Geo-engineering

Crop yields in a geoengineered climate

2012-01-22T15:14:00.000-08:00

A research team at Stanford University, led by Dr. Julia Pongratz, finds that solar-radiation geoengineering in a high-CO2 climate generally causes crop yields to increase, largely because temperature stresses are diminished while the benefits of CO2 fertilization are retained.

The team adds that, nevertheless, possible yield losses on the local scale as well as known and unknown side effects and risks associated with geoengineering indicate that the most certain way to reduce climate risks to global food security is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Paper: Crop yields in a geoengineered climate
Press release: Geoengineering and global food supply

The potential for methane releases in the Arctic to cause runaway global warming

2012-01-10T22:31:00.000-08:00

What are the chances of abrupt releases of, say, 1 Gt of methane in the Arctic? What would be the impact of such a release?

By Sam Carana, December 20, 2011, updated January 10, 2012

How much methane is there in the Arctic?

An often-used figure in estimates of the size of permafrost stores is 1672 Gt (or Pg, or billion tonnes) of Carbon. This figure relates to organic carbon and refers to terrestrial permafrost stores. (1)

This figure was recently updated to 1700 Gt of carbon, projected to result in emissions of 30 - 63 Gt of Carbon by 2040, reaching 232 - 380 Gt by 2100 and 549 - 865 Gt by 2300. These figures are carbon dioxide equivalents, combining the effect of carbon released both as carbon dioxide (97.3%) and as methane (2.7%), with almost half the effect likely to be from methane. (2)

In addition to these terrestrial stores, there is methane in the oceans and in sediments below the seafloor. There are methane hydrates and there is methane in the form of free gas. Hydrates contain primarily methane and exist within marine sediments particularly in the continental margins and within relic subsea permafrost of the Arctic margins. (3)

Hunter and Haywood estimate that globally between 4700 and 5030 Pg (Gt) of Carbon is locked up within subsea hydrate within the continental margins. This does not include subsea permafrost-hosted hydrates and so those of the shallow Arctic margin (<~300m) were not considered. (3)

Shakhova et al. estimate the accumulated methane potential for the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS, rectangle on image right) alone as follows:

- organic carbon in permafrost of about 500 Gt;
- about 1000 Gt in hydrate deposits; and
- about 700 Gt in free gas beneath the gas hydrate stability zone. (4)

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf covers about 25% of the Arctic Shelf (3) and additional stores are present in submarine areas elsewhere at high latitudes. Importantly, the hydrate and free gas stores contain virtually 100% methane, as opposed to the organic carbon which the above study (2) estimates will produce emissions in the ratio of 97.3% carbon dioxide and only 2.7% methane when decomposing.

How stable is this methane?

The sensitivity of gas hydrate stability to changes in local pressure-temperature conditions and their existence beneath relatively shallow marine environments mean that submarine hydrates are vulnerable to changes in bottom water conditions (i.e. changes in sea level and bottom water temperatures). Following dissociation of hydrates, sediments can become unconsolidated, and structural failure of the sediment column has the potential to trigger submarine landslides and further breakdown of hydrate. The potential geohazard presented to coastal regions by tsunami is obvious. (3)

Further shrinking of the Arctic ice-cap results in more open water, which not only absorbs more heat, but which also results in more clouds, increasing the potential for storms that can cause damage to the seafloor in coastal areas such as the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS, rectangle on image left), where the water is on average only 45 m deep. (5)

Much of the methane released from submarine stores is still broken down by bacteria before reaching the atmosphere. Over time, however, depletion of oxygen and trace elements required for bacteria to break down methane will cause more and more methane to rise to the surface unaffected. (6)

There are only a handful of locations in the Arctic where (flask) samples are taken to monitor the methane. Recently, two of these locations showed ominous levels of methane in the atmosphere (images below).

The danger is that large abrupt releases will overwhelm the system, not only causing much of the methane to reach the atmosphere unaffected, but also extending the lifetime of the methane in the atmosphere, due to hydroxyl depletion in the atmosphere.

Shakhova et al. consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. (7)

What would be the impact of methane releases from hydrates in the Arctic?

If an amount of, say, 1 Gt of methane from hydrates in the Arctic would abruptly enter the atmosphere, what would be the impact?

Methane's global warming potential (GWP) depends on many variables, such as methane's lifetime, which changes with the size of emissions and the location of emissions (hydroxyl depletion already is a big problem in the Arctic atmosphere), the wind, the time of year (when it's winter, there can be little or no sunshine in the Arctic, so there's less greenhouse effect), etc. One of the variables is the indirect effect of large emissions and what's often overlooked is that large emissions will trigger further emissions of methane, thus further extending the lifetime of both the new and the earlier-emitted methane, which can make the methane persist locally for decades.

The IPCC gives methane a lifetime of 12 years, and a GWP of 25 over 100 years and 72 over 20 years. (8)

Thus, applying a GWP of 25 times carbon dioxide would give 1 Gt of methane a greenhouse effect equivalent to 25 Pg of carbon dioxide over 100 years. Applying a GWP of 72 times carbon dioxide would give 1 Gt of methane a greenhouse effect equivalent to 72 Pg of carbon dioxide over 20 years.

By comparison, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 Pg C. (9)

Note that this 174 Pg C was released over a period of 150 years, allowing sinks time to absorb part of the burden. Note also that, as emissions continue to rise, some sinks may turn into net emitters, if they haven't already done so.

The image on the left shows the impact of 1 Gt of methane, compared with annual fluxes of carbon dioxide based on the NOAA carbon tracker. (10)

Fossil fuel and fires have been adding an annual flux of just under 10 Pg C since 2000 and a good part of this is still being absorbed by land and ocean sinks.

In other words, the total burden of all carbon dioxide emitted by people since the start of the industrial revolution has been partly mitigated by sinks, since it was released over a long period of time.

Furthermore, the carbon dioxide was emitted (and partly absorbed) all over the globe, whereas methane from such abrupt releases in the Arctic would - at least initially - be concentrated in a relatively small area, and likely cause oxygen depletion in the water and hydroxyl depletion in the atmosphere, while triggering further releases from hydrates in the Arctic.

This makes it appropriate to expect a high initial impact from an abrupt 1 Gt methane release, which will also extend methane's lifetime. Applying a GWP of 100 times carbon dioxide would give 1 Gt of methane an immediate greenhouse effect equivalent to 100 Pg of carbon dioxide.

Even more terrifying is the prospect of further methane releases. Given that there already is ~5 Gt in the atmosphere, plus the initial 1 Gt, further releases of 4 Gt of methane would result in a burden of 10 Gt of methane. When applying a GWP of 100 times carbon dioxide, this would result in a short-term greenhouse effect equivalent to 1000 Pg of carbon dioxide.

In conclusion, this scenario would be catastrophic and the methane wouldn't go away quickly either, since this would be likely to keep triggering further releases. While some models project rapid decay of the methane, those models often use global decay values and long periods, which is not applicable in case of such abrupt releases in the Arctic.

Instead, the methane is likely to stay active in the Arctic for many years at its highest warming potential, due to depletion of hydroxyl and oxygen, while the resulting summer warming (when the sun doesn't set) is likely to keep triggering further releases in the Arctic.

References

1. Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region

Tarnocai, Canadell, Schuur, Kuhry, Mazhitova and Zimov (2009)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GB003327.shtml
http://www.lter.uaf.edu/dev2009/pdf/1350_Tarnocai_Canadell_2009.pdf

2. Climate change: High risk of permafrost thaw

Schuur et al. (2011)
Nature 480, 32–33 (1 December 2011) doi:10.1038/480032a
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/480032a.html
http://www.lter.uaf.edu/pdf/1562_Schuur_Abbott_2011.pdf

3. Science Blog: Submarine Methane Hydrate: A threat under anthropogenic climate change?

Stephen Hunter and Alan Haywood (2011)

http://climate.ncas.ac.uk/ncas-science-blog/241-science-blog-submarine-methane-hydrate-a-threat-under-anthropogenic-climate-change

4. Methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and the Potential for Abrupt Climate Change

Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov (2010)
http://symposium2010.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/3/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf

5. Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
Shakhova et al. (2010)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract

6. Berkeley Lab and Los Alamos National Laboratory (2011)
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/05/04/methane-arctic/

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=212872

7. Anomalies of methane in the atmosphere over the East Siberian shelf: Is there any sign of methane leakage from shallow shelf hydrates?

Shakhova, Semiletov, Salyuk and Kosmach (2008)
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf

8. Global Warming Potential

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14

9. Runaway global warming

Sam Carana (2011)
http://runawaywarming.blogspot.com

10. Carbon Tracker 2010 - Flux Time Series - CT2010 - Earth System Research Laboratory
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=All_Land#imagetable

11. On carbon transport and fate in the East Siberian Arctic land–shelf–atmosphere system

Semiletov et al. (2012)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/015201

Can we capture methane from the Arctic seabed?

2011-12-24T00:21:00.000-08:00

Can we capturemethane from the Arctic seabed?

Stephen H. Salter, School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh,Scotland.

Preparedfor the John Nissen Methane Workshop, Chiswick 15,16 October 2011.

DRAFT 3 November with pressure ridgeaddition.

Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 100times more effective than carbon dioxide in the short term. It is stored in the form of clathrates whichare unstable if pressure is lower or temperature is higher than a line on apressure versus temperature graph. Figure 1 shows that the slope of theatmospheric concentration has sharply increased since 2007. Previous high levels of methane wereassociated with the Permian mass extinction, 250 million years ago.

Figure 1. Anomalies of CH4 mean volume mixing ratiosfor Northern and Southern hemispheres courtesy Leonid Yurganov. Updatedmixing ratios (Dlugokencky et al., 2009) were subtracted from the seasonalcycles averaged over 2003-2007. The right scale shows the anomaly of total massof CH4 in the tropospheric layer of each hemisphere. The growth has beencontinuing in 2010-2011, according to the updated satellite data by Frankenberget al. 2011.

This note discusses the design problems ofa system to deploy kilometre-sized areas of plastic film to collect methanefrom suitable areas of the sea bed. Thegas can be flared off at sea to convert it to less damaging carbon dioxide orperhaps, if there are very high flow rates, recovered by a gas carrier and usedashore.

There seem to be solutions to what appearedinitially to be an insoluble problem.

The difficulties

When John Nissen first raised the problemof Arctic methane my initial reaction was that capture at the sea bed would beimpossible. But trying to design for theimpossible can be interesting. It seemeda useful exercise to identify the reasons for impossibility. We can listdifficulties as follows:

Methane release at very low flow rates over too wide an area.
Release at very high rates over a small area such as a well blow-out.
Rough seas during deployment.
The presence of obstructions such as wreckage, rock outcrops, munitions or steep slopes.
Fast, variable-direction or unpredictable currents.
Equipment sinking into very soft ooze on the seabed.
Hydrogen sulphide toxicity.
Unacceptable biological consequences due to the presence of equipment.
The need to recover everything at some date in the future.
The pressure ridges shown by Peter Wadhams at the Chiswick workshop.

I now believe that despite these problemsmethane can be captured in quite large quantities from areas of several squarekilometres of plastic film in a single installation.

The design

The film sheet is packed into a pair ofleft and right-handed rubber trough cases [1] and [2] with a rectangular innersection as shown in figure 2. Each trough case carries two steel cables [3]. The trough cases would be produced by acontinuous moulding/extrusion machine in lengths of several kilometres usingplant similar to that used for electrical cables. The left and right handedpair are connected at the centre by two thin isthmus strips of material [4] [5]above and below a rectangular section passage. The passage contains a rectangular section runner [6] with two blades[7] [8] which can be pulled through the full length of the extrusion by a steelcable. [9]. If the steel cable is pulled the two bladeswill cut the connection strips and the trough case halves will beseparated.

The underside of the trough case extrusion has a moulded treadwith a pattern of saw-tooth section ridges [10] lying at an angle of about 30degrees to the length of the extrusion. This ridge angle is an important designparameter. At the outer corners of thebottom of the insides of the trough cases are recesses [11] into which a beadon the edge of an extruded plastic sheet can be pushed. The outer walls of the trough are muchthicker than the inner walls and contain galleries [12] along which methane canbe transported to riser pipes. They connect to the higher points of thesaw-tooth moulding. A high-density filler is added to the rubber to make surethat it is heavier than cold sea water but not heavier than the ooze on the seabed. The outer edges of the extrusion [13] are sloped like the front of asledge.

At the bottom of figure 2 the troughs areshown filled with a zig-zag stack of flexible plastic with a density justgreater than cold sea water and a thickness of about 200 microns. The zig-zag stacks on each side a joined atthe top [14]. The lower edges with abead are pushed into the recesses in each trough. This plastic would be produced by a secondextrusion machine consisting of interdigital plates to be described later. If the width of each trough is one metre andthe trough depth is 150 mm there will be space for 750 layers of zig-zagplastic, giving an extended width of 1.5 kilometres when the zig-zags on thetwo sides are unpacked. The stacks ofplastic film can be packed securely by lid flaps [15] retained by a vacuummaintained through pipes [16].

The length of plastic and rubber would bewound in a single scroll on the drum of a pipe-laying vessel such as the StenaApache. A drum diameter of 35 meterscould take a width of 1.5 kilometres and length of 3 kilometres, giving a capturearea of 4.5 square kilometres.

Figure 2. Empty and filled extruded rubber trough cases with 4 times enlarged views of end and centre.

Deployment.

Survey vessels with side-scan sonar andmethane detection sensors would look for suitable sites with no large obstructions,suitable current velocities and comfortable methane emission rates.

Small obstructions can be levelled withrobotic sea bed vehicles such as the one described at the 2011 EWTECconference.

The pipe-laying vessel would take stationwell downstream of the target area and pay out the scrolled material to the seabed as if it were oil pipe. The extremeflexibility of the trough case (relative to 12 inch steel pipe) would allowwave tolerant J-lay rather than an S-lay release.

Once the full length of the package is onthe sea bed (figure 3) it would be towed along the seabed by ropes attached tothe fore end of the rubber extrusions until it reached a point before the startof the target area equal to the string length divided by the cosine of theridge angle. If possible the towdirection should be perpendicular to current and swell.

The central cable with knife blades wouldbe pulled through the rubber extrusion to separate the two troughs.

The vacuum retaining the lid flaps will bereleased.

Towing to increase the width of the filmcan now begin. Towing from the pipe-laying vessel would mean lifting theleading edge of the pack and there might be disturbance by waves. It is preferable to use a horizontal forcefrom a sea bed walking vehicle. Theremight sometimes be an advantage in raising and lowering the leading edge in theway used for aligning carpets. The towforce would depend on the weight of the package in water and the coefficient offriction to the sea bed. This is expected to be about 250 kN. This will set the size of the steel cablesembedded in the rubber extrusions which transmit the tow force along the lengthof the rubber and the bollard pull of the tow vehicles.

The tow vehicles will keep the tow linespointing along the line of the package but the angled ridges would make the twotroughs move apart from each other and so the tow vehicles will take divergingcourses. The layers of plastic film will be pulled away from the zig-zag stack,as shown in figure 3, with the weight of the retaining lids providing a gentleresisting force.. GPS systems will be used to keep the advance rate of the towvehicles matched.

The small density difference betweenplastic and sea water will mean that the drag friction between plastic and seabed will be very low with a factor of safety of several hundred relative to theplastic strength.

The ridges in the rubber extrusion willleave furrows on the surface of the seabed. When the furrows are covered by the plastic sheet they will formpassages for the removal of gas through galleries in the outer walls of thetrough.

The outward movement of the trough caseswill build up material from the sea bed at the front of the outer sledgefaces. Water moving through eductor jets[17] can move some of the sea bed material over the film.

The gas pipe connection from below the filmto the surface will bring its pressure closer to atmospheric. Eventually several bars of water pressurewill clamp the film and trough casings firmly to the sea bed.

Figure 3. Deployment of the film using the side forcefrom the inclined ridges at the bottom

of the trough cases. Proportions are grosslydistorted.

Tooling

Thermo-plastic films can be made by heatingpellets of the feed stock to their melting point, pumping the liquid materialthrough fine gaps in an extrusion tool and progressively cooling the downstreamsection of the tool to a temperature at which the film can be handled. Theenergy requirement is the sum of melting heat and pumping pressure. Much of the heat can be recycled back to theincoming feed stock. The product is easier to handle if the pumping is in adownward direction.

