventions requires a shared or ‘polycentric’ SRM governance structure that can build on the site-specific capabilities and preferences of existing international institutions."