Archive for March, 2008
Tetra Tech, together with Climos, will develop a Conceptual Model and a Master Environmental Report as part of this process. The Conceptual Model will review the scientific background, experimental history, and recent research results for this technique, in addition to providing a detailed review and exploration of environmental questions and concerns. The Master Environmental Report will provide an environmental management framework to evaluate the characteristics and sensitivities of the affected marine environment.
Categories: Ocean Fertilization
1 Comment »
James Hansen and Pushker A. Kharecha announce a new paper modeling the effect of the world reaching Peak Oil production on atmospheric CO2 levels assuming that coal emissions are phased out by midcentury. The conclusion is that 450 ppm is not an unreasonable ceiling by 2100 if rising prices on allowances and offsets can be sustained and efficiencies can be implemented allowing us to stretch existing reserves.
Unconstrained CO2 emission from fossil fuel burning has been the dominant cause of observed anthropogenic global warming. The amounts of ‘proven’ and potential fossil fuel reserves are uncertain and debated. Regardless of the true values, society has flexibility in the degree to which it chooses to exploit these reserves, especially unconventional fossil fuels and those located in extreme or pristine environments. If conventional oil production peaks within the next few decades, it may have a large effect on future atmospheric CO2 and climate change, depending upon subsequent energy choices. Assuming that proven oil and gas reserves do not greatly exceed estimates of the Energy Information Administration, and recent trends are toward lower estimates, we show that it is feasible to keep atmospheric CO2 from exceeding about 450 ppm by 2100, provided that emissions from coal, unconventional fossil fuels, and land use are constrained. Coal-fired power plants without sequestration must be phased out before midcentury to achieve this CO2 limit. It is also important to ‘stretch’ conventional oil reserves via energy conservation and efficiency, thus averting strong pressures to extract liquid fuels from coal or unconventional fossil fuels while clean technologies are being developed for the era ‘beyond fossil fuels’. We argue that a rising price on carbon emissions is needed to discourage conversion of the vast fossil resources into usable reserves, and to keep CO2 beneath the 450 ppm ceiling.
Categories: Climate Change Science
No Comments »
Climos was mentioned in this week’s Time Magazine cover story “10 Ideas that are Changing the World” under a section (#6) on Geoengineering. While we generally refrain from using the term Geoengineering– since it’s a general catch-all for approaches that treat the symptoms (i.e. warming, as in Solar Radiation Management or SRM) as well as those that address the cause (greenhouse gasses, as in forms of biological sequestration such as OIF and some other chemical and mechanical approaches)– we applaud the generally thoughtful though simplistic tone of the piece which, in short, was “lets research some of these approaches and better understand what our options are.”
We should add that in drawing a distinction between SRM techniques and OIF and other carbon mitigation approaches we intend no slight. Both have their conceptual place and many of the same arguments and cautions apply to both.
Not everyone appreciated the article of course. It quickly drew negative comments from Bill Becker (Presidential Climate Action Partnership) at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress blog as well as none other than the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope at HuffPo.
We think both pose the same “false dilemma“, i.e. that to research, and potentially eventually to implement, these options implies that they will be used in place of emissions reductions. Clearly they should not be–and we have never heard any credible voice suggest that they should.
Thankfully there is finally a large and growing worldwide motivation to address emissions–even here in the US the momentum towards such legislation is unmistakeable. (Climos plays an active role in such efforts. For instance, you will find us at every California CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan meeting — the next one is April 4th in Sacramento– as well as involved in efforts at the national and international level. )
More specifically, there seems to be a clear and unsubstantiated assumption that adding tools to mitigate carbon will somehow lessen the motivation to address the underlying cause (emissions). Last year the UN organized the planting of 1 billion trees. This is large scale biological mitigation. We did not see any complaints that this would lessen the pressure on emitters–nor should there be. Lets hope the UN and others, perhaps incentivized by market mechanisms (planting trees costs money too), plant many more. Lest we forget: This problem is large and worsening quickly. We need more options, not fewer–let’s understand what they are.
Becker in particular uses selective quotation to support his argument. Citing cautious comments by Dan Schrag from an Eli Kintish Science magazine interview of Schrag, Anderson, Chisholm and Victor after the recent geoengineering forum at Harvard University, Becker conveniently ignores other comments from Anderson and Victor and even Schrag himself that we need to understand these options.