The tool will consist of one inner and twoouter stacks of plates each of which consists of two half plates which havebeen machined with a zig-zag coolant channel and then riveted and spot-weldedback together as shown in figure 4. Thekey problem is maintaining an accurate gap, probably 200 microns, between innerand outer plates. Gravitational sag willbe avoided if plates are vertical. Atthe top of the tool where the film material is still liquid the gap can bedefined by streamlined shims but in the cooler regions it must be activelycontrolled with no physical blockage.

Material from a rolling mill usually hasquite large flatness errors and a skin under compression. The first step will be stress relief byraising the plate temperature to 650 C for an hour and cooling it slowly.

Toolroom surface grinders can work to aflatness better than 3 microns but if curved parts are held flat on a magneticchuck the curvature will be restored when the magnetic flux is removed. It will be necessary to hold the plates on ahot wax chuck as used in the optical industry. It might be useful to consider a low-forcecutting technique such as spark erosion.

Figure 4. A grossly distorted plan view of the topologyof the extrusion tool with exploded parts. A 1500 metre width would require 750plates rather than eight. Maintaining agap for the film thickness is a challenging problem but may be done withdifferential temperature control. The tool for a 1500 metre width of film wouldweigh about 200 tonnes. If thedifferential temperature idea is not feasible, smaller tools could be used buta way to store and join kilometre lengths edge to edge would be needed.Temporary coiling looks difficult.

Gap control

We can use an array of capacitancetransducers to measure the gap between plates of an assembled stack. We can cover the surfaces of plates withresistive heating elements either side of the cooling channels. By differential control of the heatingcurrents we can control the local curvature of a plate. The coefficient of thermal expansion ofstainless steel is 17 part per million per C degree. A temperature difference of 1C across a 15 mmplate will induce a radius of curvature of 440 metres. If the width of the heating element is 100 mmthis means a deflection of 11 microns.

A neat way to provide plate deflectioncontrol is to divide the plate surfaces into 100 mm squares with a resistivelayer filling most of the area. Thesquares would be connected in series and driven with a constant current from ahigh impedance source rather than a constant voltage. The current would be diverted around theheating element by a parallel, high-frequency switch operated for a variablefraction of the time. A small fractionof the surface with a grounded guard backing would be given a high-frequencyexcitation to measure the capacitance to the adjacent plate.

Cold heat exchanger fluid will be pumpedinto the bottom of the vertical tooling plates and emerge from the top at nearlythe melting temperature of the plastic film. After some extra heating the fluid will then move downwards through avertical-tube heat-exchanger to melt the incoming plastic.

Solidified film coming out of the bottom ofthe tool will be further cooled by an upward flow air which will then bedirected down through a bed of rising feed pellets and shredded plastic beingrecycled. Air can flow easily throughgaps between pellets or shredded feed stock. The surface area of pellets is large even if heat transfer per unit areais low. Heat can flow more easily between liquids. However there will be an awkward gap betweensolid but nearly molten pellets in the air in the pellet heat exchanger andliquid in the one above it. Although thetemperature difference might be quite small the amount of latent heat of fusionmight be substantial.

Gas flow rates

A slide (number 34) from the Shakova - Semiletovpaper given at the November 30 2010 DoD workshop in Washington, gives a figurefor methane flux of 44 grams per square metre a day over half a 500 metretransect, shown below. This is wellabove other observations. The calorific value of methane is 55 MJ perkilogram so this would be a thermal power of 28 MW per square kilometre. These conditions might well not apply to thefull film area and, at this rate, it would probably not be worth collectingmethane on a ship. In future the rate,and gas prices, might increase. However the power level should be enough todrive a mechanism with chain saws and heat transfer pipes to keep a clear holefor a flaring stack in a moving winter ice field if methane release in winterwas thought to be a problem.

Size of release plumes

This paper has described what I believe to be the largest possible collector area using present technology. We need to know more about the size and spacing of release plumes to decide if the area has to be as large as this. One example of the kind of data needed is given in figure 5.

Figure 5. An echo sounder image giving the size ofmethane plumes from Shakhova et al.. This shows a transect of about 500 metresin the Laptev sea showing bubble plume returnfeatures

and also zooplankton other non-bubble scatterers suchas fish.

Material quantities

The Shakhova presentation also mentioned totalareas of methane hot spots of 210,000 square kilometres, the area of a squareof side 460 kilometres. The proposed designneeds about 200 tonnes of plastic film per square kilometre. Total worldconsumption of plastics in 2010 was about 300 million tonnes and forecast torise to 538 million in 2020. Protectingthe Shakova area with coverings which lasted 10 years would take about 1.5% oftotal present world plastic production.

Recovery

Maintenance would be very difficult and isnot planned. But anyone putting anything into the sea has an ethical duty toplan for its recovery. The proposal isto make structures of two cutting discs about 2 metres in diameter separated at12 metres which can roll along the length of the film to cut it into 12 metrewide strips. The ends of the cut can begripped with a vacuum plate, lifted to the surface and wound round a drum. The area of the long side of a 3 km lengthsheet of clean film is only 0.6 square metres. Over a period of years it will probably haveacquired biological growths, some of which can be removed by pulling it betweencontra-rotating brushes. It is desirablethat growth thickness can be reduced to the level at which film can be packedinto 2.2 metre diameter for movement in a sea container. For a film length of 3 kilometres this meansa thickness of film plus growth of 1.25 mm. The extruded rubber trough cases would be wound on the drum of apipe-laying vessel.

Comments on the feasibility of this proposal, howevercritical, would be welcome.

Conclusions.

There is a wide range of estimates for therates of methane release from Arctic seabeds but the higher ones are alarmingenough for all defensive measures to be carefully examined.

Initial design work for the manufacture anddeployment of kilometre-sized areas of plastic film to capture methane suggeststhat that this may be possible for a range of emission rates provided that theareas of the sea bed are clear of obstructions. This conclusion should be checkedwith people from the plastic and rubber industries.

Deployment and recovery will requirepipe-laying vessels from the oil industry , such as the Stena Apache, andspecialised seabed crawlers which have been designed for wave and tidal-streaminstallation.

Unless methane emission rates are evenhigher than suggested it will not be economical to recover methane for use onland and so flaring off at sea is more likely. However there may be enough energy to drive ice-cutting equipment tokeep the water round a flare stack clear of drifting ice in winter.

The extrusion tool for a 1500 metre widthwill require about 200 tonnes of very flat stainless steel sheet. The criticalproblem is maintaining an accurate gap in the extrusion tool. This can be done with differentialtemperature control of opposite surfaces of a stack of interdigital plates withcentral cooling channels.

The separation of halves of a film packagecan be done by the force generated from angled saw-tooth ridges on theunderside when the package is dragged over the sea bed. This allows very wide film coverage from aneasily transported package and leaves tracks for methane flow.

If the underside of the film has a pipeconnection to the atmosphere the pressure from water above it will clamp itfirmly to the sea bed.

Work on long-term biological testing ofcandidate film materials should begin as soon as possible.

It is necessary to have credible techniquesto recover all materials from the sea bed. The proposed method must be critically checked by experienced offshoreengineers.

A 4.5 square kilometre area of 200 micronsheet will need about 930 tonnes or 25 railway trucks of plastic but this issmall compared with world production. Energy consumption in the present plastics industry is about 10 MJ akilogram compared with 2.25 MJ for the latent heat of steam. If the film extrusion velocity is 10 mm asecond we will need 3.5 days for one pack and a power of 35 MW. Heat pump technology could give a very largereduction in energy consumption and must be carefully investigated.

We may have to avoid deployment in waterdepths less than the deepest pressure ridges. The leading ice authority, PeterWadhams, says that these can reach down to 34 metres below the surface.

Actions

Resolve the three-order of magnitude disputeabout methane release rates and investigate sea bed methane release rates and theirvariability in space and time.

Check design assumptions with the plasticfilm and rubber extrusion industry.

Choose the best candidate film materialswith density just greater than cold sea water (1028.4 kg/m3) and establishstress capability in working conditions. A large strain length is more important than tensile strength.

Place specimens of the various film typesin suitable test site in northern

Norway

and observe biologicalresults especially recolonization rates. The earlier this begins the better. Albert Kallio has warned about anoxic conditions below the film. The area of test film must be large enough toreplicate this.

Measure tow forces on 5-metre sized blocksand establish the best ridge angle for a range of sea bed conditions fromgravel to sand to ooze.

Place blocks of various shapes anddensities fitted with accelerometers on the sea bed and measure how many rollor slide.

Carry out a sonar side-scan survey toidentify obstructions in suitable areas. Some, such as bullion cargoes, may be removable.

Collect information on depth and occurrenceof pressure ridges in methane release areas.

Pray that the continual underestimation ofthe potential climate risks by people who are responsible for defending usagainst them does not continue.

Links

World plastic production

http://www.pardos-marketing.com/paper_g04.htm

Shakhova PowerPoint presentation link.

http://symposium2010.serdp-estcp.org/Technical-Sessions/1A

Shakhova Semiletov paper

http://www.agu.org/journals/jc/jc1008/2009JC005602/2009JC005602.pdf

http://cid-yama.livejournal.com/368223.html

Pipe-laying vessels

http://mobile.technip.com/en/our-business/fleet-facilities/vessels

Other collected papers

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/methane

References

Dlugokencky, E. J., L. M. P. Bruhwiler, J. W. C.White, L. K. Emmons, P. C. Novelli, S. A. Montzka, K. A. Masarie, P. M. Lang,A. M. Crotwell, J. B. Miller and L. V. Gatti (2009), Observational constraints on recent increasesin the atmospheric CH4 burden, Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18803,10.1029/2009GL039780.
Frankenberg, C., I. Aben, P.Bergamaschi, E. J. Dlugokencky, R. van Hees, S. Houweling, P. van der Meer, R.Snel P. Dol (2011), Global column-averaged methane mixing ratios from 2003to 2009 as derived from SCIAMACHY: Trends and variability, Journal ofGeophysical Research-Atmospheres, 116(D04302), 1-12, 10.1029/2010JD014849.
Montzka, S. A., E. J. Dlugokencky and J.H. Butler (2011), Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change, NATURE, 476,43-50, 10.1038/nature10322.

Arctic Methane Alert

2011-12-07T02:38:00.001-08:00

Professor Peter Wadhams (Professor of Ocean Physics, Cambridge University) and Arctic Methane Emergency Group Chairman, John Nissen, will discuss the need for geoengineering in the Arctic to prevent runaway climate change.

Where: Moscone Center South, Halls A-C, San Francisco

When: Thursday December 8, 2011.

Session: Global Environment Change Poster: GC 41B

Arctic Methane Workshop: An assessment of threats to Arctic and global warming; and an evaluation of techniques to counter these threats
http://eposters.agu.org/abstracts/arctic-methane-workshop-an-assessment-of-threats-to-arctic-and-global-warming-and-an-evaluation-of-techniques-to-counter-these-threats/

See poster at:
http://eposters.agu.org/files/2011/12/Poster-2.pdf

See brochure at:
http://www.flipdocs.com/showbook.aspx?ID=10004692_698290

For more, also see website at
http://www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org/#/dec-2011-agu/4558306797
and associated discussions at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arctic-methane

Cheers,
Sam Carana

Creating extra ice in winter for extra cooling in summer

2011-11-15T01:52:00.001-08:00

Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia, is considering creating extra ice in winter.

A Mongolian engineering firm ECOS & EMI aims to drill bore holes into ice formed on the Tuul river in winter. The water will be discharged across the surface, where it will freeze. This process - effectively adding layers of ice rinks - will be repeated at regular intervals throughout the winter.

The idea is that this can help cool and water the city as the ice melts during the summer.

Source: Mongolia bids to keep city cool with 'ice shield' experiment - The Guardian, November 15, 2011.

Combining Policy and Technology

2011-11-14T20:57:00.001-08:00

Technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.

Among the 11 shortlisted organizations are:

biochar (Biochar Solutions, Black Carbon and Full Circle Biochar)
carbon capture, particularly from ambient air (Carbon Engineering, Kilimanjaro Energy and Climeworks)
enhanced weathering (Smart Stones)

Above three technologies (biochar, carbon air capture and enhanced weathering) have great potential to help out with carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. To combat global warming, further technologies should be considered, such as in Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Arctic Methane Management (AMM).

How effective each technology is in one area is an important consideration; importantly, each such technologies can also have effects in further areas.

Further areas

Global warming is only one out of multiple areas where action is required; an example of another area is the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica; effective action has already been taken in this area, but the growing hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic shows that further action is necessary.

A safe operating space for humanity is a landmark 2009 study that identifies nine essential areas where sustainability is stressed to the limits, in three cases beyond its limits.
The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded. From: A safe operating space for humanity, Rockström et al, 2009.

Areas and applicable technologies

The table below shows these nine areas on the left, while technologies that could be helpful in the respective area feature on the right.

As said, each of technologies may be able to help out in multiple areas. As an example, by reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, biochar and carbon air capture can also indirectly reduce carbon dioxide in oceans and thus help out with ocean acidification. Enhanced weathering could additionally reduce carbon dioxide in the oceans directly, thus presenting itself even more prominently as a proposal to achieve sustainability in this area.

Similarly, algae bags located in the mouth of a river could help out in multiple areas. They could produce biofuel and thus help reduce aviation emissions, while in the process catching fertilizer runoff, thus reducing emissions of nitrous oxide (the largest ozone-depleting substance emitted through human activities in a 2009 NOAA study) and also reducing depletion of oxygen in oceans.

1. Climate Change		CDR: biochar, carbon air capture, enhanced weathering, algae bags, EVs, renewable energy, clean cooking & heating, LEDs, etc. SRM: surface and cloud brightening, release of aerosols AMM: methane capture, oxygen release, river diversion, enhanced methane decomposition
2. Ocean acidification		enhanced weathering
3. Stratospheric ozone depletion		oxygen release
4. Nitrogen & Phosphorus Cycles		algae bags, biochar, enhanced weathering
5. Global freshwater use		desalination, biochar, enhanced weathering
6. Change in land use		desalination, biochar, enhanced weathering
7. Biodiversity loss		desalination, biochar, enhanced weathering
8. Atmospheric aerosol loading		biochar, EVs, renewable energy, clean cooking & heating, LEDs, etc.
9. Chemical pollution		recycling, waste management (separation)

Implementing the most effective policies

Policy support for such technologies is imperative. Just like some technologies can help out in several areas, some policies can cover multiple areas. As an example, a policy facilitating a shift to cleaner energy can both reduce greenhouse gases and aerosols such as soot and sulfur. Sulfur reflects sunlight back into space, so reducing sulfur emissions results in more global warming, but conversely global warming can be reduced by releasing sulfur over water at higher latitudes.

How many different policies would be needed to support such technologies? What are the best policy instruments to use?

Traditionally, government-funded subsidies and standards have been used to contain pollution, sometimes complemented with levies and refundable deposits; this can also work for chemical pollution. Standards have also proven to be effective in reducing the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer, while - as said - policies could at the same time also be effective in other areas, in this case reducing the impact of CFCs as greenhouse gases.

However, standards don't raise funding for support of such technologies, while taxpayer-funded subsidies make everyone pay for the pollution caused by some. Hybrid methods such as cap-and-trade and offsets are prone to corruption and fraud, which compromises their effectiveness. Local feebates are most effective in facilitating the necessary shifts in many areas.

Two sets of feebates

To facilitate the necessary shift away from fuel toward clean energy, local feebates are most effective. Fees on cargo and flights could fund carbon air capture, while fees on fuel could fund rebates on electricity produced in clean and safe ways. Fees could also be imposed on the engines, ovens, kilns, furnaces and stoves where fuel is burned, to fund rebates on clean alternatives, such as EV batteries and motors, solar cookers and electric appliances. Such feebates are pictured as yellow lines in the top half of the image below.

Support for biochar and olivine sand could be implemented through a second set of feebates, as pictured in the bottom half of the image below. Revenues from these feebates could also be used to support further technologies, as described in the paragraph below.

Further technologies should be considered for their effectiveness in specific areas, including:

release of oxygen to help combat methane in the Arctic and to help combat loss of stratospheric ozone
use of plastic sheets to capture methane
use of radio waves to enhance methane decomposition
diversion of water from rivers to avoid warm water flowing into the Arctic Ocean
release of aerosols over water at higher latitudes
surface & cloud brightening to reflect more sunlight back into space

Further reading:
Feebates
Biomass
Carbon Air Capture and Algae Bags
Enhanced weathering
Oxygenating the Arctic
Ozone hole recovery
Enhanced methane decomposition
Desalination
Vortex towers could vegetate deserts
Carbon-negative building
LEDs: When will we see the light?
Thermal expansion of the Earth's crust necessitates geo-engineering
Towards a Sustainable Economy
The way back to 280 ppm

Thermal Expansion of the Earth's Crust Necessitates Geo-engineering

2011-10-06T21:04:00.000-07:00

THERMAL EXPANSION of the Earth's crust due to global warming risks disturbing Arctic methane hydrates, and the process has already started, necessitating geo-engineering, argues Sam Carana, editor of the Geo-engineering Blog.

