2/10/15 NY Times reports that widely anticipated US climate science study eschews geoengineering. Yet US has been geoengineering the atmosphere for some time. Peer reviewed studies in 2009 (chart below) and 2011 found that Clean Air Acts of 1970s and 1990 removed sulfates and other aerosols and increased Arctic and Northern Hemisphere warming. NY Times says scientist wants to try adding sulfates (no mention they were removed by 1990 Clean Air Act) "Along with other researchers, Dr. Keith has proposed a field experiment to test the effect of sulfate chemicals on atmospheric ozone."
4/8/2009, "The following graphic shows how clean air regulations passed in the 1970s have likely accelerated warming by diminishing the cooling effect of sulfates."
Image above from Nasa.gov, Drew Shindell.
4/8/2009, "Half of recent arctic warming may not be due to greenhouse gases," Houston Chronicle, Eric Berger
"According to a new report, half of the recent Arctic warming is not due to greenhouse gases, but rather clean air policies.
That’s the conclusion of two scientists in a new Nature Geoscience paper (see abstract), which is more deeply outlined in this NASA news release."...
===========================
.
2011 peer reviewed study:
.
July 19, 2011 PNAS study finds post 1970 warming "is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular, which cause sulfur emissions to decline."
7/19/2011, "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008," PNAS.org
=======================
2009 peer reviewed study: loss of sulfate aerosols caused warming:
3/22/2009, "Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century," Nature Geoscience, Drew Shindell1 and Greg Faluvegi1
| doi:10.1038/ngeo473
"We conclude that decreasing concentrations of sulphate aerosols and increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades." [1979-2009]
- "NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University, New York 10025, USA"
2013 peer reviewed study:
.
2013 peer reviewed study finds removing particles including sulfates from the climate system to protect human health increases warming:
June 2013, "Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment," Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, T.C. Bond et al.
"2. Introduction...
[48]...Most particles, including sulfates, cool the climate system, masking some of the warming from longer-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) and BC. Thus, regulating these particles to protect human health may have the unintended consequence of increasing warming rapidly. BC also plays a direct role in surface melting of snow and ice and, hence, may have an important role in Arctic warming [Quinn et al., 2008]; if so, targeted reductions could have disproportionate benefits for these sensitive regions."
=================================
2009, more on US policies removing sulfates and warming the Arctic:
4/8/2009, "Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming," nasa.gov/topics
"Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates....
At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia.
"Since decreasing amounts of sulfates and increasing amounts of black carbon both encourage warming, temperature increases can be especially rapid. The build-up of aerosols also triggers positive feedback cycles that further accelerate warming as snow and ice cover retreat.
In the Antarctic, in contrast, the impact of sulfates and black carbon is minimized because of the continent’s isolation from major population centers and the emissions they produce."
================================
12/19/14, "Are solid characterization factors available for particulate matter to CO2 equivalent (Global Warming Potential)?" researchgate.net
"We've been unwittingly geo-engineering the atmosphere for some time....As we acted to reduce Sox emissions for acid rain and health reasons, we 'unmasked' the CO2 effects and that accelerated the apparent warming, which we saw in the 80's and 90's." John D Bachmann ·
=============================
Feb. 10, 2015, NY Times reports big US study says US should continue to focus on CO2 though some favor research on geoengineering. NAS press release. No mention that US is geoengineering at this moment and has been doing so for several decades:
2/10/15, "Panel Urges Research on Geoengineering as a Tool Against Climate Change," NY Times, Henry Fountain
"With the planet facing potentially severe impacts from global warming
in coming decades, a government-sponsored scientific panel on Tuesday
called for more research on geoengineering — technologies to
deliberately intervene in nature to counter climate change.
The
panel said the research could include small-scale outdoor experiments,
which many scientists say are necessary to better understand whether and
how geoengineering would work.
Some
environmental groups and others say that such projects could have
unintended damaging effects, and could set society on an unstoppable
path to full-scale deployment of the technologies. But the National Academy of Sciences
panel said that with proper governance, which it said needed to be
developed, and other safeguards, such experiments should pose no
significant risk.
In
two widely anticipated reports, the panel — which was supported by NASA
and other federal agencies, including what the reports described as the
“U.S. intelligence community” — noted that drastically reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases was by far the best way to mitigate the effects of a warming planet.
But
the panel, in making the case for more research into geoengineering,
said, “It may be prudent to examine additional options for limiting the
risks from climate change.”
“The
committee felt that the need for information at this point outweighs
the need for shoving this topic under the rug,” Marcia K. McNutt,
chairwoman of the panel and the editor in chief of the journal Science,
said at a news conference in Washington.