“Victor: I agree completely, and let me just add that, in addition to all those factors, this has to be viewed as part of a rational overall strategy for thinking about the problem. Because if the climate proves to be a lot more sensitive–the data on the sea ice I found terrifying, and the evidence keeps coming in–then we will need a quick-response option that you might deploy for a while. It would be truly outrageous if we didn’t think about that option and probably even do some more work on it, and test some elements of it, so we’re ready.”
and
“Anderson: I think that’s right. In my mind, after transitioning from putting geoengineering in the category of an unacceptable approach, just a very few years ago, I think geoengineering will bring a focus to this debate that no other discussion can engender. And I think it’s a focus of our scientific knowledge–what we do and do not know. It’s a focus on the very intimate link between the energy issue and the climate issue. It brings focus on the political structure, and in particular [on] which political leaders bring the blueprint to the table that would actually lead to the negotiation of international treaties and so on.
When you look at all of them together, that’s when you realize that the rates of all these changes are out of control. Regaining control of the system–the global system, the energy structure, the political system–this is the challenge. And I think that’s why geoengineering carries with it the requirement to look at these things together.”
Even Eli’s title for the interview (visible in the browser title bar) characterizes the consensus of the interview differently: “CLIMATE CHANGE: Scientists Say Continued Warming Warrants Closer Look at Drastic Fixes”.
The Becker and Pope articles both also assume there is a substantial risk of catastrophic unintended consequences from these various approaches, while the truth is that a thoughtful evaluation reveals little evidence to support this– the most widely considered techniques (aerosols and OIF) simulate natural events that have happened relatively frequently in geologic time, and will surely happen again. As Anderson remarks in the Science Magazine interview:
“There’s a really clear mathematical formulation [that] tells you how that system responds to those perturbations. … Nature provides us with very large perturbations that we need to study very carefully, including the glacial ice system, including the ocean steps”
Furthermore, the credible scientific voices considering many of these techniques are only recommending that we contemplate or continue a process of small to moderate scale demonstrations, nothing more. These demonstrations should be done by the world’s top scientists, and the results subjected to peer-review. Environmental leaders should be an integral part of this process.
Several comments on the article were made at the Geoengineering groups forum here and here.
There was also a thoughtful article from David Schnare this week at Scripps News, though not directly related to the Time piece.
Categories: Ocean Fertilization
No Comments »
Recent interview on environmentalresearchweb regarding new Winckler, et al paper
Mar 5, 2008
Dusting up climate records
To date, records of past dust levels in the equatorial Pacific region have been inconsistent, with some showing a rise in dust levels during interglacial periods and others a dust minimum at those times. Now, measurements generated by researchers at Cornell and Columbia universities in the US for three sites in the Pacific Ocean show dust levels consistently 2.5 times higher during glacial periods than for interglacial times, matching the trend for records from Antarctica.
“Our study provides, for the first time, a quantitative basis for evaluating the role of dust in past climate change and in changes in biogeochemical cycles,” Gisela Winckler of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, US, told environmentalresearchweb. “Our results from a region of heightened climate sensitivity provide a benchmark for the development and testing of new dust models, while also providing vital input for models of climate variability and ocean biogeochemistry.”
According to Winckler, observations like the team’s are crucial not only in constraining but also in advancing modern climate models. “On top of that, our records may have implications with respect to large-scale iron fertilization of the ocean,” she added.
Wind-borne dust can be a major source of iron while artificial iron fertilization has been suggested as a method of boosting carbon sequestration in the oceans. The idea is that adding iron boosts growth of phytoplankton, which absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and then die, taking the carbon with them as they sink to the ocean depths. But it’s a controversial proposal – it’s not clear how effectively the process would work in practice, and many people are worried about unforeseen effects.
“Accurate reconstruction of dust flux variability in the past may serve as a natural experiment to evaluate the efficacy of fertilization of the ocean through artificial iron addition in the High Nutrient-Low Chlorophyll region of the equatorial Pacific,” said Winckler. “While we caution that the idea of iron fertilization is complex and controversial, we believe that assessing the past response to natural variability of iron could enable scientists to develop more quantitative predictions about the possible efficacy of artificial iron addition in the future.”
Winckler and colleagues used levels of common thorium (232Th) as a proxy for dust in cores taken from three sites in the Pacific. The sites spanned roughly 6000 miles of the Equator, stretching from a spot near Papua New Guinea to a location off Ecuador’s Galápagos Islands.
“We find remarkable consistency among the three study sites spanning more than a quarter of Earth’s circumference, as well as between tropical regions and the Antarctic, indicating a synchronous response to climate change by interhemispheric dust sources,” said Winckler.
The researchers believe that dryer and windier conditions during glacial periods led to increased dust transport.
“Dust is a tremendously interesting component of the climate system, and probably the one we know the least about,” said Winckner. “Over the last two decades, scientists have extracted a beautiful record of the variability of dust fluxes to polar regions, mostly from Antarctic ice cores, showing that the world during ice ages was much more dusty than the warm/interglacial world. However, we know much less about low and mid latitudes, where it matters because this is where people live and where probably the engine of the Earth’s climate system lies.”
The researchers, who reported their work in Sciencexpress, say that the next step is to obtain similar records from critical regions with the goal of providing a “global dust map”, both in the present and in the past. Winckner also plans “to continue the path of getting ‘observationists’ and ‘modelers’ together – like in our present work”.
Abstract of the SciExpress piece:
Covariant Glacial-Interglacial Dust Fluxes in the Equatorial Pacific and Antarctica
Gisela Winckler, Robert F. Anderson, Martin Q. Fleisher, David McGee, Natalie Mahowald
Dust plays a critical role in Earth’s climate system and serves as a natural source of iron and other micronutrients to remote regions of the ocean. We have generated records of dust deposition over the past 500,000 years at three sites spanning the breadth of the equatorial
Pacific Ocean. Equatorial Pacific dust fluxes are highly correlated with global ice volume and with dust fluxes to Antarctica, suggesting that dust generation in interhemispheric source regions exhibited a common response to climate change over late-Pleistocene glacial cycles. Our results provide quantitative constraints on the variability of aeolian iron supply to the equatorial Pacific Ocean and, more generally, on the potential contribution of dust to past climate change and to related changes in biogeochemical cycles.
Categories: New Science
No Comments »
Two respected scientific organizations have issued a joint position on ocean fertilization. These organizations are the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), and the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. The position statement highlights the outstanding scientific questions that need to be considered by any future ocean fertilization activities.
Also discussed is the relationship of ocean fertilization research activities to the emerging global carbon market, including a brief reference to the Climos Code of Conduct:
“We commend efforts by some commercial ventures to create codes of conduct and obtain outside reviews.”
Link to the full position statement
Categories: Ocean Fertilization
No Comments »
Climos announced the close of a $3.5M Series A financing today with Braemar Energy Ventures and investor/entrepreneur Elon Musk.
Categories: Ocean Fertilization
No Comments »
The 2008 AGU Ocean Sciences meeting is being held from March 2-7 in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Margaret Leinen will present on ocean fertilization.
The abstract for her talk is below:
CONDUCTING OCEAN FERTILIZATION IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY
The ocean science community, NGOs, government and the private sector are considering issues related to the potential of ocean fertilization to sequester CO2. Most issues are scientific and concern the efficacy or the side effects of ocean fertilization. Uncertainty about how commercial ocean fertilization would be conducted has led to additional concern over the types and standards of measurement, independent verification, measurement of side effects, the availability of data from commercial fertilization projects, deployment in sensitive marine areas, and other issues. Ocean fertilization is likely to take place on the high seas beyond national jurisdictions. There is as yet no clear international regulatory frameworks that apply directly to this activity. This implies that a voluntary code of conduct might be helpful in identifying the standards of responsible behavior. Other fields, like nanotechnology, have dealt with issues of ethics and responsibility in commercialization of scientific ideas. Drawing on such examples, we propose elements that could be included in a code of conduct for responsible ocean fertilization experiments and activities related to commercialization
Session #:200
Date: 03-04-2008
Time: 13:45
Categories: Ocean Fertilization
No Comments »
OIF at Carbon Forum America
3:11 pmOn February 26-27, Climos presented at the Carbon Forum America conference in San Francisco. This was the largest carbon market conference ever held in North America, with over 1,500 participants. On February 26th, Climos CEO Dan Whaley presented at a panel on high-tech innovation to combat climate change. On February 27th, Climos presented a Side Session on the science of ocean fertilization, with talks by Dr. Margaret Leinen and two independent scientists specializing in ocean fertilization, Dr. Kenneth Coale of Moss Landing Marine Labs, and Dr. Francisco Chavez of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.
Dr. Kenneth Coale is the Director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, the graduate program and research facilities serving seven California State University Campuses. He is a global marine biogeochemist with expertise in trace metals, carbon and nutrient cycling and radionuclides in the marine and lacustrine systems. Dr. Coale was the Chief Scientist or Principal Investigator on all the US led Ocean Iron Fertilization expeditions.
Ken worked extensively with John Martin, the California oceanographer who originally proposed the iron hypothesis which led to the iron fertilization experiments and who was the Director of Moss Landing before Ken. John Martin passed away in 1993, several months before the first cruise was performed that proved his hypothesis.
Dr. Francisco Chavez is a biological oceanographer with interests in how climate change and variability regulate ocean ecosystems on local and basic scales. He was born and raised in
Categories: Ocean Fertilization
No Comments »