In a search for the smoking gun, locations of Arctic temperature anomalies were used to pinpoint methane emission points, which were subsequently matched with seismological data.

Extrapolation of the data points at Total Extinction Zones during which all organic life on Earth risks going extinct, due to accelerating release of methane from Arctic hydrates destabilized by Gakkel Ridge earthquake activity.

This danger necessitates geo-engineering, argues Sam Carana, insisting that temperatures of the water deep down in the Arctic Ocean need to be brought down rapidly, while carbon dioxide levels need to be brought back to 280ppm in the course of this century.

Towards a Sustainable Economy.

The Biochar Economy

2011-09-29T00:33:00.000-07:00

Abstract:

The Biochar Economy offers a sustainable alternative to economic systems that fail to sufficiently take into account care for the environment and concerns for global warming.

Biochar is one of the products of pyrolysis, an oxygen-starved method of heating up biomass to (also) produce renewable energy.

The Australian Government plans to award carbon credits for the application of biochar to soil, for biochar's ability to abate greenhouse gases. As part of the Carbon Farming Initiative, $AU2 million will be provided for a Biochar Capacity Building Program. This in addition to $AU1.4 million that is already being invested in the National Biochar Initiative as part of the Climate Change Research Program.

Carbon credits constitute just one way to support biochar. Ultimately, carbon credits are typically paid from profits on fossil fuel, which are scheduled to decrease over time. To develop more lasting support for biochar, alternatively policies should be considered.

The idea behind the "Biochar Economy" is to try to embed biochar production into as many processes as possible, as pictured on above image, from open source ecology.

In carbon-negative 'Biochar Economies', biochar is proposed to also act as a kind of local 'gold standard' for local currency supply. Biochar-based currency could strengthen local economies and shield them not only from the volatility of global currency fluctuations, but also from the danger of global warming causing the entire global financial system to collapse, as discussed back in 2007.

Biochar-based local currencies go well together with three types of local feebates:

Energy fees, imposed on polluting fuel and the equipment and appliances used to burn the fuel, to fund rebates on local clean energy programs.
Fees on polluting cement, livestock products and nitrogen fertilizers, made payable in local currency, funding rebates on locally-produced biochar and olivine added to local soils.
Local rates that incorporate feebates, i.e. higher fees the lower the soil's carbon content, with rebates for soils with the highest carbon content.

These policies will avoid emissions and effectively take greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. These policies will also create local employment and investment opportunities without having to borrow money elsewhere, and will increase local standards of living and health, as well as increase the quality and value of the land.
All this will be achieved though mechanisms that work in parallel and are often complementary, e.g. pyrolysis of forest waste can stimulate forest growth, avoid termite infections and reduce the risk of wildfires; furthermore, when pyrolysis provides power that replaces the practice of burning firewood and fossil fuel to power lighting and cooking, this will also reduce the risk of lung infections.

To increase demand for the local currency, rebates on local clean energy programs and soil supplements could be paid out in local currency. Furthermore, a community can call for local rates and fees on products such as fuel, polluting cement, livestock products and nitrogen fertilizers to be paid in local currency.

Much crop is now used to grow feed for livestock ― less livestock could free up land that could be used to produce food & wood, and the associated organic waste. Furthermore, such feebates can avoid soil erosion and deforestation, and instead result in more vegetation, thus further increasing the amount of biomass available for pyrolysis.

Below are some further ways pyrolysis can be integrated in the local economy:

Pyrolysis of biomass is an excellent way of handling organic waste, while producing useful products such as biochar, biooils and gases such as hydrogen. Biooil and hydrogen can be used to power aviation and shipping.
Bioasphalt^® is a type of asphalt made from bio-oil. According to its manufacturer, it can save energy and money, since it can be mixed and paved at lower temperatures than conventional asphalt.
Apart from burial of biochar to enhance soil fertility, biochar can also be used to manufacture a range of products, including vehicle bodies made of carbon fiber and capacitors.

A team at Stevens Institute of Technology has designed, fabricated, and tested a prototype supercapacitor electrode made from biochar. The team demonstrated biochar's feasibility as an alternative to activated carbon for supercapacitor electrodes. Currently, supercapacitors use activated carbon. The team estimates that biochar costs almost half as much as activated carbon, apart from being more sustainable.

Supercapacitors can be used to power electric buses. Ultracapacitor buses by Sinautecus have been operational in the Greater Shanghai area since August 2006, as mentioned under this post on electric bus systems.

More reading at:

Feebates

Biochar

Biomass

Vortex towers could vegetate deserts

Carbon-negative building

Towards a Sustainable Economy

Carbon-negative technologies

2011-09-22T23:49:00.000-07:00

The image below, adapted from Negative Emissions Technologies report by Duncan McLaren (version 2, 2011), pictures a number of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods.

For further discussion of biomass use, see the post Biomass; for further discussion of policy issues, see The way back to 280 ppm and Towards a Sustainable Economy.

Runaway Warming

2011-09-07T02:56:00.000-07:00

Thermal expansion

As mentioned in Ten dangers of Global Warming, one of the biggest dangers is that, without dramatic action, the atmosphere will reach certain tipping points beyond which sudden dramatic and catastrophic changes will take place.

As Earth warms up, tectonic plates will expand and some areas will come under increasing pressure, especially along fault lines where tectonic plates collide. As described in this comment and this post, this could lead to earthquakes. Thermal expansion of land and water could put more stress on areas prone to seismic activity, triggering earthquakes that can make the greenhouse effect much worse. The danger is that such seismic activity will cause slope failure in regions with methane hydrates that are already unstable and vulnerable due to global warming.

Ice and glaciers melting away

Links between climate change and geological and geomorphological phenomena were the theme of this 2009 conference. Several speakers addressed the danger that, as ice and glaciers in the mountains melt away, a substantial weight is disappearing, changing pressures that act on the Earth's crust and contribute to seismic activity. This link was confirmed in several scientific studies, such as this one dating back to 2003.

Hydrates disturbed by drilling and fracking

There is also an indirect risk. Melting of Arctic sea ice may open up sea routes to hydrates. Drilling and fracking in these hydrates could trigger earthquakes, especially if they're already under extra stress, resulting in the release of huge amounts of methane. This is particularly worrying in the Arctic, where waters can be very shallow, leaving less opportunity for methane to be broken down in the water.

Deep Ocean Warming

The ocean conveyor belt transports water--and heat--around the globe, as shown on the image left, from a NSF press release describing recent research by scientists at NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, which found that deep oceans can warm by 18% to 19% more during a period corresponding with a La Niña event.

Global warming is likely to cause thermal expansion of the oceanic crust, putting stress on areas where tectonic plates meet. Such a warming peak deep in the ocean could put enough extra stress on these areas to trigger earthquakes that in turn disturb hydrates, resulting in huge amounts of methane to be released. The NOAA image below shows how the Mid-Atlantic Ridge continues into the Arctic Ocean.

Gakkel Ridge

One place to watch is Gakkel Ridge, the boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate. Earthquake activity along Gakkel Ridge has been rising since 1970. Earthquakes in the Gakkel Ridge area could send shockwaves into the shallows of the Arctic Ocean.

Between 1999 and 2000 alone, there was an anomalously large number of earthquakes along the Arctic Gakkel Ridge (more than 250). In addition, two very unusual and extremely violent submarine pyroclastic eruptions occured in the central Gakkel Ridge region.

Of the earthquakes measured on the Arctic Gakkel Ridge between March 19th 1980 and the 31st December 2010, most (94%) were strong enough to cause widespread collapse of the methane hydrates and release of methane plumes into the water column and atmosphere. [source: globalwarmingmlight.blogspot.com]

Runaway Warming

In conclusion, global warming can accelerate in a number of ways, including thermal expansion of tectonic plates, causing landslides and shocks from earthquakes, while extra stress can be added due to deep ocean warming peaks and a change in weight as ice retreats on land. This could be ameliorated by drilling and fracking activities.

The danger is that this will put increasing stress on hydrates that can contain huge amounts of methane. If such hydrates are disturbed, huge plumes of methane can be released, causing supersaturation of waters with methane. As a result, further methane releases will enter the atmosphere without being oxidized in the water. The risk is that such methane releases lead to runaway global warming.

This risk is unacceptable, making it imperative to reduce emissions and bring atmospheric carbon dioxide down, which is best achieved by means of feebates and requires a number of geoengineering techniques, as discussed in Sustainable Economy. In Geoengineering the climate (Royal Society, 2009) various geoengineering methods are compared. These methods may differ in timescale, cost-effectiveness and wider impact (see e.g. this posts on Biomass), but the urgency to act on global warming is such that we may well need all of them to avoid runaway global warming.

[adapted from NOAA image]

Geoengineering field testing

2011-09-01T17:19:00.000-07:00

A team of British academics will in October 2011 start conducting field-tests, pumping water into the air from a balloon at a height of 1km. Ultimately, they aim to test pumping sulphates into the stratosphere from a balloon at 20 km height.

The balloon could also be used to test "cloud whitening", i.e. pumping up fine sea salt crystals and spraying them into the air to increase the number of droplets and the reflectivity in clouds.

Source: Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
Also see: Space Hose
Press Release: The SPICE project: a geoengineering feasibility study (September 14, 2011)

Editor's note: The test, part of the UK-based Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project that receives £1.6m support from UK research councils, has meanwhile been put on hold, following the councils' advisory panel's recommendation to delay the project.

Source: Climate fix technical test put on hold (BBC News, September 30, 2011)
Also see: Political backlash to geoengineering begins (New Scientist, October 3, 2011)

The way back to 280 ppm

2011-07-26T02:59:00.000-07:00

Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 394.97ppm at Mauna Loa in May — 41% above the 280ppm it had been for thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution started.

Given the dangers of global warming, carbon dioxide needs to get back to 280ppm. Emission cuts alone will not be able to accomplish this, so what more can be done?

Large drops in carbon dioxide have taken place in history, and are attributed to weathering, i.e. rocks breaking down and carbonates being deposited on ocean floors. However, it takes nature many, many years to do this. To make this happen at accelerated rates, carbon dioxide removal methods can be deployed that are typically referred to as mineral carbonation and accelerated weathering.

At first glance, one may suggest implementation of policies such as cap-and-trade or cap and capture to make those who put carbon into the atmosphere pay for its removal. More effective, though, is a combination of two types of feebates, working separately, yet complimentary, to get emissions cut 80% by 2020 and carbon dioxide on the way back to 280ppm.

Many carbon dioxide removal methods are energy-intensive. As long as the energy used is expensive and polluting, not much can be achieved. A rapid shift to clean energy is necessary, which is best facilitated through energy feebates.

As the number of solar and wind facilities grows, large amounts of clean electricity will become available at off-peak hours, when there's little demand for electricity. This will make such electricity cheap, bringing down the cost of methods such as enhanced weathering, which can take place at off-peak hours. Such energy will also make carbon dioxide removal more effective, since the energy is clean to start with.

Energy feebates can best clean up energy, while other feebates can best raise revenue for carbon dioxide removal. Energy feebates can phase themselves out, completing the necessary shift to clean energy within a decade. Carbon dioxide removal will need to continue for much longer, so funding will need to be raised from other sources, such as sales of livestock products, nitrogen fertilizers and cement.

A range of methods to remove carbon dioxide would be eligible for funding. To be eligible for rebates, methods merely need to be safe and remove carbon dioxide. Methods could remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or from the oceans.

Rebates favor methods that also have commercial viability. In case of accelerated weathering, this will favor production of building materials, road pavement, etc. Such methods could include water desalination and pumping of water into deserts, in efforts to achieve more vegetation growth. Selling a forest where once was a desert could similarly attract rebates.

Some methods will be immediately viable, such as afforestation and biochar burial. It may take some time for methods such as enhanced weathering to become economically viable, but when they do, they can take over where afforestation has exhausted its potential to get carbon dioxide back to 280ppm.

For further discussion, see Towards a Sustainable Economy.

Geoengineering Politics: Research Moving Ahead in the UK

2011-07-06T18:31:00.000-07:00

Geoengineering Politics: Research Moving Ahead in the UK: "The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), a British government funding agency, has released initial funding for two g..."

Earth at Boiling Point

2011-06-11T17:48:00.000-07:00

Silence before the Storm

Here's an analogy to describe the precarious situation we're in. When heat is added to water at boiling point (100°C or 212°F), vapor will appear at the surface, while bubbles of gas are formed throughout the water, but the water's temperature will not rise. All added energy is absorbed in the water, transforming it from a liquid to a gas. This is illustrated by the image below, adapted from ilpi.com.
Similarly, Earth is now at boiling point, i.e. the situation has reached a point where - at first glance - it may appear as if there's little or no change. Rises in global temperature, as illustrated by the chart below, based on data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with standard polynomial trendline added, may seem only mild.

Many will hardly notice global warming, due to the variability of short-term weather conditions locally.
Furthermore, we’ve had a strong La Niña, which pushes temperatures down, while we’ve been in a solar minimum, as some call it: “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century”.
As the image on the right shows, differences in irradiation can amount to a difference in warming of up to 0.25 W/m².
So, impressions that the impact of global warming was only mild can be deceptive.
The NOAA image below shows a steady increase in carbon dioxide over the years. At the same time, the image also shows little or no increase at all for some other emissions over the past decade, particularly for methane (CH₄).

Again, such impressions can be deceptive, as this may make people assume that methane will continue to show little or no increase in future. Instead, the boiling-point analogy is more appropriate to describe the situation regarding methane. Similar to bubbles that start forming in water at boiling point, methane bubbles are forming in the Arctic.

Arctic Sea Ice losses

At the European Geosciences Union annual meeting, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, unveiled the results of advanced computer modeling that produces a "best guess" date of 2016 for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers. The study follows his team's 2007 projection that the dramatic loss of ice extent in 2007 set the stage for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Also illustrative is the image below, from Arctic Sea Ice Blog.

Feedback Effects in the Arctic

Disappearing sea ice will cause albedo changes in the Arctic, amplifying the warming taking place there. The color of the sea is darker than the ice that previously covered it.
Another albedo change is taking place on land. The forested landscape in Siberia may over the course of a year absorb between 2 and 7% more solar radiation, reinforcing local warming trends.
Temperature rises are further amplified by additional feedback effects such as releases of nitrous oxide and methane.
So, while it may appear that there has been little or no rise in methane for some time, the prospect of future methane emissions looks very scary.
Due to amplification of global warming in the Arctic, temperatures can now be 10°C or 18°F higher than average temperatures were 1951-1980 (NASA image left)..
Most methane emissions occur at the northern hemisphere's high latitudes (Wikipedia image below).

At first glance, it may seem as if there's nothing to worry about. Methane releases have historically been stronger at high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, as  illustrated by the NOAA image left (with Mauna Loa data highlighted in red).
However, levels of methane in the Arctic can be expected to rise dramatically, as discussed below.
The image below shows the current extent of Arctic permafrost, as part of a study by Edward Schuur that estimates that there is some 1672 petagrams (GT or billion metric tons, see table below) of carbon in the Arctic permafrost - roughly equivalent to a third of all carbon in the world's soils and about twice the amount of carbon contained in the atmosphere.

The figures mentioned in above paragraph were also used in the report by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, where authors further pointed at the amplifying feedback effect in high northern latitudes of microbial transformation of nitrogen trapped in soils to nitrous oxide.
Apart from Arctic releases of carbon dioxide, there is the potential for releases of nitrous oxide and methane. Much methane is also present in Arctic waters and in sediments underneath the water. Due to methane's high initial global warming potential (GWP), large abrupt releases of methane could lead to runaway global warming, as further discussed below.
The terrifying prospect is that, within a time-span of only a few years, huge methane releases in the Arctic will spread around the globe, covering Earth in a heat-trapping blanket and moving our biosphere beyond its biological boiling point.
Units of measurement
Multiple Name Symbol
English Multiple (SI) Name (SI) Symbol (SI) English(SI)
   10⁰ gram g gram
10³ kilogram Kg thousand g
10⁰ tonne t 1 tonne 10⁶ megagram Mg million g
10³ kilotonne    kt 1 thousand tonnes 10⁹ gigagram Gg billion g
10⁶ megatonne    Mt 1 million tonnes 10¹² teragram T trillion g
10⁹ gigatonne    Gt 1 billion tonnes 10¹⁵ petagram Pg quadrillion g
10¹² teratonne    Tt 1 trillion tonnes 10¹⁸ exagram Eg
10¹⁵ petatonne    Pt 1 quadrillion tonnes 10²¹ zettagram Zg
10¹⁸ exatonne    Et 10²⁴ yottagram Yg

Methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP)

The image below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), shows that methane levels have already been rising dramatically since the industrial revolution.