Geoengineering
options generally fall into two categories: capturing and storing some
of the carbon dioxide that has already been emitted so that the
atmosphere traps less heat, or reflecting more sunlight away from the
earth so there is less heat to start with. The panel issued separate reports on each.
The
panel said that while the first option, called carbon dioxide removal,
was relatively low risk, it was expensive, and that even if it was
pursued on a planetwide scale, it would take many decades to have a
significant impact on the climate. But the group said research was
needed to develop efficient and effective methods to both remove the gas
and store it so it remains out of the atmosphere indefinitely.
The
second option, called solar radiation management, is far more
controversial. Most discussions of the concept focus on the idea of
dispersing sulfates or other chemicals high in the atmosphere, where
they would reflect sunlight, in some ways mimicking the effect of a
large volcanic eruption.
The
process would be relatively inexpensive and should quickly lower
temperatures, but it would have to be repeated indefinitely and would do
nothing about another carbon dioxide-related problem: the acidification
of oceans.
This
approach might also have unintended effects on weather patterns around
the world — bringing drought to once-fertile regions, for example. Or it
might be used unilaterally as a weapon by governments or even extremely
wealthy individuals.
Opponents
of geoengineering have long argued that even conducting research on the
subject presents a moral hazard that could distract society from the
necessary task of reducing the emissions that are causing warming in the
first place.
“A
geoengineering ‘technofix’ would take us in the wrong direction,” Lisa
Archer, food and technology program director of the environmental group
Friends of the Earth, said in a statement.
“Real climate justice
requires dealing with root causes of climate change, not launching
risky, unproven and unjust schemes.”
But
the panel said that society had “reached a point where the severity of
the potential risks from climate change appears to outweigh the
potential risks from the moral hazard” of conducting research.
Ken
Caldeira, a geoengineering researcher at the Carnegie Institution for
Science and a member of the committee, said that while the panel felt
that it was premature to deploy any sunlight-reflecting technologies
today, “it’s worth knowing more about them,” including any problems that
might make them unworkable.
“If
there’s a real showstopper, we should know about it now,” Dr. Caldeira
said, rather than discovering it later when society might be facing a
climate emergency and desperate for a solution.
Dr.
Caldeira is part of a small community of scientists who have researched
solar radiation management concepts. Almost all of the research has
been done on computers, simulating the effects of the technique on the
climate. One attempt in Britain in 2011 to conduct an outdoor test of
some of the engineering concepts provoked a public outcry. The
experiment was eventually canceled.
David
Keith, a researcher at Harvard University who reviewed the reports
before they were released, said in an interview, “I think it’s terrific
that they made a stronger call than I expected for research, including
field research.” Along with other researchers, Dr. Keith has proposed a
field experiment to test the effect of sulfate chemicals on atmospheric
ozone.
Unlike
some European countries, the United States has never had a separate
geoengineering research program. Dr. Caldeira said establishing a
separate program was unlikely, especially given the dysfunction in
Congress. But he said that because many geoengineering research
proposals might also help in general understanding of the climate,
agencies that fund climate research might start to look favorably upon
them.
Dr.
Keith agreed, adding that he hoped the new reports would “break the
logjam” and “give program managers the confidence they need to begin
funding.”
At
the news conference, Waleed Abdalati, a member of the panel and a
professor at the University of Colorado, said that geoengineering
research would have to be subject to governance that took into account
not just the science, “but the human ramifications, as well.”
Dr.
Abdalati said that, in general, the governance needed to precede the
research. “A framework that addresses what kinds of activities would
require governance is a necessary first step,” he said.
Raymond
Pierrehumbert, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago and a member
of the panel, said in an interview that while he thought that a
research program that allowed outdoor experiments was potentially
dangerous, “the report allows for enough flexibility in the process to
follow that it could be decided that we shouldn’t have a program that
goes beyond modeling.”
Above
all, he said, “it’s really necessary to have some kind of discussion
among broader stakeholders, including the public, to set guidelines for
an allowable zone for experimentation.”"
============================
2/10/15, NAS press release opposing "climate intervention:"
.
2/10/15, "Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions; Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment," www8.nationalacademies.org, Washington
==============================
Comment One: National Research Council committee chair, Marcia McNutt, is also editor in chief of Science Magazine. Science Magazine is a commercial entity. 85% of NRC and National Academies funding is from US taxpayers via the federal government. "Most of the studies are carried out at the request of government agencies or Congress."
NAS/NRC website says, "we are best known for our consensus studies."
==========================
George Bush #1 signs Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, making rules stricter than 1970 and 1977 versions. Top left, clapping, Bush EPA chief William Reilly, plucked from his WWF president job by Bush
========================
2/10/15, NAS press release opposing "climate intervention:"
.
