Friday, March 29, 2013

Rapid warming, no going back and human error regarding Geoengineering. And a note from O.E.


Edited 3/29/2013 4:11 pm
Note from O.E.:  -An inbuement- regarding termination shock from "unintended" Geoengineering [i][ii][iii].


This shock may be counteracted by reducing 'aviation contrails' [iv] and short lived pollutants besides CO2 since these two forms of "unintended' Geoengineering actually lead to significant warming [v] [vi]. 

The failure from the 'geoengineering community' to investigate the side effects that these activities may have had and continues to have (in the context of Geoengineering) in respect to ongoing events of climate extremes and climate change, is in my view the single greatest factor that leads to the evident distrust, and more, of Geoengineering in general.  It is absolutely irresponsible! A problem of their own making.

[i] "We may know more, science writer Oliver Morton reports, when the cargo shipping industry comes under stricter emissions regulations in about 10 years. Oceangoing ships emit a lot of sulfur, which helps to brighten marine clouds. By reducing such emissions, the shipping industry “will inadvertently commit the world to significant extra warming,” he says."


[ii]  "It is important to recognize that we are at present involved in a large project of inadvertent "geoengineering" by altering atmospheric chemistry"

[iii] "regular commercial and operational activities, shipping, aviation, other stuff that are every day imposing environmental perturbations that are the same scale or bigger than any research project"

[iv] A safer alternative to Solar Radiation Management (Geoengineering)


[v] Cutting Short-lived Pollutant Can Halve Near-term Warming

[vi] Contrails warm the world more than aviation emissions





From:
20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea
ALAN ROBOCK Rutgers University
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf

10. Rapid warming if deployment stops. A technological, societal, or political crisis could halt a project of stratospheric aerosol injection in middeployment.

Such an abrupt shift would result in rapid climate warming, which would produce much more stress on society and ecosystems than gradual global warming.[17]

11. There’s no going back. We don’t know how quickly scientists and engineers could shut down a geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the event of excessive climate cooling from large volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them.

12. Human error. Complex mechanical systems never work perfectly. Humans can make mistakes in the design, manufacturing, and operation of such systems. (Think of Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, airplane crashes, and friendly fire on the battlefield.) 

Should we stake the future of Earth on a much more complicated arrangement than these, built by the lowest bidder?

[17] See Figure 1 in Wigley, “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization,” pp. 452–54, 

and Figure 3 in H. Damon
Matthews and Ken Caldeira, “Transient ClimateCarbon Simulations of Planetary Geoengineering,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, pp. 9,949–54 (2007)



More resources:


Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse 
A global catastrophe scenario involving climate change, geoengineering, and a separate catastrophe. (Italics mine)


Abstract:


Perceived failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has prompted interest in avoiding the harms of climate change via geoengineering, that is, the intentional manipulation of Earth system processes.

Perhaps, the most promising geoengineering technique is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which reflects incoming solar radiation, thereby lowering surface temperatures.

This paper analyzes a scenario in which SAI brings great harm on its own. The scenario is based on the issue of SAI intermittency, in which aerosol injection is halted, sending temperatures rapidly back toward where they would have been without SAI.

The rapid temperature increase could be quite damaging, which in turn creates a strong incentive to avoid intermittency. In the scenario, a catastrophic societal collapse eliminates society's ability to continue SAI, despite the incentive.

The collapse could be caused by a pandemic, nuclear war, or other global catastrophe. The ensuing intermittency hits a population that is already vulnerable from the initial collapse, making for a double catastrophe.

While the outcomes of the double catastrophe are difficult to predict, plausible worst-case scenarios include human extinction.

The decision to implement SAI is found to depend on whether global catastrophe is more likely from double catastrophe or from climate change alone.

The SAI double catastrophe scenario also strengthens arguments for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and against SAI, as well as for building communities that could be self-sufficient during global catastrophes.

Finally, the paper demonstrates the value of integrative, systems-based global catastrophic risk analysis.

Seth D. Baum, Timothy M. Maher, Jr., and Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013. "Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse". Environment, Systems and Decisions, vol. 33, no. 1 (March), pages 168-180.


EPA Bans Sooty Ship Fuel Off U.S. Coasts
New regulations prevent ships from burning highly polluting bunker fuel in American territorial waters



#Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963



Para una corta introducción visite:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoingenier%C3%ADa

Los invito a que lean también mi semanario en español:

GEOINGENIERIA DEL CLIMA - Temas sobre la Geoingeniería Climática - Modificación del Clima 

Y en inglés con algunos articulos en español: #Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Unilateral Geoengineering "The Empire Strikes Back" style


October 20th, 2009

From: 

Geoengineering from black helicopters  by James Wimberley 

"1. Because large-scale geoengineering is dangerous, it will only become a live option when emission control efforts have clearly failed and things have reached a crisis: hundreds of thousands dying every year in droughts, hurricanes, coastal floods and so on. The polar bears will already have gone. Whoever does it will need cast-iron political cover against the unforeseen consequences – including the risk of killing millions more.

2. For the same reasons, the measures cannot be national or regional in scale. They will be inherently global in their effects, even if carried out by or in a single country. The political cover accordingly has to be global.

3.  There’s only a little room for experiment – primarily to test engineering feasibility and cost (say of Venetian blinds in space.) There’s so much noise in the climate system that the effects of small-scale pilot projects won’t be properly measurable. It will have to be live or nothing.

4. The knowledge required to manage an emergency global geoengineering scheme is very considerable, and very rapid and expensive action will be essential when things go wrong, as they probably will. Accordingly the scheme cannot be run democratically with any hope of success, only technocratically. Thought experiment: you have a project running on ocean fertilisation with iron in the Pacific. Evidence has come up that this is pumping up the El Niño cycle, with droughts and fires in Australia and the collapse of Peruvian fisheries. Do you suspend or not?"

                                                                     ----

"In theory the USA could run the geoengineering show alone as an imperial power: and it would provide the bulk of the expertise. But in that case it would assume all the political risks, including excess deaths on a possibly genocidal scale. The initial situation will ex hypothesi be terrible, with mass deaths anyway, and the geoengineers will likely be blamed for these even if they are not in fact responsible. The other problem is the unworkability of the US Constitution for emergencies. A plan like the Manhattan Project is conceivable on a a Presidential, executive basis, but not one that leaves the US Senate with a veto on stuff they and their constituents won’t understand. Would either  the US polity or the rest of the world accept the US President as global climate dictator?"

                                                                     ----

"Opponents of  rapid and coordinated emissions cuts might think about this. These are clearly near the limit of what can be achieved by conventional intergovernmental cooperation, and maybe beyond it. But if emission control fails, the alternative is something completely different: in this one field, it means (on current knowledge) world government of an extreme and unaccountable type. Try to obstruct the Executive Subcommittee &c? Black helicopters will land on your lawn, disgorging stormtroopers in iridescent camo bearing the spaceship-and sun insignia of the Empire IPCC. You valiantly resist, but they draw their phasers….

My own fear is not that this will happen but that it won’t. The Romans were historically unusual in their willingness to do what was necessary to survive: create war dictators, abandon the republic for an autocracy. The general pattern, documented by Jared Diamond, is to prefer collective suicide to paradigm change."


                                                                   ****


Unilateral Geoengineering
Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop
At the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1452109485127454801#editor/target=post;postID=5776377726342351631

"The hydrological impacts of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 were measured by 
scientists and provide some insight into the hydrological impacts that might be expected 
to result from geoengineering activities. In the 6-18 months following the Pinatubo 
eruption, there was a substantial decrease in rainfall and river discharge, particularly in 
the tropics.15 
Climate models suggest that similar outcomes would accompany 
geoengineering—decreased precipitation over land (and especially the tropics) and 
increased precipitation over sea.16 Such changes would plausibly raise the risk of major 
droughts in some regions, with possibly large impacts on agriculture and fresh water 
supply. 
It is unclear how to weigh those highly uncertain impacts against the highly 
uncertain hydrologic impacts of unchecked changes in climate. 
It is also unclear whether one-time injection of particles into the stratosphere by a volcanic eruption is an appropriate analog for the impacts of a steady-state climate geoengineering scheme, under which hydrological cycles would settle into a (perhaps new) pattern. 
Studies of these possible impacts with climate models are still in their infancy, and because 
precipitation is among the most difficult variables to model, may face fundamental limits.
One basic measure of ecological health is net primary productivity (NPP), or the rate of 
biomass production in an ecosystem. Several investigators have used terrestrial 
biosphere models to explore whether geoengineering schemes that increase albedo would 
have a significant impact on global NPP. 
The answer seems to be no, because only a small reduction in solar flux is necessary to counteract warming due to anthropogenic emissions.17 
In fact, a realistic scenario for a geoengineered climate that includes reduced solar flux and doubled atmospheric concentrations of CO2 could actually increase global NPP due to the dominating impact of CO2, fertilization. 
However, since not all plants respond in the same way to increased CO2, there might be differential impact that would advantage some at the expense of others, thus shifting the make-up and balance between species in terrestrial ecosystems." 


                                                                         ****

Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation
Katharine L Ricke1, Juan B Moreno-Cruz2 and Ken Caldeira1   
2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 014021 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014021

"These incentives differ markedly from those that dominate international politics of greenhouse-gas emissions reduction, where the central challenge is to compel free riders to participate."





Doble catástrofe: geoingeniería estratosférica intermitente inducida por colapso social.



Un escenario de catástrofe global que implica el cambio climático, geoingeniería, y una catástrofe separada.
Seth D. Baum, Timothy M. Maher, Jr., and Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013.
Traducción

Resumen:

El percibido fracaso de reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero ha empujado el interés en evitar los daños del cambio climático vía geoingeniería, es decir la manipulación intencional del sistema de procesos de la Tierra.

Quizás, la técnica de geoingeniería más prometedora es la inyección estratosférica de aerosoles (SAI por sus siglas en inglés), que refleja la radiación solar entrante, y por lo tanto baja las temperaturas en la superficie.

Este papel analiza un escenario en el cual SAI acarrea un gran daño por si misma.

El escenario está basado en la cuestión de la intermitencia de la SAI, en la cual la inyección de aerosoles es detenida, enviando las temperaturas rápidamente hacia donde hubieran llegado sin SAI.
El aumento rápido de las temperaturas podría ser muy perjudicial, lo que por su parte crea un fuerte incentivo para evitar intermitencia.

En el escenario un colapso social catastrófico elimina la capacidad de la sociedad para continuar SAI, a pesar del incentivo.

El colapso podría ser causado por una pandemia, guerra nuclear, u otra catástrofe global.
La intermitencia consiguiente golpea a una población que ya es vulnerable debido al colapso inicial, produciendo una doble catástrofe.

Mientras los resultados de la doble catástrofe son difíciles de predecir, los escenarios de peor-caso posible incluyen la extinción humana.

Se encuentra que la decisión de implementar SAI depende de si la catástrofe global es más probable debido a la doble catástrofe o del cambio climático por sí solo.

El escenario SAI de doble catástrofe también refuerza argumentos para las reducciones de emisiones de gases invernadero y en contra SAI, así como para la construcción de comunidades que podrían ser autosuficientes durante catástrofes globales.

Finalmente, el papel demuestra el valor de análisis, integrativos, sistema-basados de riesgos de catástrofe global .

Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse 
A global catastrophe scenario involving climate change, geoengineering, and a separate catastrophe.

Seth D. Baum, Timothy M. Maher, Jr., and Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013. "Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse". Environment, Systems and Decisions, vol. 33, no. 1 (March), pages 168-180.


Para una corta introducción sobre la Geoingeniería del clima visite:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoingenier%C3%ADa 

Los invito a que lean también mi semanario en español:

GEOINGENIERIA DEL CLIMA - Temas sobre la Geoingeniería Climática - Modificación del Clima 

Y en inglés con algunos articulos en español: #Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963

Recalentamiento rapido, no tiene retroceso y error humano en la geoingeniería




Traducido del Estudio titulado:

20 RAZONES POR LA CUAL LA GEOINGENIERIA PODRIA SER UNA MALA IDEA 
ALAN ROBOCK Rutgers University
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf 

10. Recalentamiento rápido si se interrumpe la implementación. Una crisis tecnológica, social, o política podría parar un proyecto de inyección estratosférica de aerosoles  a media implementacion.
Un cambio tan abrupto resultaría en recalentamiento rápido del clima, que produciría mucha más tensión en la sociedad y ecosistemas que un calentamiento gradual. [17]

11. No hay marcha atras. No sabemos que tan rápidamente los científicos y los ingenieros podrían cerrar un sistema de geoingeniería — o contener sus efectos — en caso de refrigeración excesiva del clima debido a grandes erupciones volcánicas u otras causas.
Una vez que ponemos aerosoles en la atmósfera, no podemos quitarlos.

12. Error humano. Los sistemas mecánicos complejos nunca trabajan perfectamente.
La gente puede cometer errores en el diseño, fabricación, y operación de tales sistemas. (Hay que pensar en Chernobil, el Exxon Valdez, accidentes de avión, y fuego no hostil en el campo de batalla.)
¿Deberíamos apostar el futuro de la Tierra en arreglos mucho más complicados que éstos, construidos por el peor postor?

Referencias:

17. See Figure 1 in Wigley, “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization,” pp. 452–54, 


and Figure 3 in H. Damon
Matthews and Ken Caldeira, “Transient ClimateCarbon Simulations of Planetary Geoengineering,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, pp. 9,949–54 (2007)


Otros enlaces:

Doble catástrofe: geoingeniería estratosférica intermitente inducida por colapso social.
Un escenario de catástrofe global que implica el cambio climático, geoingeniería, y una catástrofe separada.
Seth D. Baum, Timothy M. Maher, Jr., and Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013.

Resumen:

El percibido fracaso de reducir las emisiones de gas de invernadero ha empujado el interés en evitar los daños del cambio de clima vía geoingeniería, es decir la manipulación intencional del sistema de procesos de de la Tierra.

Quizás, la técnica de geoingeniería más prometedora es la inyección estratosférica de aerosoles (SAI por sus siglas en inglés), que refleja la radiación solar entrante, y por lo tanto baja las temperaturas en la superficie.

Este papel analiza un escenario en el cual SAI acarrea un gran daño por si misma.

El escenario está basado en la cuestión de la intermitencia de la SAI, en la cual la inyección de aerosoles es detenida, enviando las temperaturas rápidamente hacia donde hubieran llegado sin SAI.
El aumento rápido de las temperaturas podría ser muy perjudicial, lo que por su parte crea un fuerte incentivo para evitar intermitencia.

En el escenario un colapso social catastrófico elimina la capacidad de la sociedad para continuar SAI, a pesar del incentivo.

El colapso podría ser causado por una pandemia, guerra nuclear, u otra catástrofe global.
La intermitencia consiguiente golpea a una población que ya es vulnerable debido al colapso inicial, produciendo una doble catástrofe.

Mientras los resultados de la doble catástrofe son difíciles de predecir, los escenarios de peor-caso posible incluyen la extinción humana.

Se encuentra que la decisión de implementar SAI depende de si la catástrofe global es más probable debido a la doble catástrofe o del cambio de climático por sí solo.

El escenario SAI de doble catástrofe también refuerza argumentos para las reducciones de emisiones de gas de invernadero y en contra SAI, así como para la construcción de comunidades que podrían ser autosuficientes durante catástrofes globales.

Finalmente, el papel demuestra el valor de análisis, integrativos, sistema-basados de riesgos de catástrofe global .

Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse 
A global catastrophe scenario involving climate change, geoengineering, and a separate catastrophe.

Seth D. Baum, Timothy M. Maher, Jr., and Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013. "Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse". Environment, Systems and Decisions, vol. 33, no. 1 (March), pages 168-180.


Para una corta introducción sobre la Geoingeniería del clima visite:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoingenier%C3%ADa 

Los invito a que lean también mi semanario en español:

GEOINGENIERIA DEL CLIMA - Temas sobre la Geoingeniería Climática - Modificación del Clima 
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1360165668

Y en inglés con algunos articulos en español: #Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963



Saturday, March 23, 2013

Relación entre la lluvia ácida, los metales pesados y las enfermedades neurodegenerativas.


Aclaración de enfermedades neurodegenerativas endémicas  - un comentario. (Traducción)

Source

Chemical Institute for Neurodegeneration (CIN), Faculty of Science, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan. yuzo@sci.kj.yamagata-u.ac.jp
 2003 Sep-Oct;58(9-10):752-8.


Las investigaciones recientes del scrapie, enfermedad de Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD), y enfermedad Caquexia crónica (CWD por sus siglas en ingles) de grupos en Islandia, Eslovaquia y Colorado, respectivamente, han indicado que el suelo en estas regiones es bajo en cobre y más alto en el manganeso, y esta bien reconocido que pacientes de EP (ALS) o la enfermedad de Parkinson fueron colectivamente encontrados en Nueva Guinea e islas Papua, donde el agua subterránea (agua potable) contiene mucho Al3 e iones Mn2. Los hechos referidos sugieren que estas enfermedades neurodegenerativas estan estrechamente relacionadas con la función de un ión metálico

Hemos investigado las funciones químicas de los iones metálicos detalladamente y hemos establecido el mecanismo único de la activación de oxígeno por los iones de metal de transición como hierro y cobre, y hemos indicado la diferencia notable en el mecanismo entre hierro, aluminio e iones de manganeso. Basado en estos resultados, se ha hecho aparente que la incorporación de los Al-(III) o Mn (II) en las células induce "el síndrome de sobrecarga de hierro", que es principalmente debido a la diferencia en un mecanismo de activación de oxígeno entre el ión de hierro y Al-(III) o el Mn (II) ión.

Este síndrome promueve altamente la formación de la agua oxigenada, y el agua oxigenada producida de esta manera puede ser un factor principal en causar daños serios al ADN y proteínas ( tensión oxidativa ), cediendo un cobre (II) - o manganeso (II) - complejo péptido y su peróxido aducto, que son los agentes serios para inducir los cambios estructurales de la proteína del prion normal (PrP (c)) a isoformos anormales PrP (Sc) causantes de la enfermedad, o la formación de PrP 27-30 (hendidura anormal en el sitio 90 de la proteína del prion.

“Parece razonable considerar que el origen esencial de las encefalopatías spongiformes transmisibles (EET's) debería ser la incorporación y la acumulación de Al-(III) y Mn (II) iones en las células, y el aumento repentino y de scrapie y encefalopatía en forma Encefalopatía Espongiforme Bovina en la década pasada puede ser parcialmente debido "a la lluvia ácida", porque la lluvia ácida hace los iones de Al-(III) yMn (II) solubles en los acuíferos subterráneos. ”

Fuente:

Z Naturforsch C. 2003 Sep-Oct;58(9-10):752-8.
Elucidation of endemic neurodegenerative diseases--a commentary.
Nishida Y.
Source
Chemical Institute for Neurodegeneration (CIN), Faculty of Science, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan. yuzo@sci.kj.yamagata-u.ac.jp


Otros enlaces:

La Caquexia Cronica (CDW por sus siglas en ingles)

Priones, Encefalopatía Espongiforme y el Suelo como Reservorio
Publicado por Juan José Ibáñez el 24 junio, 2010

Estadisticas del Espectro del Transotno Autista
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/Spanish/autism/data.html

Para una corta introducción sobre la Geoingeniería del clima visite:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoingenier%C3%ADa 

Los invito a que lean también mi semanario en español:

GEOINGENIERIA DEL CLIMA - Temas sobre la Geoingeniería Climática - Modificación del Clima 
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1360165668

Y en inglés con algunos articulos en español: #Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963


Friday, March 22, 2013

Less sun for solar power and enviromental impacts of (SRM) implementation


From:
20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea
ALAN ROBOCK Rutgers University
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf 


8. Less sun for solar power. Scientists estimate that as little as a 1.8 percent reduction in incoming solar radiation would compensate for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Even this small reduction would significantly affect the radiation available for solar power systems—one of the prime alternate methods of generating clean energy—as the response of different solar power systems to total available sunlight is not linear.

This is especially true for some of the most efficiently designed systems that reflect or focus direct solar radiation on one location for direct heating.[14]

Following the Mount Pinatubo eruption and the 1982 eruption of El Chichón in Mexico, scientists observed a direct solar radiation decrease of 25–35 percent.[15]


9. Environmental impacts of implementation. Any system that could inject aerosols into the stratosphere, i.e., commercial jetliners with sulfur mixed into their fuel, 16-inch naval rifles firing 1-ton shells of dust vertically into the air, or hoses suspended from stratospheric balloons, would cause enormous environmental damage.

The same could be said for systems that would deploy sun shields.

University of Arizona astronomer Roger P. Angel has proposed putting a fleet of 2-foot-wide reflective disks
in a stable orbit between Earth and the sun that would bend sunlight away from Earth.[16]

But to get the needed trillions of disks into space, engineers would need 20 electromagnetic launchers to fire missiles with stacks of 800,000 disks every five minutes for twenty years.

What would be the atmospheric effects of the resulting sound and gravity waves?

Who would want to live nearby?

References:


[14] For the estimate for reducing incoming solar radiation, see Balan Govindasamy and Ken Caldeira, “Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate CO2 -Induced Climate Change,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, pp. 2,141–44 (2000).  

For the response of solar power systems, see Michael C. MacCracken,Geoengineering: Worthy of Cautious Evaluation?” Climatic Change,vol. 77, pp. 235–43 (2006).

[15] Robock, “Volcanic Eruptions and Climate,” pp. 191–219

[16] Roger P. Angel, “Feasibility of Cooling the Earth with a Cloud of Small Spacecraft Near the Inner Lagrange Point (L1),” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 103, pp. 17,184–89 (2006)

Other links:

Solar Energy on a Cloudy Day
October 15, 2012

Big Story Weather - includes daily Green Energy Report with wave, solar, wind and hydro-energy forecast 
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112808674/big-story-weather-032213/

Noise Pollution
http://www.epa.gov/air/noise.html

Negative Effects of Noise Pollution
http://www.noisecontrol.com/negative-effects-of-noise-pollution/

Images:
Sun and Clouds in a Sunset by Parvathisri at Wikimedia Commons
Noise Pollution from http://www.noisecontrol.com/negative-effects-of-noise-pollution/




You are invited to visit my weekly:
#Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963


Para una corta introducción visite:
 http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoingenier%C3%ADa

Los invito a que lean también mi semanario en español:

GEOINGENIERIA DEL CLIMA - Temas sobre la Geoingeniería Climática - Modificación del Clima 

Y en inglés con algunos articulos en español: #Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963





Thursday, March 21, 2013

Geoengineering you are welcomed into adulthood! or Still 'a little bit stuck' on "Our current 'inadvertent' project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk'. (Since 1992 at least!)


Geoengineering you are welcomed into adulthood... or... Still 'a little bit stuck' on "Our current 'inadvertent' project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk... (Since 1992 at least!)

The National Academies Press
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992)

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=433


Fast forward to March 2013... ( Full 21 years later! Oh well ) 

"21 years of uncertainty":
- DROUGHT - FAMINE - CLIMATE-CHANGE -  FLOODING - UPTICK IN "NATURAL" EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS -KATRINA - SANDY -  ARCTIC HURRICANE - POLAR ICE CAP MELT - METHANE EMERGENCY - POLAR RESOURCE EXPLORATION - OPENING OF THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE - 

Partial trancript 
5 March 2013 Science Podcast


"Many research projects get a lot more scrutiny than their non research counterparts, for instance, if we are talking about injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, people get very scared of the notion of Geoengineering that would do that; however we have all this commercial airlines that are doing that all the time every day." 

E.D.: "Right... right, and this is a big reason (for) the core of the compromise we propose. One of the reasons for this is that if you say "you can't do any Geoengineering research" but there are regular commercial and operational activities, shipping, aviation, other stuff that are every day imposing environmental perturbations that are the same scale or bigger than any research project; what you are basically doing is saying you want to control this activity by virtue of it's purpose or the fact that is called Geoengineering... and that doesn't make sense, it not only doesn't make sense in terms of managing environmental risks, it also poses all kinds of temptations for people just to... (???) what their doing or what their purpose is.

From:
Edward Parson recommends a framework for ending the political deadlock on geoengineering research, allowing some projects to move forward while mitigating risks.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6125/1278/suppl/DC1


"Maybe we can have our and burn 'em too"
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2005-06/how-earth-scale-engineering-can-save-planet


Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1605 
"Our current inadvertent project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk"
Creative Commons License
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues blog - Geoingeniería by Oscar and Jocelyn Escobar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.Licencia Creative Commons
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues blog por Oscar y Jocelyn Escobar se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.