Over the years, the IPCC has upgraded methane's global warming potential (GWP). In 1995, the IPCC used a figure of 56 for methane's GWP over 20 years, i.e. methane being 56 times more powerful than carbon dioxide by weight when comparing their impact over a period of 20 years. In 2001, the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 62 over 20 years, and in 2007 the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 72 over 20 years.
Large releases could make that much of the methane could remain in the atmosphere longer, without getting oxidized. Initially, much of the methane is oxidized in the sea by oxygen (when released from underwater sediments) and in the atmosphere by hydroxyl. Over time, however, accumulation of methane could cause oxygen and hydroxyl depletion, resulting in ever more methane entering the atmosphere and remaining there for a longer period.
A two-part study by Berkeley Lab and Los Alamos National Laboratory shows that, as global temperature increases and oceans warm, methane releases from clathrates would over time cause depletion of oxygen, nutrients, and trace metals needed by methane-eating microbes, resulting in ever more methane escaping into the air unchanged, to further accelerate climate change.

A 2009 study by Drew Shindell et al. shows that chemical interactions between emissions cause more global warming than previously estimated by the IPCC. The study shows that increases in global methane emissions have already caused a 26% decrease in hydroxyl (OH). Because of this, methane now persists longer in the atmosphere, before getting transformed into the less potent carbon dioxide.
A Centre for Atmospheric Science study suggests that sea ice loss may amplify permafrost warming, with an ice-free Arctic featuring a decrease in hydroxyl of up to 60% and an increase of tropospheric ozone (another greenhouse gas) of up to 60% over the Arctic.
Extension of methane's lifetime further amplifies its greenhouse effect, especially for releases that are two or three times as large as current releases.
The graph on the right, based on data by Isaksen et al. (2011), shows how methane's lifetime extends as more methane is released.
The image below, from a study by Dessus et al., shows how the impact of methane decreases over the years. In the first five years after its release, methane will have an impact more than 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.

The GWP for methane typically includes indirect effects of tropospheric ozone production and stratospheric water vapor production. The study by Isaksen et al. shows (image below) that a scenario of 7 times current methane levels (image below,medium light colors) would correspond with a radiative forcing of 3.6 W/m^-2.

Such an increase in methane would thus add more than double the entire current net anthropogenic warming (for comparison, see Wikipedia image below).

For many years, the amount of methane has remained stable at about 5 Gt annually (NOAA image below). A scenario of 7x this amount would lift the amount of methane in the atmosphere to about 35 Gt.
A scenario of seven times the amount of methane we're used to having in the atmosphere would give the methane a lifetime of more than 18 years, so there's no relief from this burden in sight, while this would triple the entire net effect of all emissions added by people since the industrial revolution.

Arctic concentration makes the situation even worse

What makes things even worse is that all this methane would initially be concentrated in the Arctic, whereas GWP for greenhouse gases is typically calculated under the assumption that the respective greenhouse gas is spread out globally.
All this methane will initially be concentrated locally, causing huge Arctic amplification of the greenhouse effect in summer, when the sun doesn't set.
The methane will heat up the sea, causing further lack of of oxygen in the water, while algae start to bloom, making this worse, and lack of hydroxyl in the air.
In a vicious circle that will further accelerate the permafrost melt, this will cause further releases from permafrost and clathrates.

Uninhabitable Planet
Back in 2009, I pointed at projections of a MIT study showing that, without rapid and dramatic action on global warming, global median surface temperature will rise by 9.4^oF (5.2^oC) by 2100.
The wheel on the right depicts the MIT's estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature rise by 2100 if no policy is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted, and projects a lower rise.
The projections show rises ranging up to 13.3^oF (7.4^oC), based on probabilities revealed by 400 simulations.
But even the worst-case scenario in the above MIT-study may actually understate the problem and the speed with which this may eventuate, since the model does not fully incorporate positive feedbacks such as large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane.
Several teams of scientists warn that we can expect a rise of 4^oC within decades. A rapid rise in temperature is likely to make the areas where most people now live uninhabitable, leaving humans, mammals and plants little on no time to migrate to cooler areas. The image below (edited from New Scientist) shows that the currently inhabited part of the planet would become largely uninhabitable with a global temperature rise of 4^oC.
Above image gives some suggestions as to action that can be taken, such as reforestation and construction of clean energy facilities. The image also shows that habitable areas may be restricted to the edges of the world where there's little sunshine. A specific area can become uninhabitable due to sea level rises or heat stress. Humans simply cannot survive prolonged exposure to temperatures exceeding 95°F (35°C), explains Steven Sherwood. An area can also become uninhabitable due to recurring wildfires, floods, droughts, storms and further extreme weather events that cause erosion, desertification, crop losses and shortages of fresh water.
Back in 2007, I pointed at the danger of tipping points beyond which human beings face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear. The boiling point analogy shows that there may be a window of time to act, like a silence before the storm. This realization should prompt us to speed up implementation of the necessary policies while we can. In fact, abrupt large releases of methane may close that window rather quickly, as described in Runaway Global Warming and The potential for methane releases in the Arctic to cause runaway global warming.

Multiple	Name	Symbol		English Multiple (SI)	Name (SI)	Symbol (SI)	English(SI)
			10⁰	gram	g	gram
			10³	kilogram	Kg	thousand g
10⁰	tonne	t	1 tonne 10⁶	megagram	Mg	million g
10³	kilotonne	kt	1 thousand tonnes 10⁹	gigagram	Gg	billion g
10⁶	megatonne	Mt	1 million tonnes 10¹²	teragram	T	trillion g
10⁹	gigatonne	Gt	1 billion tonnes 10¹⁵	petagram	Pg	quadrillion g
10¹²	teratonne	Tt	1 trillion tonnes 10¹⁸	exagram	Eg
10¹⁵	petatonne	Pt	1 quadrillion tonnes 10²¹	zettagram	Zg
10¹⁸	exatonne	Et	10²⁴	yottagram	Yg

Biomass

2011-05-28T19:50:00.000-07:00

Traditionally, biomass has been used in four ways:

1. For industrial purposes (shelter, building materials, furniture, utensils, etc)

2. Burning (for domestic energy use such as heating, lighting and cooking, and for land clearance)

3. Conservation (left on land or added to soil as compost, to enrich soil and biodiversity, avoid erosion, etc.)

4. For food (including livestock feed, while using fertilizers and with waste dumped in landfills or sea)

In the light of rising costs of fossil fuel and climate change concerns, other uses are considered, specifically:

5. Low-footprint food (reduced meat and reduced use of chemical fertilizers, with waste processed)

6. Commercial combustion in power plants, furnaces, kilns, ovens and internal combustion engines

7. Burial

8. BECCS (Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture & Storage)

9. Biochar (Pyrolysis resulting in biochar, syngas and bio-oils)

10. Biochar + BECCS (Biochar + Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture & Storage)

Table 1. Comparison of methods to process biomass (Energy and Carbon)

	Combustion	Burial	BECCS	Biochar	Biochar + BECCS
Energy - year 0	1.0	-0.1	0.8	0.5	0.5
Carbon - year 0	-0.1	1.0	0.8	0.5	0.9
Energy - out years				0.4	0.4
Carbon - out years				0.5	0.5
Total	0.9	0.9	1.6	1.9	2.3

Above table by Ron Larsen, from this message, shows five methods to process biomass, rated (with 1.0 being the highest score) for their ability to supply energy and for their ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Above table shows that each way to process biomass waste has advantages and disadvantages:

6. Combustion may seem attractive for its supply of energy, while having negative impact due to emissions

7. Burial can minimize emissions, but it doesn't provide energy, in fact it costs energy

8. BECCS can score high on immediate energy supply as well as on avoiding carbon emissions

9. Biochar scores well regarding immediate energy supply and emissions, with additional future benefits

10. Biochar + BECCS has all the benefits of biochar, while also capturing and storing pyrolysis emissions

The table below also incorporates above-mentioned traditional use of biomass, while using a wider footprint, i.e. with scores not only reflecting the ability of the method to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but also looking at emissions other than carbon.

Table 2. Comparison of ten uses of biomass (Energy and Footprint)

	Energy - year 0	Footprint - year 0	Energy - out years	Footprint - out years	Total
Industrial	-0.1	0.1			0.0
Burning	1.0	-1.0			0.0
Conservation		-0.2			-0.2
Food		-0.3			-0.3
Low-footprint food					0.0
Combustion	1.0	-0.1			0.9
Burial	-0.1	1.0			0.9
BECCS	0.8	0.8			1.6
Biochar	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.5	1.9
Biochar +BECCS	0.5	0.9	0.4	0.5	2.3

Biochar gets its positive "out years" scores for increasing vegetation growth over time, as it improves soil's water and nutrients retention, while also reducing the need for chemical fertilizers.

These qualities of biochar are also helpful in efforts to bring vegetation into the desert by means of desalinated water, as proposed by a number of scientists. A study by Leonard Ornstein, a cell biologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and climate modelers David Rind and Igor Aleinov of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, all based in New York City, concludes that it's worth while to do so.

They envision building desalination plants to pump seawater from oceans to inland desert areas using pumps, pipes, canals and aqueducts. The idea is that this would result in vegetation, with the tree cover also bringing more rain -- about 700 to 1200 millimeters per year -- and clouds, which would also help reflect sunlight back into space.

This would not only make these deserts more livable and productive, it would also cool areas, in some cases by up to 8°C .

Importantly, vegetation in the deserts could draw some 8 billion tons of carbon a year from the atmosphere -- nearly as much as people now emit by burning fossil fuels and forests. As forests matured, they could continue taking up this much carbon for decades.

The researchers estimate that building, running, and maintaining reverse-osmosis plants for desalination and the irrigation equipment will cost some $2 trillion per year.

Links
Forest a Desert, Cool the World - ScienceNow Daily News
Ornstein et al. 2009 in press - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Animations of 10-year average precipitation anomalies - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming - Springerlink
Sahara Forest Project
Green machine takes root in Jordan
Afforestation - bringing life into the desert - Sam Carana
Vortex Towers could vegetate deserts - Sam Carana
Biochar - Sam Carana

How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

2011-04-18T18:56:00.000-07:00

Imagine that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why?

Given the scary situation in the Arctic, I would apportion parts of the $10 million to methods that promise immediate results:

Testing of SRM such as sulfur aerosols, bright water and marine cloud brightening.
Testing ways to ignite or break down methane from the sky, i.e. from airplanes or satellites. Laser beams spring to mind. Short, amplified pulses of light could be focused on hydrogen peroxide or ozone, in efforts to produce hydroxyl and oxidize as much methane as possible.
Building on the outcome of 2., equipping small aircraft with such technology, as well as autopilot software, GPS, LiPo batteries and with solar thin film mounted both on top of and underneath the wings.

At first, two such planes could navigate to the north of Canada and Alaska at the start of summer.

In subsequent years, numerous such planes could follow, also going to other parts of the Arctic. At the end of summer, the planes could return home for a check-up and possible upgrade of the technology, to be launched again early summer the next year.

There are many self-financed clubs where members build and fly remote controlled aircraft, as discussed in comments underneath this post. Even a small financial incentive would give them a goal, while the publicity would make people more aware of the problems we face in the Arctic.

Such airplanes could navigate the Arctic, guided by satellite detection of methane concentrations (image left) and equipment carried onboard, such as small versions of these analyzers.

Measuring from different vantage points can pinpoint the most suitable location to cross-aim multiple laser beams at, to minimize the energy needed to heat up methane to its point of auto-ignition (image below).

Methane can be ignited where present in concentrations of 5 to 15 %. In concentrations of around 9%, methane could be ignited with as little as 0.3 mj of energy (see image, adapted from Zabetakis).

At well over 500 degrees Celcius, methane's minimum auto-ignition temperature is rather high. Other volatile hydrocarbons in the vicinity may ignite at lower temperatures (with less energy), in turn igniting the methane.

Sam Carana.

For background on above, also see:

http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/04/runaway-global-warming.html

http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/5eaf812314dced8c

Call for action

2011-04-18T18:13:00.000-07:00

As a result of emissions of pollutants around the world, massive amounts of greenhouse gases are threatening to be released in the Arctic. This calls for action. In addition to long-term measures to mitigate climate change and remove pollutants from oceans and atmosphere, geoengineering in the Arctic should now be included in our efforts to avoid catastrophe.

Undersigned:

Sam Carana, editor of Geo-engineering.blogspot.com

Comments and further signatories are welcome.

Geo-engineering.blogspot.com
Creative Commons License

Please spread this call for action widely,
adding CC and link as footer underneath.

Subscribe to Solar Radiation Geo-Engineering
	Visit this group
Email:

Runaway Global Warming

2011-04-15T19:11:00.000-07:00

1. Methane releases in the Arctic

On June 15, 2011, the research vessel Polarstern (photo right) of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research will set off on its 26th arctic expedition.

According to the press release, scientists onboard the vessel plan to take seafloor samples from a marine area in which fishery echosounders recently detected numerous gas flares. They indicate that probably enormous quantities of methane are released from the seafloor at water depths of around 400 metres west of Svalbard.

Scientists have been researching the potential for methane releases in the Arctic for years. One of the dangers with climate change is that hydrates could become destabilized, causing huge amounts of methane to be released, in turn accelerating warming.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a region about 2,000,000 km² large that, due to polar amplification of global warming, can now be 10°C or 18°F warmer than it was from 1951 to 1980 (NASA image below).

Shakhova and Semiletov (2010) conclude that this ESAS region should be considered the most potential in terms of possible climate change caused by abrupt release of methane.

A press release accompanying a widely-reported study published in Science in 2010 explains that in the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesn't have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere. That, combined with the sheer amount of methane in the region, could add a previously uncalculated variable to climate models.

"The release to the atmosphere of only one percent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to 3 to 4 times," Shakhova warns.

A 2008 paper by Shakhova et al. considered release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. Such a release could multiply the atmospheric methane burden by up to 11 times.

2. Abrupt merthane releases

As permafrost melts, algae and bacteria can flourish, contributing methane through their metabolism. Even more worrying, collapse of methane hydrates can cause abrupt release of huge amounts of methane.

Rising temperatures can cause hydrates to collapse, resulting in abrupt release of huge amounts of methane. Anomolies of up to 12.5°C show up on the image below with average temperatures for November 2010.

For individual days and locations, the anomaly can be even more striking. On January 6, 2011, the minimum temperature in Coral Harbour, located at the northwest corner of Hudson Bay in the province of Nunavut, Canada, was –3.7°C (25.3°F), i.e. 30°C (54°F) above average.

How high can temperatures rise in the Arctic? Below are projections based on above NASA data.

Methane hydrates are held together by high pressure and low temperatures. They can collapse when the temperature rises, or when pressure falls, e.g. when hydrates are disturbed by earthquakes and associated tsunamis, shock-waves and land-slides. Thermal expansion of land and water can put additional stress on areas prone to seismic activity. Furthermore, as ice and glaciers in the mountains melt away, a substantial weight is disappearing, changing pressures that act on the Earth's crust and contribute to seismic activity. This link was confirmed in several scientific studies, such as this one dating back to 2003. Drilling and fracking in these hydrates could make things worse and trigger abrupt releases of huge amounts of methane.

Collapse of a single hydrate can accelerate local warming, in turn causing further hydrates to similarly start adding large amounts of methane to the atmosphere, as further described below.

3. Oxygen depletion

At the moment, methane releases from undersea sediments may still become oxidized in the water. However, a two-part study by Berkeley Lab and Los Alamos National Laboratory shows that, as global temperature increases and oceans warm, methane releases from clathrates would over time cause depletion of oxygen, nutrients, and trace metals needed by methane-eating microbes, resulting in ever more methane escaping into the air unchanged, to further accelerate climate change.

4. Hydroxyl depletion in the air

To make matters even more catastrophic, high methane concentrations will result in an absence of enough hydroxyl in the air for all this methane to be oxidized. A 2009 study by Drew Shindell found that increases in global methane emissions did cause a 26% hydroxyl decrease. Because of this, methane now persists longer in the atmosphere, before getting transformed into the less potent carbon dioxide.

A Centre for Atmospheric Science study suggests that sea ice loss may amplify permafrost warming, with an ice-free Arctic featuring a decrease in hydroxyl of up to 60% and an increase of tropospheric ozone (another greenhouse gas) of up to 60% over the Arctic. This lack of hydroxyl means that methane will persist in the atmosphere for longer at its high global warming potency.

5. Local concentration of methane

Earth has 510,072,000 km² of surface, or more than 255 times that of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Initial concentration of that much methane in the Arctic makes things even worse. While methane can spread out quickly, it will initially be concentrated where it is released. A major methane release in the high Arctic would take 15-40 years to spread to the South Pole. This methane will allow less heat from sunlight in summer to escape into space, while the sun doesn't set. This could therefore cause summer temperatures to rise dramatically in the Arctic, in turn causing further melting and more warming than we're already witnessing now.

6. Methane's high initial Global Warming Potential

Particularly worrying about methane is its high global warming potential, which can be made worse due to the above points, i.e. lack of oxygen in water, resulting in ever less methane oxidation in water, hydroxyl depletion in the air and local concentration of methane. All this may increase methane's global warming potential.

In its first five years, methane is at least 100 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (above image below, from a study by Dessus). Abrupt releases of 15 Gt (or Pg) of methane would result in a burden of 20 Gt of methane (since there already is about 5 Gt in the atmosphere). Applying a global warming potential of 100 times carbon dioxide would give this 20 Gt of methane an initial greenhouse effect equivalent to 2000 Pg of carbon dioxide.

By comparison, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. What makes things even worse is that this 174 PgC was spread out over the globe, whereas methane from such abrupt releases in the Arctic would - at least initially - be concentrated in a relatively small area.

Extension of methane's lifetime further amplifies its greenhouse effect, especially for releases that are two or three times as large as current releases.

The graph on the right, based on data by Isaksen et al. (2011), shows how methane's lifetime extends as more methane is released.

The GWP for methane typically includes indirect effects of tropospheric ozone production and stratospheric water vapor production. The study by Isaksen et al. shows (image below) that a scenario of 7 times current methane levels (image below,medium light colors) would correspond with a radiative forcing of 3.6 W/m^-2.

Such an increase in methane would thus add more than double the entire current net anthropogenic warming, effectively tripling the effect of all emissions added by people since the industrial revolution (for comparison, see Wikipedia image below).

An addition of less than 30 Pg of methane would create such a scenario (i.e. of 7x the methane we're used to having in the atmosphere) and this would extend methane's lifetime to some 18 years, so such a burden will not go away quickly. The situation is even worse when releases take place abruptly over a short period. A single submarine landslide can release 5 Pg of methane, which can double the methane currently in the atmosphere when this occurs in shallow waters, since such a huge release will saturate the water, so most methane will enter the atmosphere unchanged, to trigger further releases.

7. Runaway Global Warming

This kind of warming in the Arctic could result in ever more methane ending up in the atmosphere and remaining there for a longer period without getting oxidized. Initially, all this methane will be concentrated in the arctic, causing huge amplification of the greenhouse effect there in summer, heating up the sea and causing further depletion of oxygen (as algae start to bloom) and further accelerating the permafrost melt and thus causing further carbon to be released from permafrost and clathrates.

Such dramatic local warming is bound to trigger further melting of permafrost locally, resulting in further releases of methane. Massive amounts of methane are stored in the Arctic, much of it concentrated at high density in hydrates. One liter of hydrate can release up to 164 liters of methane. A rise in temperature could cause abrupt releases of huge amounts of methane from hydrates.

8. What can be done about it?

Once runaway global warming starts, it feeds on itself. While dramatic reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions is imperative, that alone will not be able to stop runaway global warming.

Geoengineering methods could reflect some of the sunlight in the Arctic back into space, such as by distributing sulfur dioxide into the stratoshphere by jets, cannons or hoses, or by enhancing cloud albedo as proposed by Stephen Salter and John Latham (see image left).

Even halving the amount of sunlight may not be enough to reduce rapid warming in the region, if that would merely be like cutting methane's GWP in half. Moreover, it can take several years for warming to reach and penetrate hydrate sediments, as described by Nesbit, and once on its way, reducing surface temperature may not be able to reverse such a process quickly enough to avoid massive methane releases. In other words, the window of opportunity for solar reduction methods may already have closed.

Further methods include ways to ignite the methane using short, amplified and focused pulses of UV light from airplanes or satellites. UV light could also be used to produce more hydroxyl, in efforts to oxidize as much methane as possible.

Igniting or breaking down methane may also be possible using model airplanes, equipped with LiPo batteries and with solar thin film mounted both on top of and underneath the wings. Numerous such planes could navigate to the Arctic by autopilot in summer, when there are high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and when the sun shines 24-hours a day. Flying figure-8 patterns with the wings under an angle could optimize capture of sunlight, keeping the planes in the air, while using surplus energy to power UV lights. Another methods could be to focus UV light on ozone and mix it with volatile hydrocarbons, in an effort to produce hydroxyls. At the end of summer, the planes could return home for a check-up and possible upgrade of the technology, to be launched again early summer the next year.

Such methods are further discussed at this geoengineering group.

Action Plan to deal with global warming and climate change

2011-03-26T22:05:00.000-07:00

Goals:
1. Adapt and deal with symptoms (preparation, preservation, plantation, energy saving, etc)
2. Combat causes of global warming
2.1. Long-term impact (cut CO₂ emissions and remove CO₂ from atmosphere and oceans) ^(C,D)
2.2. Short-term impact
2.2.1. Reflect more sunlight back into space ^(D)
2.2.2. Reduce pollutants other than CO₂
2.2.2.1. Reduce emissions of chemical gases such as HFC, PFC, SF_6,, halon, CFC and HCFC ^(A)
2.2.2.2. Reduce emissions of CH₄, N²O, BC, CO, NO_x and VOC ^(B,C,E)
2.2.2.3. Produce extra OH ^(D)

This can be best achieved through:

A.		Protocols (Kyoto, Montreal, etc), standards and deposits (refunded at collection) on products containing inorganic pollutants
		Fees on nitrogen fertilizers and livestock products (where farmed) to fund local application of biochar
C.		Fees on burning fuel (where burned) to fund clean local alternatives (incl. EVs, solar cookers, WWS energy)
D.		Geoengineering (adding lime to seawater and aerosols to the atmosphere, carbon air capture, using UV light to stimulate methane oxidation, cloud brightening, etc; for more see the geoengineering group)
E.		Organic waste handling standards (e.g. the UNEP-proposed ban of open field burning of agricultural waste)

Color Use:

Blue		Goals
Purple		Inorganic waste policies (cycle A)
Green		Land use and organic waste policies (cycles B & E)
Orange		Geoengineering & energy-related policies (cycles C & D)
——>		Feebate policies

Acronyms and Abbreviations
BC	black carbon (or soot)
CFC	chlorofluorocarbon
CH₄	methane (or natural gas)
CO	carbon monoxide
CO₂	carbon dioxide
EV	electric vehicle
HFC	hydrofluorocarbon also known as freon, with the subclass HCFC
HCFC	hydrochlorofluorocarbon
H₂O₂	HOOH or hydrogen peroxide
NO	nitrogen monoxide (commonly known as nitric oxide)
NO₂	nitrogen dioxide
NO_X	nitrogen oxides (NO and NO₂, which cause O₃, smog and acid rain)
N²O	nitrous oxide
O₃	ozone
OH	hydroxyl
PFC	perfluorocarbon
SF₆	sulphur hexafluoride
UNEP	United Nations Environment Programme
VOC	volatile organic compound include CFCs, styrene, limonene and formaldehyde
WWS	WWS energy or Wind, Water and Solar Energy (water includes hydro, wave, tidal and geothermal)

Related Posts

Goals
Ten Dangers of Global Warming
America can win the clean energy race

A. Protocols, standards and deposit programs
A national bottle recycling bill
Green Refrigerators and Air Conditioners

B. Fees on nitrogen fertilizers and livestock products, funding biochar
Biochar
Afforestation - bringing life into the deserts
Save the Rainforest
Fees on Livestock to fund Biochar

C. Fees on burning fuel, funding clean local energy programs
Electric Vehicles - Frequently Asked Questions
SuperB Grid

D. Geoengineering
The Threat of Methane Release from Permafrost and Clathrates
Funding of Carbon Air Capture
Open letter on Arctic sea ice loss

E. Organic waste handling standards
Algae Bags

——>

Feebate policies

Feebates

Further reading
Posts at Gather

Global Warming Action Plan

2011-01-16T17:24:00.000-08:00

All nations should commit to effective action to deal with climate change. Nations should each be able to decide for themselves how to do this, provided they each meet agreed targets independently and genuinely (i.e. without buying or fabricating offsets or credits, domestically or abroad). Where necessary, border adjustments can help ensure that commitments are indeed met.

Some policies may aim to reduce emissions in one area, while causing emissions elsewhere. As an example, biofuel may reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in transport, while increasing agricultural emissions, reducing forests and diverting crop, water and energy from better use.

It is important for nations to each achieve results on each of the following points, without achievements in one area being counterproductive elsewhere. It is therefore recommended to take an approach that seeks results on each of the following points.

Part 1. Reduce oceanic and atmospheric CO₂

Target: Ensure that atmospheric CO₂ levels do not exceed 400 ppm over the next few decades, while aiming for a longer term target of 350 ppm.

James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, says in Target CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim? that atmospheric CO₂ should be reduced to 350 ppm. To achieve this target, several policies will need to work in parallel with each other.

1.1. Dramatic cuts in CO₂ emissions

In many cases, dramatic cuts in CO₂ emissions can be achieved merely by electrifying transport and shifting to generation of energy by clean facilities such as solar panels and wind turbines. Each nation should aim to reduce their CO₂emissions by a minimum of 8% per year over the next ten years, based on their 2009 emissions, and by 80% by 2020.

1.2. Carbon must also be actively removed from the atmosphere and the oceans

A study at the University of Calgary concludes that, even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO₂ in the atmosphere, the West Antarctic ice sheet will still eventually collapse (by the year 3000), causing a global sea level rise of at least four meters. This means that - apart from reducing emissions - there should be additional efforts to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and the oceans, in order to get CO₂ down to levels as pictured on the above graph.

Carbon is naturally removed from the atmosphere and the oceans by vegetation, so it makes sense to protect forests and encourage their growth. There are ways to reduce ocean acidification, such as by adding lime to seawater, as discussed at other posts of this geoengineering blog and at this geoengineering group. Carbon capture from ambient air and pyrolysis of surplus biomass with biochar burial are some of the most promising methods to further remove carbon from the atmosphere. Biochar can also help with afforestation and prevent deforestation and land degradation. Funding of carbon air capture could be raised through fees on jet fuel.

All nations should commit to such initiatives — care should be taken that emission reductions are not substituted by carbon removal or vice versa.

Part 2. Short-term action

The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror, reflecting sunlight back into space and thus keeping Earth relatively cool, as discussed in this open letter. If this sunlight instead gets absorbed at higher latitudes, then feedback effects will take place that result in much higher temperatures, in a process sometimes referred to as Arctic amplification of global warming.

The IPCC didn't take such feedback into account in AR4. A study that used 2007/2008 data as starting point predicts a nearly sea ice free Arctic in September by the year 2037, some predict an even quicker demise. A study by by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Jeffrey Kiehl found that carbon dioxide may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models of global climate. Melting of ice sheets, for example, leads to additional heating because exposed dark surfaces of land or water absorb more heat than ice sheets.

Albedo change is only one of a number of feedback processes. A rapid rise of Arctic temperatures could lead to wildfires and the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane that are now stored in peat, permafrost and clathrates, which constitutes further feedback that could cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Heat produced by decomposition of organic matter is yet another feedback that leads to even deeper melting.

2.1. Reduce methane and nitrogen oxide emissions

Reductions in the emissions of methane and nitrogen oxide can be achieved by a change in diet, improved waste handling and better land use.

Effective policies such as feebates can impose fees on nitrogen fertilizers and livestock products, while using the revenues to fund pyrolysis of organic waste.

2.2. Emissions of other pollutants than conventional greenhouse gases should also be reduced

Both the Kyoto Protocol and the IPCC have focused much on reducing CO₂ emissions, as well as other conventional greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrogen oxide. Melting in the Arctic carries the risk of huge additional emissions from peat, permafrost and clathrates, which calls for more immediate mitigation action.

All nations should therefore commit to short-term mitigation — long-term mitigation efforts should not be substituted by short-term mitigation or vice versa.

As this NASA study points out, for more effective short-term impact, drastic cuts should also be made in other pollutants, such ozone, soot and carbon monoxide. This is further illustrated by the image on the right that shows what causes most radiative forcing (W/m²) when taking into account all pollutants over a 20-year period, from a study published in Science. Reducing short-lived pollutants could significantly reduce warming above the Arctic Circle, finds a study published in Journal of Geophysical Research.

A relatively cheap way to achieve such cuts is by encouraging the use of solar cookers and rechargeable batteries to power LED lights. Many types of equipment and appliances can also be powered this way, even when batteries are recharged by hand cranking or pedaling. Electrification of road transport is a crucial part of short-term action, as illustrated by the image, while generation of energy from clean facilities such as solar panels and wind turbines (as also discussed under part 1.1.) will further contribute to reductions in short-lived pollutants.

Furthermore, reductions in short-lived pollutants can be achieved by preservation of forests, which justifies financial assistance by rich countries. As said, such assistance should not be used by rich nations as a substitute for domestic action — action is also required domestically by each nation, on all points.

The desired shifts can often best be accomplished locally by budget-neutral feebates, i.e. fees on local sales of fuel, engines and ovens, each time funding the better local products, as illustrated by the image below.

2.3. Furthermore, consider ways to reflect more solar radiation back into space

Discussions of ways to reflect solar radiation can be found at other posts of this geoengineering blog and furthermore at this geoengineering group.

Part 3. Adaptation

Look at policies that can help people, flora and fauna adapt to climate change. Rich nations are urged to give financial assistance to poorer nations, as well as to facilitate technology transfer, including by preventing that intellectual property protection acts as a barrier to such transfer.

3.1. Prepare for extreme weather events

Look at safety issues from the perspective of a changed world. Prepare for hailstorms, heavy flooding, severe droughts, wildfires, etc., and grow food that fits such weather patterns best.

3.2. Preserve biodiversity

Protection of rain forests is well covered in the media. Biodiversity can be further preserved by means of seed banks, parks and wildlife corridors.

3.3. Vegetate

Fresh water supply and food security require extensive planning, such as selection of best crop. Build facilities for desalination both for fresh water in cities and to irrigate and vegetate deserts and other areas with little vegetation.

image from: Towards a sustainable Economy

Leading global warming experts are invited to contribute comments and thoughts as to what constitutes an effective global warming action plan

2011 starts with lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record

2011-01-16T16:35:00.000-08:00

The year 2010 was the warmest year on record, as confirmed by the WMO and as illustrated by the NOAA graph below.

This is the more dramatic given that we’re in the middle of a strong La Niña, which pushes temperatures down, while we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.”

NOAA has meanwhile published the data for 2010. A chart based on NOAA data is added below, with standard polynomial trendline added.

As the NASA map below shows, temperature anomalies are especially prominent at higher latitudes, close to the Arctic.

Arctic sea ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record for the month, said the WMO, adding that sea ice around the northern polar region shrank to an average monthly extent of 12 million square kilometres, 1.35 million square kilometres below the 1979 to 2000 December average. Furthermore, 2011 has started with the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this time of the year, as shown on the International Arctic Research Center graph below.

On the NSIDC graph below, monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 11.5% per decade.

The NSIDC image below shows that, at the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining in the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s).

Why is all this so important? The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror, reflecting sunlight back into space and thus keeping Earth relatively cool, as discussed in this open letter. If this sunlight instead gets absorbed at higher latitudes, then feedback effects will take place that result in much higher temperatures, in a process sometimes referred to as Arctic amplification of global warming.

Above image is from a recent study, which found that 2010 set a record for surface melting over the Greenland ice sheet.

The study warns that surface melt and albedo are intimately linked: as melting increases, so does snow grain size, leading to a decrease in surface albedo which then fosters further melt.

A recent study concludes that the rate of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be accelerating due to positive feedbacks between the ice, the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere. As Arctic temperatures rise, summer ice cover declines, more solar heat is absorbed by the ocean and additional ice melts. Warmer water may delay freezing in the fall, leading to thinner ice cover in winter and spring, making the sea ice more vulnerable to melting during the next summer.