2/10/15, "Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions; Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment," www8.nationalacademies.org, Washington
==============================
Comment One: National Research Council committee chair, Marcia McNutt, is also editor in chief of Science Magazine. Science Magazine is a commercial entity. 85% of NRC and National Academies funding is from US taxpayers via the federal government. "Most of the studies are carried out at the request of government agencies or Congress."
NAS/NRC website says, "we are best known for our consensus studies."
==========================
George Bush #1 signs Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, making rules stricter than 1970 and 1977 versions. Top left, clapping, Bush EPA chief William Reilly, plucked from his WWF president job by Bush
========================
"Our cap-and-trade plan to reduce acid rain cut sulfur dioxide
emissions in half, at a fraction of the expected costs." ====================
Comment Two: No mention in NY Times story that China controls CO2, and that no US action is capable of reducing global CO2. All US efforts are erased by China:
6/10/13, "US Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall as Global Emissions Rise," P. Knappenburger
..
"The U.S. is far and away the leader in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while China primarily is responsible for pushing global CO2 emissions higher. In fact, CO2 emissions growth in China more than offsets all the CO2 savings that we have achieved in the U.S.
This will happen for the foreseeable future. Domestic actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will not produce a decline in the overall atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration."...
========================
Comment Three: No mention of how big a role black carbon from Asia plays in global climate:
US is not a factor in either Black Carbon or Organic Carbon emissions:
Above, BC Emissions worldwide as of 1996 per EPA, page 16, East Asia and South America emit most.
Above, Organic carbon emissions worldwide as of 1996, Streets, via EPA, page 16. South America and Western Africa emit most.
==============================
7/20/2007, "Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate," NY Times, Robert Lee Hotz
"On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research. This transcontinental pollution is part of a growing global traffic in dust and aerosol particles."...
=========================
2012, "Emissions of Black Carbon," EPA.gov.
Per March 2012, US Black Carbon only 6% of global total.
page 304:
"A7.3 Emissions Inventories
A7.3.1 Global"
"Sources of BC outside the United States
"Sources of BC outside the United States
are responsible for 94% or so
of the current emissions globally and this number
is expected to increase in the future."
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/blackcarbon/2012report/fullreport.pdf
===========================
2012, "Emissions of Black Carbon," EPA.gov., Chapter 4
p. 114 (right column), Black carbon emissions from the United States peaked in 1920
.
==========================
"Use of Black Carbon and Organic Carbon Inventories for Projections and Mitigation Analysis," epa.gov
Abstract: "BC emissions in the United States are projected to decline by 42 percent from 2001 to 2020, primarily as a result
of diesel vehicle regulations."
==================
Report on 2013 peer reviewed black carbon study:
1/15/2013, "Black carbon larger cause of climate change than previously thought," cee.illinois.edu
"“This study confirms and goes beyond other research that suggested
black carbon has a strong warming effect on climate, just ahead of
methane,” said co-lead author David Fahey from the U.S. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."...
======================
2013 peer reviewed study on black carbon notes fourth UN IPCC report (2007) underestimated BC importance, BC could represent up to 75% of total climate forcing vs CO2 gas (See [43]). BC isn't a global problem: "Black carbon forcing concentrates climate warming in the mid-high latitude Northern Hemisphere." [50]:
June 2013, "Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment," Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, T.C. Bond et al.
Abstract...
"Global atmospheric absorption attributable to black carbon is too low in many models and should be increased by a factor of almost 3."...
==================
1/15/13, "Black Carbon Second Only To CO2 In Heating The Planet," from Climate Central's Michael D. Lemonick, via Huffington Post
=============================
China leads the world in CO2 emissions:
7/2/2012, "Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures," energytrendinsider.com
"This figure closely resembles the coal graph from World Energy Consumption Facts, Figures, and Shockers because in fact global coal consumption is the largest contributor to rising carbon dioxide emissions. Asia Pacific is the source of 45% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and is on a growth trajectory to reach 50% by the end of the decade. In the U.S., coal consumption is on the decline because new supplies of natural gas are displacing coal in power plants. The change has been so dramatic that since 2006, the U.S. is the world leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions."
=================================
China coal chart:
1/27/14, "China’s Growing Coal Use Is World’s Growing Problem," Climate Central, Eric Larson
.
"Economists predict that by 2040, China’s coal power fleet will be 50 percent larger than it is today. Once these coal-fired power plants are built, they typically run for 40 years, or longer, which means a commitment to decades of CO2 emissions. The climate impact of those emissions will be nearly impossible to reverse."...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment