I recall this too. But then I read that hydroxyl OH- has a positive effect on the ozone. Is there any way to send a generators of hydroxyl, some sort of catalysator that would turn up that and help to create ozone which is said to be higher in the presence of OH- ions. > From: gorm...@waitrose.com > To: sam.car...@gmail.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:55:16 +0000 > > A month or two back someone suggested that H2 would have as bad an effect on > the ozone layer as CFCs and that this was a reason for rejecting the H2 > based transport energy idea. > > Is this true? If so we want as little free H2 released as possible even if > it would have other positive effects. > > John Gorman > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Carana" <sam.car...@gmail.com> > To: "geoengineering" <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:28 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere > > > Good point, Oliver, > > Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was > estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further > hydrogen and oxygen may cause additional water vapor, in turn causing > additional radiative forcing. > > However, water vapor persists for relatively short periods, much > shorter than methane. Most vapor will quickly turn into precipitation, > which may also be beneficial for the soil at many places. Furthermore, > additional cloud coverage may make that more sunlight is reflected > back into space, mainly due to the albedo difference between clouds > and seawater. Overall, the impact may therefore be beneficial, > especially if this results in increased oxidation of methane. > > Of course, the aim of such a project would not be to create vapor, the > aim would be to increase hydroxyl levels, so we should look at adding > hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, rather > than water vapor. > > Much research and testing has already been done and further research > can build on this. There should be more research in all this, with > testing of the overall impact of such a project, rather than to rely > only on observations of reactions that take place in isolated > conditions during lab testing. > > As discussed, we should have plans ready in case methane becomes > catastrophic, e.g. due to large increases of methane from permafrost > and clathrates, while hydroxyl levels are dropping. Such a plan should > aim to take into account all the impacts, as well as work out costs, > feasibility and other points I raised before. In short, it should be > researched as a geoengineering project. > > If this takes years of research and testing, then the more reason to > start with it now, as we may find that we have little time left to do > this, if it suddenly becomes immanent that our worst fears have > eventuated. > > Cheers > Sam Carana > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Wingenter <oli...@nmt.edu> wrote: > > Dear Sam and Andrew, > > > > Some problems may come up with further increasing H2. H2 is an indirect > > GHG. > > > > H2 is a significant OH sink globally. > > > > Most of the H2 is consumed in soil. In soil the following reaction takes > > place, > > > > CO2+4H2 ? CH4+2H2O. > > > > Furthermore, the oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere of produces about half > > of the H2 in the atmosphere. > > > > A good summary can be found in > > > > http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Oliver Wingenter > > > > > > > > > > > > Sam Carana wrote: > >> > >> Andrew, > >> > >> Since hydroxyls essentially combine O and H, it may be possible to > >> increase the amount of hydroxyls in the atmosphere by adding both O > >> and H, although I'm unsure whether this will automatically result in > >> more hydroxyls. > >> > >> I remember that I wrote you, back in March, that hydrogen could be > >> produced and released into the atmosphere to - under the influence of > >> UV light - in an effort to produce extra hydroxyl radicals, in order > >> to speed up methane oxidation. If this is feasible, we should prepare > >> for this as a separate geoengineering project, in order to be ready to > >> dramatically increase the production of hydrogen, preferably by means > >> of electrolysis powered by wind turbines, or by means of pyrolysis of > >> biomass. > >> > >> You replied that such additional hydrogen could cause ozone depletion. > >> The above process of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water could > >> at the same time produce oxygen that could be used to in turn produce > >> ozone. > >> > >> You said you were working on a methane paper, Andrew, is this > >> avialable online, or are you still working on it? > >> > >> Cheers! > >> Sam Carana > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley > >> <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> In order to address the problems of ozone loss and methane excursions, > >>> we > >>> need IMO to directly alter atmospheric chemistry. Making ozone isn't > >>> terribly difficult. You can buy off-the-shelf machines which do is quite > >>> happily. If you sling them under a balloon, then they should work quite > >>> merrily to boost ozone levels. Power would be a issue, but some options > >>> include microwave beams, lasers, solar panels and satellite-style > >>> micro-nuclear plants. > >>> I know less about hydroxyl radicals. I'm assuming that some similar > >>> flying > >>> Heath-Robinson contraptions could be used to fix them up too. Does > >>> anyone > >>> know what technologies exist, what the power, servicing, lifetime and > >>> other > >>> issues are? > >>> Our approach to pollution is strange. On the ground, we're quite happy > >>> to > >>> catch it, treat it and scrub it up. We seem, however, to make little > >>> effort > >>> to repair the damage in the wider environment, even when doing so > >>> doesn't > >>> appear to be impossibly difficult. Why sit back, hand-wringing, instead > >>> of > >>> building some engineering solutions? > >>> A > >>> > >>> 2009/11/15 Eugene I. Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Andrew: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Based on prior behavior I guess we might get 50 years of few or no > >>>> sunspots. Hence we might have 50 years before it gets really hot. In > >>>> the > >>>> meantime my guess is that the Canadians and Russians will fight any > >>>> attempt > >>>> at Arctic geoengineering to cool or get rid of CH4. Methane conversion > >>>> to > >>>> CO2 is one molecule for one molecule; and CH4 is a more effective > >>>> greenhouse > >>>> gas so I don’t see methane conversion to CO2 as a big deal. The main > >>>> converters are OH and O2H radicals formed from O3 and H2O. So means of > >>>> enhancing radical formation would be desirable. Another way would be to > >>>> introduce H2. All of these conversion processes are at the expense of > >>>> the > >>>> ozone layer. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -gene > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:41 AM > >>>> To: geoengineering > >>>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM > >>>> geoengineering > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> At present the likely methane excursion is far from clear. Further, it > >>>> is > >>>> also unclear how quickly the total excursion will occur. The excursion > >>>> rate > >>>> is highly significant due to the short life of methane in the > >>>> atmosphere. > >>>> The methane ends up as CO2, in itself a major issue. However, the > >>>> CO2's > >>>> likely effect is nothing compared to the devastating temperature spike > >>>> which > >>>> may result from a sudden methane excursion. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the > >>>> problem is far from conclusive. We need much more research into: > >>>> > >>>> 1) The methane reservoir in clathrates and permafrost > >>>> > >>>> 2) The size of potential methane sources currently frozen as organic > >>>> detritus > >>>> > >>>> 3) The likely changes to the GWP of methane in future atmospheres, as > >>>> the > >>>> levels of hydroxyl radicals etc. shift over time and as a direct result > >>>> of > >>>> methane excursion. Recent research on this asks more questions than it > >>>> answers. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> My personal feeling is that the range of likely outcomes is from a > >>>> significant amplification of AGW, right up to a 'Great Dying' sized > >>>> mass-extinction event when we come within a sneeze of sterilising the > >>>> entire > >>>> planet. I'd be tempted to bet on the latter, but I wouldn't be around > >>>> to > >>>> collect the winnings, so I'll keep my wallet in my pocket. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> My suggestions is that geoengineers look at ways to clean up the > >>>> methane > >>>> from the atmosphere, and then lock down the resulting carbon. My guess > >>>> is > >>>> we've got about 50 years to do this, but virtually no time at all if > >>>> the > >>>> methane can't be dealt with once it's in the atmosphere. Therefore, I'd > >>>> support John out of precautionary principle-based reasoning. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A > >>>> > >>>> 2009/11/15 jim woolridge <jimwoolri...@hotmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> Nice one, John; the train of argument is clear (of limpid clarity, in > >>>> fact!) The problem is that the people and institutions addressed are > >>>> in the business of politics, the art of the possible, rather than in > >>>> the business of logical evaluation. They hear what you are saying and > >>>> must see the validity of it. But politically what is true and what is > >>>> doable do not always coincide, as we all know from as many examples as > >>>> one cares to ennumerate. > >>>> > >>>> We have to keep hammering away at the arguments, to the point at which > >>>> they are generally understood and accepted, and also keep on > >>>> politicking in the sure and certain hope that eventually the > >>>> acceptance of the arguments and the cowardice/caution/horse sense/ > >>>> opportunistic careerism of the politicos will achieve the right kind > >>>> of intersection. In the next year or so (& wouldn't it be a great > >>>> help to have the environmental NGOs on board.) > >>>> > >>>> On Nov 12, 10:51 pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It is incredible. It is so obvious. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to > >>>>> the > >>>>> concentration above its pre-industrial level; and > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the > >>>>> concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective > >>>>> lifetime > >>>>> of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years. > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore: > >>>>> 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and > >>>>> will > >>>>> not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore: > >>>>> 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the > >>>>> warming > >>>>> due to the albedo effect. > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore: > >>>>> 5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing > >>>>> quantities > >>>>> of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many degrees > >>>>> to > >>>>> global warming; and > >>>>> > >>>>> 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable, > >>>>> potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres. > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore: > >>>>> 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly > >>>>> enough to save the Arctic sea ice; and > >>>>> > >>>>> 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar > >>>>> radiation > >>>>> management (SRM) geoengineering. > >>>>> > >>>>> 9. SRM is not a last resort, it is needed now to cool the Arctic. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is incredible that people do not seem to follow this train of logic > >>>>> - > >>>>> it is so obvious. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yet when I challenged a panel of geoengineering experts to refute this > >>>>> argument, the response was that geoengineering (even just to cool the > >>>>> Arctic) was too dangerous - not that the argument was false! [1] > >>>>> > >>>>> So we continue to hear politicians and their advisers claiming that > >>>>> emissions reduction alone can be sufficient to keep the planet safe. > >>>>> [2] > >>>>> > >>>>> And we continue to hear geoengineering experts saying that > >>>>> geoengineering should only be used as a last resort. [3] > >>>>> > >>>>> How can this mindset be changed quickly, to avoid leaving > >>>>> geoengineering > >>>>> too late? > >>>>> > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> P.S. Apologies to those who have heard this all before and accept the > >>>>> logic as self-evident. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] This challenge was put to the panel at the launch of the Royal > >>>>> Society geoengineering report, on September 1st, with response from > >>>>> the > >>>>> team leader and panel chairman, Professor John Shepherd. > >>>>> > >>>>> [2] For example at the geoengineering hearing at the House of Commons, > >>>>> November 2008. > >>>>> > >>>>> [3] For example at the congressional hearing on geoengineering, > >>>>> November > >>>>> 2009. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>> Groups > >>>> "geoengineering" group. > >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >>>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>> Groups > >>>> "geoengineering" group. > >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >>>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=. > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>> Groups > >>> "geoengineering" group. > >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "geoengineering" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > _________________________________________________________________ View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