Thin lines are raw data, bold lines are three-point running means…. (C) Summer temperatures at 50-m water depth (red)…. Gray bars mark averages until 1835 CE and 1890 to 2007 CE. Blue line is the normalized Atlantic Water core temperature (AWCT) record … from the Arctic Ocean (1895 to 2002; 6-year averages)…. (D) Summer temperatures (purple) [calculated with a different method]

The IPCC didn't take such feedbacks into account and didn't foresee a total September sea ice loss in the Arctic for this century. Many scientists have repeatedly warned about this, as mentioned in this early 2009 post and this early 2010 post.

Projections that start with more recent data will take some of this feedback into account. Projections that start with 1992 and 1995 data, as in the pink and purple lines on above image, predict a total loss of September Arctic sea ice by 2040 or 2030. A study that used 2007/2008 data as starting point predicts a nearly sea ice free Arctic in September by the year 2037.

Albedo change is only one of a number of feedback processes. A rapid rise of Arctic temperatures could lead to wildfires and the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane that are now stored in peat, permafrost and clathrates, which constitutes further feedback that could cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Heat produced by decomposition of organic matter is yet another feedback that leads to even deeper melting.

The cumulative impact of multiple feedback processes and their interaction reinforces and accelerates Arctic warming, making downward curved projections more applicable than straight line extrapolation of earlier data. The pink dotted line on above chart shows a scenario that reflects the impact of a number of feedback processes.

A study at the University of Calgary concludes that, even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere, we've already added enough carbon in the oceans to cause the West Antarctic ice sheet to eventually collapse (by the year 3000), resulting in a global sea level rise of at least four meters. In other words, we have already passed the tipping point for the West Antarctic ice sheet, and additional emissions could cause its collapse to occur much earlier.

According to a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, ice and snow in the Northern Hemisphere are now reflecting on average 3.3 watts of solar energy per square meter back to space, a reduction of 0.45 watts per square meter between 1979 and 2008. "The rate of energy being absorbed by the Earth through cryosphere decline – instead of being reflected back to the atmosphere – is almost 30% of the rate of extra energy absorption due to CO2 increase between pre-industrial values and today," co-author Karen Shell said.

A study by by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Jeffrey Kiehl found that carbon dioxide may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models of global climate. Melting of ice sheets, for example, leads to additional heating because exposed dark surfaces of land or water absorb more heat than ice sheets.

Without changes, this new study warns, Earth's average temperature appears set to rise this century by 29°F (16°C), to levels never before experienced in human history. Such a rise would make that many areas on Earth would become too hot to live in.

Humans and other mammals cannot survive prolonged exposure to temperatures exceeding 95°F (35°C), says Steven Sherwood. Heat stress would make many parts of the globe uninhabitable with global-mean warming of about 7°C (12.6°F). Warming of about 21°F (11-12°C) would make places where most people now live uninhabitable.

I have made recommendations to deal with global warming for years, most recently in this Global Warming Action Plan.

What do you think should be done?

More on Global Warming:

More on Geoengineering:

Open letter on Arctic Sea Ice Loss

2010-06-26T00:18:00.000-07:00

Open letter on Arctic Sea Ice Loss

The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the Earth. The sea ice has been retreating far faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted only three years ago ^[1]. After the record retreat in September 2007, many scientists revised their predictions for the date of a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean from beyond the end of century to beyond 2030. Only a few scientists predicted this event for the coming decade, and they were ridiculed.

In 2008 and 2009 there was only a slight recovery in end-summer sea ice extent, and it appears that the minimum 2010 extent will be close to a new record ^[2]. However the evidence from PIOMAS is that there has been a very sharp decline in ice volume ^[3], which is very worrying.

The Arctic warming is now accelerating, and we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from as early as 2011 onwards, which could lead inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change. All this could become apparent if the sea ice retreats further than ever before this summer. We could be approaching a point of no return unless emergency action is taken.

We suggest that the current situation should be treated as a warning for us all. The world community must rethink its attitude to fighting global warming only by cutting greenhouse gas emissions sharply. Even if emissions could be cut to zero, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to warm the planet for many decades.

Geoengineering now appears the only means to cool the Arctic quickly enough. A geoengineering project of the intensity of the Manhattan Project is urgently needed to guard against a global catastrophe. A multi-disciplinary team of scientists and engineers should be tasked and resourced to assess the evolving situation in the Arctic and implement a strategy of parallel research, development, preparation and deployment for different geoengineering techniques, such as to minimise the risk of failure.

Yours sincerely,

John Nissen, MA (Cantab) Natural Sciences, Director of Cloudworld Ltd

Email jn@cloudworld.co.uk for correspondence

Other signatories

Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering, Edinburgh University

Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group, Cambridge University

Gregory Benford, Professor of Physics, University of California, Irvine

John Gorman, MA (Cantab), Chartered Engineer MIMechE, MIET - UK

Colin John Baglin, B.Eng. M.Sc. C.Eng. M.I.Mech.E.

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS, FIPC Co-Ordinator, Greenland Ice Stability Project

Dr. Brian Orr, PhD control engineering, j.mp/BrianOrr

Tom Barker, BSc PhD, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool

Nicholas Maxwell, Emeritus Reader, University College London; author - j.mp/NickMaxwell

Donald A. Grinde, Jr., Professor and Chair, Department of American Studies
SUNY at Buffalo - americanstudies.buffalo.edu

Sam Carana, contributor to Feebate.net and geo-engineering.blogspot.com

References
[1] Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Stroeve et al, May 2007
http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf
[2] NSIDC daily images - National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado
Reference image below dated June 24, 2010. For updates, see current daily image.
[3] Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), University of Washington.
Original reference image dated May 30, 2010. Image below is dated June 18, 2010.

As NOAA reports that the May 2010 global temperature was the warmest on record, sea ice extent remains well below the 2007 record low, as shown on above NSIDC image.

Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), University of Washington.

Funding of Carbon Air Capture

2009-05-04T20:02:00.000-07:00

Air capture of carbon dioxide is an essential part of the blueprint to reduce carbon dioxide to acceptable levels. Fees on conventional jet fuel seem the most appropriate way to raise funding to help with the development of air capture technology.

Why target jet fuel? In most other industries, there are ready alternatives to the use of fossil fuel. Electricity can be produced by wind turbines or by solar or geothermal facilities with little or no emissions of greenhouse gases. In the case of aviation, though, the best we can aim for, in the near future at least, is biofuel.

Technically, there seem to be no problems in powering aircraft with biofuel. Back in Jan 7, 2009, a Continental Airlines commercial aircraft (a Boeing 737-800) was powered in part by algae oil, supplied by Sapphire Energy. The main hurdle appears to be that algae oil is not perceived as price-competitive with fossil fuel-based jet fuel.

Additionally, the aviation industry can offset emissions, e.g. by funding air capture of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide thus captured could be partly used to produce fuel, which could in turn be used by the aviation industry, as pictured on the left. The carbon dioxide could also be used to assist growth of biofuel, e.g. in greenhouses.

Algae can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops. A CNN report, more than a year ago, mentions Vertigro's claim to be able to grow 100,000 gallons of algae oil per acre per year by growing algae in clear plastic bags suspended vertically in a greenhouse. Given the right temperature and sufficient supply of light, water and nutrients, algae seem able to supply an almost limitless amount of biofuel.

The potential of algae has been known for decades. As another CNN report describes, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) had a program for nearly two decades, to study the potential of algae as a renewable fuel. The program was run by the DoE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and was terminated by 1996. At that time, a NREL report concluded that an area around the size of the U.S. state of Maryland could cultivate algae to produce enough biofuel to satisfy the entire transportation needs of the U.S.

In conclusion, it would make sense to impose fees on conventional jet fuel and use the proceeds of those fees to fund air capture of carbon dioxide.

Apart from growing algae in greenhouses, we should also consider growing them in bags. NASA scientists are proposing algae bags as a way to produce renewable energy that does not compete with agriculture for land or fresh water. It uses algae to produce biofuel from sewage, using nutrients from waste water that would otherwise be dumped and contribute to pollution and dead zones in the sea.

The NASA article conservatively mentions that some types of algae can produce over 2,000 gallons of oil per acre per year. In fact, most of the oil we are now getting out of the ground comes from algae that lived millions of years ago. Algae still are the best source of oil we know.

In the NASA proposal, there's no need for land, water, fertilizers and other nutrients. As the NASA article describes, the bags are made of inexpensive plastic. The infrastructure to pump sewage to the sea is already in place. Economically, the proposal looks sound, even before taking into account environmental benefits.

Jonathan Trent, lead research scientist on the Spaceship Earth project at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, envisages large plastic bags floating on the ocean. The bags are filled with sewage on which the algae feed. The transparent bags collect sunlight that is used by the algae to produce oxygen by means of photosynthesis. The ocean water helps maintain the temperature inside the bags at acceptable levels, while the ocean's waves also keep the system mixed and active.

The bags will be made of “forward-osmosis membranes”, i.e. semi-permeable membranes that allow fresh water to flow out into the ocean, while preventing salt from entering and diluting the fresh water inside the bag. Making the water run one way will retain the algae and nutrients inside the bags. Through osmosis, the bags will also absorb carbon dioxide from the air, while releasing oxygen. NASA is testing these membranes for recycling dirty water on future long-duration space missions.

As the sewage is processed, the algae grow rich, fatty cells that are loaded with oil. The oil can be harvested and used, e.g., to power airplanes.

In case a bag breaks, it won’t contaminate the local environment, i.e. leakage won't cause any worse pollution than when sewage is directly dumped into the ocean, as happens now. Exposed to salt, the fresh water algae will quickly die in the ocean.

The bags are expected to last two years, and will be recycled afterwards. The plastic material may be used as plastic mulch, or possibly as a solid amendment in fields to retain moisture.

A 2007 Bloomberg report estimated that the Gulf of Mexico's Dead Zone would reach more than half the size of Maryland that year and stretch into waters off Texas. The Dead Zone endangers a $2.6 billion-a-year fishing industry. The number of shrimp fishermen licensed in Louisiana has declined 40% since 2001. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers in the 2007 spring planted the most acreage with corn since 1944, due to demand for ethanol. As the report further describes, the Dead Zone is fueled by nitrogen and other nutrients pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, and corn in particular contributes to this as it uses more nitrogen-based fertilizer than crops such as soybeans.

The Louisiana coast seems like a good place to start growing algae in bags floating in the sea, filled with sewage that would otherwise be dumped there. It does seem a much better way to produce biofuel than by subsidizing corn ethanol.

According to zFacts.com, corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That's $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (or $2.21 per gallon of gas replaced). As zFacts.com explains, besides failing to help with greenhouse gases and having serious environmental problems, corn ethanol subsidies are very expensive, and the political backlash in the next few years, as production and subsidies double, will damage the effort to curb global warming.

At UN climate talks in Bonn, the world's poorest nations proposed a levy of about $6 on every flight to help them adapt to climate change. Benito Müller, environment director of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and author of the proposal, said that air freight was deliberately not included. The levy could raise up to $10 billion per year and would increase the average price of an international long-haul fare by less than 1% for standard class passengers, but up to $62 for people traveling first class.

In the light of those amounts, it doesn't seems unreasonable to expect that fees imposed on conventional jet fuel could raise billions per year. Proceeds could then be used to fund rebates on air capture of carbon dioxide, which could be pumped into the bags on location to enhance algae growth. Air capture devices could be powered by surplus energy from offshore wind turbines. With the help of such funding, the entire infrastructure could be set up quickly, helping the environment, creating job opportunities, making the US less dependent on oil imports, while leaving us with more land and water to grow food, resulting in lower food prices.

Open Letter to Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate

2009-04-20T00:19:00.000-07:00

Forum Participants,

We, a group of scientists, researchers and other people sharing a strong background and interest in climate change, are concerned that the Forum's sole focus will be on the politics of energy, as seems confirmed by the name of the Forum.

We believe that the scientific evidence strongly suggests that the approach to the climate change problem should be as broadly based as possible. As such, this should include the following four parts:
Part A: Emissions reduction
Part B: Carbon stock management
Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management
Part D: Adaptation

We note that there is little or no funding for research and testing of geoengineering methods (in Part B and Part C). These should be urgently considered as part of a comprehensive approach to climate change.

Signatories:
- John Nissen (jn@cloudworld.co.uk)
- Andrew Lockley (Former director of Friends of the Earth ENWI - UK)
- Peter Read (Hon. Research Fellow, Massey University Centre for Energy Research - NZ)
- Bill Fulkerson (Senior Fellow, Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, University of Tennessee)
- Dan Wylie-Sears
- Eugene I. Gordon
- John Gorman (MA (Chartered Engineer MIMechE, MIET - UK)
- Jim Woolridge (former Climate and Energy Campaigner, Earthwatch/Friends of the Earth, Ireland)
- Sam Carana (contributor to feebate.net - sam.carana@gmail.com)

References:
White House Announcement of Major Economies Forum (MEF)
White House Announcement of Mexico MEF Meeting
Department of State Annoucement of MEF
Open letter to Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, IPCC chair (Gather)
Open letter to Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, IPCC chair (Geo-engineering)
Open Letter to Major Economies Forum Participants (background)

Open letter to Dr Pachauri

2009-03-09T14:22:00.000-07:00

Climate Congress, Copenhagen, 10-12 March, 2009
Open letter to Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, IPCC chair

Dear Dr Pachauri,

The Climate Congress presents an important opportunity to present all facets of the current situation, explore the ramifications, and suggest appropriate actions. The aim must be, as far as possible, to address the threat of a disastrous multi-metre rise in sea level and catastrophic multi-degree rise in temperature – whenever they might occur.

We would like to suggest a rather simple division of the problem/solution domain:

Part A: Emissions reduction

About: Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Target: Achieve near-zero carbon economies throughout the world by end century.

Difficulties: International agreement, life-style changes, high cost.

Rationale: Long-term sustainability.

Part B: Carbon stock management

About: Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by various means.

Target: Reduce levels below 350 ppm over next three decades.

Difficulties: May involve change in agricultural practice, worldwide. Side-effects may be difficult to anticipate.

Rationale: Reduce CO2 climate forcing below its current level, halt ocean acidification and protect carbon sinks.

Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management

About: Mainly about albedo engineering and solar radiation management.

Priority target: Cool the Arctic sufficient to halt retreat of Arctic sea ice within three years.

Difficulties: Seen as tampering with the environment, and therefore intrinsically dangerous; but cost is low and side-effects should be manageable.

Rationale: Reduce risk of massive methane discharge and stabilise the Greenland ice sheet.

International focus has been almost entirely on Part A until recently, when it has been realised that: (1) it is proving extremely difficult to achieve reductions; (2) the current trend is towards IPCC’s worst case scenario; (3) lifetime of CO2 had been under-estimated – even if anthropogenic greenhouse gases could be stopped overnight, the existing gas levels will live on in the atmosphere for centuries, causing the global temperature to continue to rise many degrees; (4) global warming of more than 2 degrees could be disastrous; (5) tipping points could be reached much sooner than expected.

It is generally recognised that the underlying primary cause of global warming is the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. If emissions reduction can’t reduce it quickly enough, then we have to resort to some form of geoengineering – or more specifically carbon stock management – see Part B. Furthermore, ocean acidification is becoming dangerous, and this can only be tackled by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. So, within a decade or two, carbon stock management could become essential, and we should be doing large-scale experimentation now.

But the actions of Part A and Part B cannot prevent tipping points driven by positive feedback on temperature. Emissions reduction and carbon stock management cannot produce a cooling effect – certainly not on the time-scales we are talking about. We have to resort to other kinds of geoengineering, hence Part C.

As regards tipping points, our perception of the situation has changed fundamentally since the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice in September 2007. The IPCC had chosen to ignore potential tipping points, as being too difficult to model or lacking reliable data. But now some experts are talking about possible summer disappearance of sea ice within a decade [1], and this possibility is even mentioned in the introduction to Session 1 of the Congress [2]:

“Sea ice is changing and the sea ice in the northern polar ocean has retreated in the last few years and might totally disintegrate during the next decade.”

Sea ice disappearance will accelerate Arctic warming which could trigger the release of vast amounts of methane from permafrost (leading to many degrees of global warming) and/or destabilise the Greenland ice sheet (leading to many metres of sea level rise).

There now appears no other possibility to save the Arctic sea ice than to cool the Arctic region, by reflecting more sunlight back into space. There are two prime candidates for this: stratospheric sulphate aerosols and marine cloud brightening [3]. The former involves the injection of a H2S or SO2 high in the stratosphere, where it reacts to form microscopic droplets of sulphuric acid which scatter sunlight efficiently. This mimics the effect of a volcano like Pinatubo, which cooled the planet for two years from its sulphur emissions into the stratosphere. The latter – the brightening of marine clouds – involves producing a very fine spray of sea water from ships which sail underneath low-lying cumulus clouds, such that some of the spray wafts upwards, brightening the clouds and reflecting light back into space. Modeling suggests that each of these cooling technologies should be effective, affordable, fast acting, easily reversible and reasonably safe.

If we can save the Arctic sea ice, then we may be able to avoid other tipping points such as the methane release from permafrost. Such action buys time while we reduce CO2 levels and avoid other catastrophes such as from ocean acidification. On the other hand, if we do not act with the necessary urgency, we may soon find ourselves beyond the point of no return: doomed both to many metres of sea level rise and to spiraling temperatures, way above 6 degrees this century – temperatures for which the very survival of our civilization would be in question.

John Nissen
Email: jn@cloudworld.co.uk for correspondence

Stephen Salter
Professor of Engineering, University of Edinburgh

John Latham
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/

Oliver Wingenter
Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change,
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Peter Read
Hon. Research Fellow, Massey University Centre for Energy Research

Andrew Lockley, London UK
Former director of Friends of the Earth ENWI

John Gorman MA (Cantab), London, UK

Sam Carana, contributor to feebate.net
sam.carana@gmail.com

References:

[1] Climate Safety report, which can be downloaded from:
http://climatesafety.org/

[2] Climate Congress, Session 1, in:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/programme/sessions06.03.2009.pdf

[3] Solar Radiation Management:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management

Considerations for New Year

2008-12-31T19:43:00.000-08:00

Many of the graphs relating to global warming are exponential, rather than linear. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising at accelerating speed, unlike anything that has been seen in history. This in itself is sufficient reason for alarm. Additionally, there are scenarios in which the combination of several tipping points can lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect that feeds on itself through positive feedback mechanisms. For an example, read about the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis.

For decades, people have warned about this. Back in the early 1990s, a poll of the world's leading climatologists showed that many feared that the greenhouse effect could be unstoppable if emissions of polluting gases were merely frozen and not cut. In December 1991, Greenpeace asked 400 climate scientists if they thought the greenhouse effect might reach the point of no return in the near future. Of the 113 scientists who returned their questionnaires, almost half thought a runaway greenhouse effect is possible, and 13 per cent thought it probable.

James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, recently said that human activity is causing greenhouse gas levels to rise so rapidly that his model suggests there is a risk of a runaway greenhouse effect, ultimately resulting in the loss of oceans and of all life on the planet: "In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty."

I discussed this danger in the article Venus' runaway greenhouse effect a warning for Earth, originally posted and discussed at Gather.

Even if the risk of such scenarios occurring on Earth were small, it makes sense to do the following:

describe risk and estimate chances of manifestation, timelines, etc.
identify tipping points, feedback mechanisms and give estimate ranges of their combined impact
investigate ways to avoid it, mitigate it, etc.
conduct comparative analysis of the various proposals
make recommendations

What evaluation criteria can be used in above comparative analysis? Here are some suggestions:

SCIENCE
Existing studies - Are relevant studies available? Has there been any peer-review?
Further study - What further studies and modeling are required?
Effectiveness - How effective will the proposal be in reducing global warming?
Timescale - How long will it take to see results?
Concerns - What are possible climate risks, side-effects, dangers?

ENGINEERING
Methods - How can it be done? Have specific methods been proposed?
Technical problems - Could the project run into technical problems?
Technologies - Does the project require development of new technologies?
Testing - Has any testing been done? At what scale?

ECONOMICS
Cost - Are there estimates as to what (each of the various stages of) implementations would cost?
Financing - How could the project be financed? Is there any backing for the project?
Resources - Will there be access to the various resources needed to make it work?
Impact - What will be the economic impact? Who will profit from the project?

POLITICS
Approval - What kind of approvals are needed to go ahead?
Subsidies - Are subsidies required for impact studies, feasibility studies or for specific parts of the project?
Policy - How does the project fit in with specific policies, e.g. offset policies, emissions trading or feebates?
Legal - Does it require new laws or amendment of existing laws? Can legal challenges be expected?
Diplomacy - Would the project require international negotiations between nations?
Administration - From where will the project be administered?

SOCIAL AND MEDICAL
Support - Is there public support for, concern about or resistance against the project?
Consultation - Who will benefit, who could be harmed? Has the public been consulted?
Control - What level of policing, supervision and security is needed? What monitoring is needed?
Medical - Would the project pose safety and health concerns?
Cultural - Does the project offend some people in some way?

ENVIRONMENT
Impact study - Has an environmental impact assessment been done? Are further studies required?
Maintenance - Is any monitoring, maintenance or restoration required, to prevent environmental damage?

The above points could give some indication as to how hard it will be to implement a proposed project. Projects could be scored on each point by asking whether this point will raise any difficulties for the respective project. A high score would indicate that little or no difficulty on this point can be expected for the project, while a low score would indicate that the project can be expected to have difficulty on this point.

Each point could be given a specific weighting, resulting in overall score for each of the projects. The higher the overall score, the more the project should be of interest to members of this group. A high overall score should indicate that there is sufficient confidence that the project is safe, effective, feasible, viable, etc, with little or no concern, risk or danger that things could go wrong or that a proposal could cause damage or harm in some way.

Importantly however, this should not be seen as a race where only one winner is selected. It is prudent to encourage diversity in approach and to continue to study multiple ideas and suggestions in parallel. I encourage others to suggest additions and changes to this post.

Cheers!
Sam Carana

"We all hope that things will turn out right, but we must think about what to do, in case it doesn't!"

Links:
Clathrate Gun Hypothesis - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

Runaway greenhouse warming 'cannot be rule out' - by STEPHANIE PAIN - February 15, 1992
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318081.600

NASA scientist warns of runaway global warming - New Scientist - December 22, 2008
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/nasa-scientist-warns-of-runawa.html

Venus' runaway greenhouse effect a warning for Earth - by Sam Carana - November 28, 2007
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977189423
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2007/11/venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect-warning.html

Ranking the ideas - post by Sam Carana, December 27, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/751aa59e3cc5e8ff

A naive question - post by Sam Carana, December 31, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/514c8cfc3a0bc7f3

Ken Caldeira named among science heroes of 2008

2008-12-24T02:44:00.000-08:00

The collective brain of New Scientist has come up with 8 scientist heroes of the year, including:

Ken Caldeira

Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution, has been investigating geoengineering claims for years. This year he was brought in by the British government to talk about ways in which we could geoengineer the climate to save us from global warming. If we don't get greenhouse gas emissions down, we're going to need a Plan B - and people like Caldeira to do the research for us. He's also been asked to organise a session on geoengineering in Copenhagen next year, where world leaders will meet to sign the successor to the Kyoto protocol.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16299-science-heroes-and-villains-of-2008.html

=============

Congratulations, Ken!

Cheers! Sam Carana

heat-reflecting sheets

2008-12-24T02:37:00.000-08:00

Engineers Takayuki Toyama of company Avix Inc in Kanagawa, Japan, and Alan Stainer of Middlesex University Business School, London, UK, suggest that, to combat global warming, heat-reflecting sheets could be installed in arid areas. This would not only reflect much of the sun's heat back into space, but could also help fight desertification. They add that the same approach might also be used to cover areas of the oceans to increase the Earth's total heat reflectivity.

The team's calculations suggest that covering an area of a little more than 60,000 square kilometres with reflective sheet, at a cost of some $280 billion, would result in net cooling, if there would be no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

http://groups.google.com/group/geo-engineering/browse_thread/thread/89da63d8ebef3242

Combat Global Warming with Evaporative Cooling

2008-12-17T22:41:00.000-08:00

To combat global warming, wind turbines along the coastline could be used for the dual purposes of generating electricity at times when there is wind and evaporating water at times when there is no wind. Just a small breeze over the water can give the top water molecules enough kinetic energy to overcome their mutual attraction, resulting in evaporation of water and associated cooling of both water and air.

The evaporation will give some cooling effect, but the real impact on global warming will come from albedo change. When there's much wind at night, offshore wind turbines could produce more energy than is needed on the grid. Such surplus power could be stored and - at times when there's little wind - used to pump up sea water and have this sprayed by the turbines as a fine mist over the water. This spray will contain tiny particles of sea-salt that get sucked up into the air, especially when there's little wind and sunshine causes rising currents of air. These little salt particles will attract further droplets of water from the surrounding air, forming clouds that are lighter in color from space than sea water (see albedo comparison below, from Wikipedia).

In early 2006, I wondered to what extent such increased cloud coverage could mitigate global warming. On the one hand, the extra clouds will reflect more sunlight back into space, but on the other hand water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas. While the albedo difference between clouds and sea water is obvious, some of the evaporated water could rise higher up into the atmosphere and increase humidity of cirrus clouds at high
altitudes, thus trapping the heat underneath and heating up Earth even further through the greenhouse effect. Also, such evaporation could cause unwanted salty rain to fall over land.

Has anyone done any modeling on this?
Cheers! Sam Carana.

Adding lime to seawater

2008-11-04T18:08:00.000-08:00

Shell Oil is funding a project that is studying the potential of adding lime to seawater to store carbon dioxide (CO2) in the sea.

Due to increased CO2 levels, the oceans have become more acid. Adding lime (calcium hydroxide) to seawater will increase the alkalinity of the water, making the water absorb more CO2 and reducing the release of CO2 from the water into the atmosphere.

Tim Kruger, a management consultant at London-based Corven, believes that this can be done most economically where there's plenty of limestone, and plenty of energy that is too remote to exploit for conventional commercial purposes.

"There are many such places — for example, Australia's Nullarbor Plain would be a prime location for this process, as it has 10,000km3 of limestone and soaks up roughly 20MJ/m2 of solar irradiation every day," said Kruger.

Although the process generates CO2 emissions, on paper it sequesters twice as much of the warming gas than it produces. Kruger says the process is therefore 'carbon negative'.

'This process has the potential to reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be possible to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels,' he explained.

"We think it's a promising idea," says Shell's Gilles Bertherin, a coordinator on the project, which is being developed in an "open source" manner. "There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change — and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment."

Sources and Links:

Shell Oil funds "open source" geoengineering project to fight global warming, at:
Mongabay.com

'Turning back the clock on climate change' - A technology to reverse climate change? To reduce ocean acidification? And that also promises to increase food production? Cath O’Driscoll investigates, at:
Chemistry & Industry Magazine

Adding lime to seawater feasibility study, funded by Shell, at: www.cquestrate.com

Inventory of geo-engineering proposals

2008-11-04T03:30:00.000-08:00

Geo-engineering proposals seeking to combat global warming should be assessed according to efficacy, cost, risk, timeframe and the rate at which they can mitigate climate change, says Philip W. Boyd of New Zealand's NIWA in an article published in Nature Geoscience.

We need more thought on whether proposals like carbon burial, geochemical carbon capture, atmospheric carbon capture, ocean fertilization, cloud manipulation, space sunshades, or strategically-placed pollution can be effective on a time-scale relevant to humankind, economical, or even safe.

Meanwhile, AP reports that John Shepherd will head a working group at Britain's Royal Society to study geo-engineering proposals, with a report expected to be published in mid-2009.

Removing carbon from air - Discovery Channel

2008-10-23T18:55:00.000-07:00

Professor David Keith of the University of Calgary is working on a device that removes carbon dioxide directly from ambient air.

Keith has built a tower, 4 feet wide and 20 feet tall, with a fan at the bottom that sucks air in. Keith expects the air coming out at the top to have approximately 50% less carbon dioxide than the air coming in.

The tower features in an episode of Discovery Channel’s new “Project Earth” series on TV. The series has the largest budget of any in Discovery Channel’s history, and it may eventually attract a global viewership of more than 100 million.

The episode on Keith’s research has already aired in the U.S. - if you're missed it, you can watch it on Discovery Channel’s website, at: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/project-earth.html - click on “Episodes.”

If the program hasn't aired in your country, you may not get access to the online episode, but you can read more at: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/lab-books/fixing-carbon/guide1.html - also click on the links under "MORE CARBON".

The picture below describes the Big Picture of recycling, in which I envisage aviation to fund CO₂ air capture. When talking about recycling, most people think about recycling of industrial products only. They may also see composting of organic waste as a (second) way of recycling. Instead of composting, I actually envisage organic waste to be burned by means of pyrolysis, in order to produce agrichar and hydrogen. I also envisage a third way of recycling that includes removing CO₂ from the air. This CO₂ could also be used for the production of agrichar and for commercial purposes such as to enrich greenhouses and for the production of building material, carbon fiber, etc. Furthermore, this CO₂ could be used as fuel for aviation.

To tackle emissions by aviation, we can switch to airplanes and helicopters that are powered by batteries and hydrogen, or switch to fuels other than fossil fuel. Growth of algae could be assisted by such captured CO₂, which could also be turned directly into fuel.

By financially supporting air capture of CO₂ and the use of such CO₂ to produce fuel, aviation could close the circle of this third way of recycling. This could make aviation environmentally sustainable. Since government is such a large user of aviation (both the military and civil parts of government), it makes sense for the government to start funding such air capture as soon as possible. An international agreement, to be reached in Copenhagen in 2009, could further arrange for the proceeds of environmental fees on commercial flights to fund such air capture and its use for fuel.

Further links:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/explores/carbon.html - Discovery Channel

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/september2008/keith-carboncapture - David Keith

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/AirCapture.html - David Keith

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Misc/AC%20talk%20MIT%20Sept%202008.pdf - M.I.T.

views.blogspot.com - by Sam Carana

Crop that stores carbon

2008-01-15T04:24:00.000-08:00

under construction

Technorati Profile

Scientists split CO2 into CO and hydrogen

2008-01-05T21:36:00.000-08:00

Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico have designed a a solar reactor to recycle carbon dioxide and produce fuels like methanol or gasoline.

The solar reactor contains 14 cobalt ferrite rings, each about one foot in diameter and turning at one revolution per minute. As an 88-square meter solar furnace blast sunlight into the unit, the rings heat up to about 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, cobalt ferrite releases oxygen. The rings subsequently cool to about 2,000 degrees and are exposed to CO2. The cobalt ferrite, which is now missing oxygen, will take oxygen from the CO2. So, the reactor divides carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen, leaving behind just carbon monoxide. With the cobalt ferrite restored to its original state, the reactor is ready for another cycle.

That carbon monoxide can then be used to make methanol or gasoline, which are essentially just combinations of hydrogen and carbon.

Scientists Use Sunlight to Make Fuel From CO2
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P

Cheers!
Sam Carana

Venus' runaway greenhouse effect a warning for Earth

2007-11-30T01:18:00.000-08:00

Venus was transformed from a haven for water to a fiery hell by an runaway greenhouse effect, concludes the European Space Agency (ESA), after studying data from the Venus Express, which has been orbiting Venus since April 2006.

Venus today is a hellish place with surface temperatures of over 400°C (752°Fahrenheit), winds blowing at speeds of over 100 m/s (224 mph) and pressure a hundred times that on Earth, a pressure equivalent, on Earth, to being one km (0.62 miles) under the sea.

Hakan Svedhem, ESA scientist and lead author of one of eight studies published on Wednesday in the British journal Nature, says that Earth and Venus have nearly the same mass, size and density, and have about the same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). In the past, Venus was much more Earth-like and was partially covered with water, like oceans, the ESA scientists believe.

How could a world so similar to Earth have turned into such a noxious and inhospitable place? The answer is planetary warming. At some point, atmospheric carbon triggered a runaway warming on Venus that boiled away the oceans. As water vapour is a greenhouse gas, this further trapped solar heat, causing the planet to heat up even more. So, more surface water evaporated, and eventually dissipated into space. It was a "positive feedback" -- a vicious circle of self-reinforcing warming which slowly dessicated the planet.

"Eventually the oceans began to boil," said David Grinspoon, a Venus Express interdisciplinary scientist from the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Colorado, USA. "You wound up with what we call a runaway greenhouse effect," Hakan Svedhem says. Venus Express found hydrogen and oxygen ions escaping in a two to one ratio, meaning that water vapour in the atmosphere — the little that is left of what they believe were once oceans — is still disappearing.

While most of Earth's carbon store remained locked up in the soil, rocks and oceans, on Venus it went into the atmosphere, resulting in Venus' atmosphere now consisting of about 95% carbon dioxide.

“Earth is moving along the curve that connects it to Venus,” warns Dmitry Titov, science coordinator of the Venus Express mission.

References:
Venus Express - European Space Agency (ESA)
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEMGK373R8F_0.html

Venus inferno due to 'runaway greenhouse effect', say scientists
http://www.physorg.com/news115477239.html

Probe likens young Venus to Earth
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32018

European mission reports from Venus
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7062/full/4371071a.html

Combat Global Warming with Evaporative Cooling

2007-10-25T16:39:00.000-07:00

Combat Global Warming with Evaporative Cooling - by Sam Carana

Such dual use of wind turbines can be implemented at many places where turbines overlook water; evaporation will work most effectively in hot and dry areas, such as where deserts or dry areas meet the sea or lakes. Evaporative cooling will add humidity to the air, which can also cause some extra rain and thus increase fertility of such dry areas as a beneficial side effect.

The energy needed to run the turbines can be obtained and stored in a number of clean, safe and renewable ways. ]

At times when there is plenty of wind, surplus energy from the turbines could be used to convert Water into hydrogen by means of electrolysis. Alternatively, bio-waste could be burned by means of pyrolysis to create both hydrogen and agrichar, which could be used to enrich soils. The hydrogen could be kept stored either in either compressed or liquid form, ready to power fuel cells that can drive the turbines at any time, day or night.

Another alternative is to run the turbines on electricity from concentrated solar thermal power plants in the desert. A desert area of 254 km² would theoretically suffice to meet the entire 2004 global demand for electricity. Ausra offers a solar thermal technology that uses the sun's heat to generate steam, which can then be stored for up to 20 hours, thus providing electricity on demand, day and night. Ausra points out that just 92 square miles of solar thermal power facilities could provide enough electricity to satisfy all current US demand.

Finally, there are some environmental concerns about wind turbines. There are concerns about carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the process of making the concrete for the turbines. To overcome this, turbines could be made using alternative manufacturing processes, which can be carbon-negative. Furthermore, a recently completed Danish study using infrared monitoring found that seabirds steer clear of offshore wind turbines and are remarkably adept at avoiding the rotors.

In conclusion, wind turbines have a tremendous potential. They can potentially generate 72 TW, or over fifteen times the world's current energy use and 40 times the world's current electricity use. Offshore and near-shore turbines can make seawater evaporate and thus cool the planet, at times when they are not used to generate electricity.

References:
Ausra
http://ausra.com/

Wind power - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

Evaluation of global wind power
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html

Solar power and electric cars, a winning combination!
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977115548

Agrichar
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977139103

Alternative method of manufacturing concrete
http://www.tececo.com/

Massive Offshore Wind Turbines Safe for Birds
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18167/

Footnote:
This article was written by Sam Carana; it can be freely copied and published elsewhere, as long as the autor's name is retained in the article.

The FeeBate policy: a combination of a fee that funds a rebate

2007-10-15T06:27:00.000-07:00

Below, I posted articles on areas ranging from urban planning, agriculture, waste treatment and transport to energy. These articles form part of a wider vision, a package of policies recommended for global adoption, all aiming to curb emissions of greenhouse gases; in each case, a FeeBate is proposed, which constitutes the most effective way to deal with global warming. Furthermore, the FeeBate policy is ideology- and budget-neutral and has the least risk of feeding a wasteful bureaucracy.

In essence, the idea of the FeeBate policy is that a fee is imposed on products that cause emissions of greenhouse gases, while the proceeds of these fees in each case are used to help better alternatives. Items that should attract fees include fossil fuel, fertilizers, meat and polluting concrete. The proceeds of fees on these items should pay for rebates on clean alternatives in energy, such as solar and wind power, respectively supply of agrichar, alternative food (my personal favorite is vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads) and clean concrete.

This approach constitutes the most effective way to reduce the three major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and mitrous oxide. In many respects, markets are best suited to work out which products and technologies should get support - the main criteria should be that they are replacements for items that attracted fees, that they are safe and that they cause little or no emissions of greenhouse gases, or - even better - that they are greenhouse gas negative. Fees can be collected locally as long as each community is serious about reducing greenhouse gases; importantly, the proceeds should fund rebates on local supply of better alternatives. As an example, rebates on supply of clean and renewable energy can be funded by fees on coal that is burned to supply electricity in the area. Similarly, agrichar can be produced by means of pyrolysis from various forms of biowaste - rebates on sales of agrichar can be funded by fees on fertilizers.

The concept should be adopted globally, but implemented locally; levels of fees and rebates can be adjusted on an annual basis, depending on how successfully the shift takes place. This FeeBate policy can be regarded as a form of geo-engineering; it will change the shape of urban planning, agriculture, waste treatment, transport and energy supply around the world; moreover, it will transform politics and the very socio-economic fabric of society on a global scale.

In conclusion, the FeeBate policy that I proposed includes:

a fee of 10% on sales of new cars with internal combustion engines, with proceeds used to fund rebates for electric cars
a fee of 10% on sales of gasoline, with proceeds used to fund rebates on purchases and installation of facilities that produce renewable energy
a fee of 10% on sales of coal, with rebates given when electricity suppliers install facilities that produce electricity from renewable sources
a fee of 10% on building and construction work using concrete that contributes to global warming, with proceeds used to fund rebates on buildings that used clean concrete
a fee of 10% on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on sales of agrichar
a fee of 10% on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers for vegan-organic foo

Agrichar

2007-10-15T04:16:00.000-07:00

Most households only use one or at most two different rubbish bins, one for recyclables (paper & packaging) and one for general waste. It makes a lot of sense to add a third type of rubbish bin, for biowaste, i.e. kitchen waste, soil and garden waste.

Many people already compost such biowaste in the garden, but all too often such biowaste disappears along with the general waste in the rubbish bin. As displayed on the picture below, analysis in Waikato, New Zealand, shows that about half of household waste can consist of kitchen waste, soil and garden waste. Such waste ends up on rubbish tips, where the decomposing process leads to greenhouse gases, such as methane. And all too often, farmers burn crop residues on the land, resulting in huge emissions of greenhouse gases.

All such biowaste could deliver affordable energy by using the slow burning process of pyrolysis to produce agrichar or bio-char, a form of charcoal that is totally black. Organic material, when burnt with air, will normally turn into white ash, while the carbon contained in the biowaste goes up into the air as carbon dioxide (CO2). In case of pyrolysis, by contrast, biowaste is heated up while starved of oxygen, resulting in this black form of charcoal.

This agrichar was at first glance regarded as a useless byproduct when producing hydrogen from biowaste, but it is increasingly recognized for its qualities as a soil supplement. Agrichar makes the soil better retain water and nutrients for plants, thus reducing losses of nutrients and reducing the CO2 that goes out of the soil, while enhancing soil productivity and making it store more carbon.

When biowaste is normally added to soil, the carbon contained in crop residue, mulch and compost is likely to stay there for only two or three years. By contrast, the more stable carbon in agrichar can stay in the soil for hundreds of years. Adding agrichar just once could be equivalent to composting the same weight every year for decades.

Agrichar appears to be the best way to bury carbon in topsoil, resulting in soil restoration and improved agriculture. Agrichar has the potential to remove substantial amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, as it both buries carbon in the soil and gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere through better growth of vegetation. Agrichar restores soils and increases fertility. It results in plants taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere, which ends up in the soil and in the vegetation. Agrichar feeds new life in the soil and increases respiration, leading to improvements in soil structure, specifically its capacity to retain water and nutrients. Agrichar makes the soil structure more porous, with lots of surface area for water and nutrients to hold onto, so that both water and nutrients are better retained in the soil.

In conclusion, recycling biowaste in the above way is an excellent method to produce hydrogen (e.g. for cars) and to bury carbon in the soil and improve production of food. Agrichar is now produced for soil enrichment at a growing number of places. The top photo shows agrichar in pellet form from Eprida. Australian-based BEST Energies has built a demonstration pyrolysis plant with a capacity to process 300 kilograms of biowaste per hour. It accepts biowaste such as dry green waste, wood waste, rice hulls, cow and poultry manure or paper mill waste. The plant cooks the biomass without oxygen, producing syngas, a flammable mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The agrichar thus produced retains about half the carbon of the original biowaste (the other half was burned in the process of producing the syngas).

Also important is to compare different farming practices. Carbon is important for holding the soil together. Farmers now typically plough the soil to plant the seeds and add fertilizers. This ploughing causes oxygen to mix with the carbon in the soil, resulting in oxidation, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Ploughing leads to a looser soil structure, prone to erosion under the destructive impact of heavy rains, flooding, thunderstorms, wind and animal traffic. Given the more extreme weather that can be expected due to global warming, we should reconsider practices such as ploughing.

Furthermore, the huge monocultures of modern farming have become dependent on fertilizers and pesticides. The separation of farming and urban areas has in part become necessary due to the practice of spraying chemicals and pesticides. Instead, we should consider growing more food on smaller-scale farms, in gardens and greenhouses within areas currently designated for urban usage. Vegan-organic farming can increase bio-diversity; by carefully selecting complementary vegetation to grow close together, diseases and pests can be minimized while the nutritional value, taste and other qualities of the food can be increased.

An issue of growing concern is nitrous oxide (N2O), which is 310 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas when released in the atmosphere. Much release of N2O is related to the practices of ploughing and adding fertilizers to the soil. Microbes subsequently convert the nitrogen in these fertilisers into N2O. A recent study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen indicates that the current ways of growing and burning biofuel actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions. The study concludes that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops (rapeseed biodiesel and corn bioethanol) releases twice the amount of N2O, compared to what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates for farming. The findings follow a recent OECD report that concluded that growing biofuel crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage biodiversity, with only limted benefits in terms of global warming.

All this is no trivial matter. Soils contain more carbon than all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Therefore, soil is the obvious place to look at when trying to solve problems associated with global warming. By changing agricultural practices, we can add carbon to the soil and can minimize release of greenhouse gases.

References:
- Soils offer new hope as carbon sink
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/updates/issues/may-2007/soils-offer-new-hope/

- Surprise: less oxygen could be just the trick
http://tinyurl.com/ywalt4

- What we throw away
http://www.waikato.govt.nz/enviroinfo/waste/whatwethrowaway.htm

- The Carbon Farmers
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/soilcarbon/

- Living Soil
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/

- BEST Pyrolysis, Inc.
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html

- Eprida, Inc.
http://eprida.com/hydro/

- Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp

- Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?
http://tinyurl.com/yq9t8o

Companies producing agrichar:
- terra preta at bioenergylists.org
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/company

Communities without Roads

2007-10-15T04:02:00.000-07:00

Communities without roads is an exciting concept that allows people to live within walking distances of colleages, customers, friends, medical and educational facilities, shops, restaurants, etc. The sedentary lifestyle of many people is a result of the way cities are currently designed. Instead, we should facilitate the opposite, i.e. people coming out of their houses, offices, and especially their cars, in order to meet other people, getting better food and becoming more healthy in the process.

The car has come to dominate the urban landscape, resulting in a metropolitan conglomeration of suburbs, stringed together along highways. Our most fertile land is now used for roads and cars, and the industries needed to support them. About half the urban area is for buildings, mainly three-bedroom homes on small blocks of land. The other half is used for roads, parks and grassland between roads. A large part of roads, buildings and gardens is also used to park cars.

Ever less fertile land is available food. Global warming forces us to rethink all this. As prices of oil skyrocket, more land is being dedicated to grow bio-fuel, resulting in less land available for food. Also, more extreme weather conditions can be expected, resulting in increasing crop loss.

We need more land to grow fruit and vegetables, in ways as was once the case in traditional gardens and on smaller farms. One place to find such land is by converting roads and office blocks into gardens. This doesn't mean a return to those ‘good-old-days’ of small towns and villages. Instead, we should consider an entirely new type of urban design: communities without roads. Technological progress is not the enemy here. Better security and communication systems can help get such communities off the ground. Electric vehicles can be instrumental in getting such communities off the ground.

What I propose are communities with footpaths and bike-paths instead of roads. Houses would be built close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. In communities without roads, houses could be smaller, since there's no need to park cars in front or in garages. Building houses close together itself reduces travel distances between them. Pathways to a nearby center could suffice for further daily travel, leading to shops, markets, restaurants, lecture and meeting rooms.

In such a center, people would conveniently eat in restaurants, without traffic and parking hassle and noise - just a short stroll by foot or ride on a bike or in an electric scooter. Eating out means less shopping, since food makes up most of our shopping. It also saves a lot of time - no more shopping, cooking, dishwashing and cleaning, no rubbish to get rid of. Walking more would be good for our health as well.

Living closer together means people could see each other more often, both at home or at such a nearby restaurant. Why travel to an office or University, when you can work or follow courses online? Homeschooling has long proven to be much more effective than school. Why should people be institutionalized, kids packed away into school, the elderly people into ‘homes’ and the sick in hospitals? Instead, we should encourage families to stay together as much as possible and as long as possible in communities without roads.

This would result in huge savings on the current cost of cars, roads, office buildings, car parks, garages, gasoline stations, etc. How much time and money could we save by reducing our daily travel between home and work? And how many lives would be saved if we had less car-accidents? Because of the shared walls between them, townhouses save on the cost of heating in winter and cooling in summer.

To start it off, a University campus could be transformed into a community without roads, where people live and come to learn and work. Anyone who would like to nominate one?

Tax the sale of meat!

2007-10-15T03:55:00.000-07:00

There are many ethical objections one can have against slaughtering animals and eating them. Vegetarian lifestyles have been around for ages, just like animal rights activists have long and very publicly protested against animals being used in tests of new cosmetics in laboratoria.

Consumption of red meat from cattle, sheep, goats and other ruminants has long been linked to heart disease, colorectal cancer and further diseases.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf
The link between meat and obesity has only recently received much media attention, with a focus on the fat and sugar content of fast food.

Similarly, environmentalists have long protested against the loss of biodiversity, as rainforests are cleared to make room for cattle or for soy plantations to feed cattle, all to satisfy global demand for meat.

Now meat has also been linked to global warming in various ways. As the impact of global warming starts to bite, many crops are at risk, due to more extreme weather conditions such as floods, drouhts, storms, heavy rain and moisture. It takes a lot of fertile land to put meat on the table, land that could otherwise be used to grow crops top feed the poor and hungry. At the same time, energy suppliers are increasingly looking at using bio-mass as a replacement for fossil fuel, so food is increasingly competing with energy in agriculture.

Finally, animals like cows and pigs release huge amounts of methane gas, which is twenty times more potent than greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. A recent study led by Anthony McMichael, professor at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University, Canberra, provides some figures. It points out that 22 per cent of the world's total greenhouse gases emissions come from agriculture, as much as industry and more than what transport emits. Production and transport of livestock and their feed accounts for nearly 80 per cent of these agricultural emissions, through release of gases such as nitro-oxide and carbon dioxide, but mainly in the form of methane. A cow can belch up to 300 pounds of methane per day. The study was published by the Lancet, at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673600025642/abstract

Before you try and find more details, note that the Lancet has an elaborate registration process demanding that you name your medical specialty and probably at somepoint your blood type, so if you prefer to bypass such things, you can try BugMeNot, at:
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.thelancet.com

In conclusion, a tax on the sale of meat therefore makes most sense. We could leave it up to politics to work out how high such a tax should be, but a flat 10% tax on all sales of meat looks like a good start. The tax could be higher the more methane was released, which would go hand in hand with compulsory disclosure on products of the amount of greenhouse gases that was needed to produce and ship them. Once we've got a good system in place that displays how many greenhouse gases were released in production, we could tax accordingly. There could be different tax rates, even a gliding scale proportional to the emissions. This would encourage research into different diets for cows or somehow replacing the methane-producing bacteria inside a cow's gut.

If the proceeds of such a tax merely used to help the poor pay rising prices for food, then little will be achieved for the environment. Instead, the proceeds of such a tax should be used to create communities without roads, where people can have vegetable gardens close to their homes. We should start building such communities without roads on university campuses, designing small houses for staff and students to live around shops and restaurants. Small houses need less heating and air-conditioning. If we leave out roads, garages and other car-parking spaces, they can be built closely together, so anyone can easily walk or bike their way around. That would be more healthy as well!

Anyway, it makes a lot of sense to turn vegetarian, or even better vegan. Even if you didn't have ethical problems with eating meat and if you lacked compassion for the poor and hungry, you still would help the environment by becoming a vegetarian and thus yourself!