Hello Oliver, Yes, of course there would be redistribution of energy, primarily via the ocean currents. But the amount from such a limited field test would be trivial, on a global scale.
No, this scheme isnt limited to cooling torpid whales! Cheers, John. Quoting Oliver Morton <oemor...@googlemail.com>: > Further to Alan, presumably perturbing 10,000km^2 is meant top affect > a larger area: if cloud seeding only cools the areas where the clouds > are seeded, without advective transport cooling other places, it's > going to be of very limited use to people who aren'#t sailors.... > > On Sep 28, 4:52 am, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote: >> Dear John, >> >> If you only do it for a few days, how will you detect a signal? And >> how do you know that perturbing 10,000 km2 will not affect a larger >> area? >> >> Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) >> Department of Environmental Sciences >> Rutgers University >> 14 College Farm Road >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901 >> >> rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduhttp://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/ >> Sent from my iPhone. +1-732-881-1610 >> >> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:44 PM, John Latham >> <john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > Hello Alan and colleagues, >> > I agree with you, Alan, that mounting a comprehensive field study >> of the climatological ramifications of the deployment of SRM schemes >> would be a mammoth, highly protracted and perhaps impossible >> endeavour, but I would like to make the point that field-testing of >> the cloud brightening geoengineering idea could be undertaken >> without significant climatogical repercussions. >> > A limited area (say 100 x 100 km) field experiment designed to >> assess the quantitative viability of this SRM scheme (and at the >> same time to examine aerosol-cloud interactions using advertently >> generated seawater aerosol) could be conducted without climatically >> damaging effects since the lifetime of the generated aerosol in the >> marine boundary layer is a few days. Such a study would be very >> similar to and no more complex than the highly successful >> international VOCALS field study of marine stratocumulus clouds >> conducted in 2008 off Chile & Peru, and directed by Rob Wood of the >> University of Washington. >> > All Best, John. >> >> > Quoting Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>: >> >> > > Dear Ken, >> >> > > I think you are being rather picky with words. In any case, I never >> > > said it cannot be tested. I said it cannot be fully tested in a >> > > real-world in situ experiment without full-scale implementation, >> > > because the climate signal will be drowned out by chaotic climate >> > > variations and because injecting into a pristine stratosphere cannot >> > > test injecting into an existing cloud. Of course computers can be >> > > used for testing. That is what I do, and I advocate much more of it. >> > > The statement below refers to in situ experimentation. >> >> > > Alan >> >> > > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) >> > > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >> > > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> > > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 >> > > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >> > > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >> > > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> >> > > On 9/27/2010 12:00 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: >> > >> Folks, >> >> > >> Robock et al and Fleming have both asserted that "geoengineering >> > >> cannot be tested". >> >> > >> Robock et al (Science, 2010): /"We argue that geoengineering cannot >> > >> be tested without full-scale implementation."/ >> > >> Fleming (Slate): "/Global climate engineering is untested and >> > >> untestable.../" >> >> > >> These statements seem either trivially true or patently false, >> > >> depending on interpretation. >> >> > >> *Trivially true:* /If the only thing that you are willing to >> > >> consider a test is the thing itself, then trivially there is no test >> > >> other than the thing itself./ >> >> > >> *Patently false:* /There are many tests that can be done that can >> > >> help us understand possible consequences of a geoengineering >> > >> deployment./ >> >> > >> One could imagine someone saying in the United States in the 1950's, >> > >> "There is no way you can test the proposed interstate highway >> > >> system, because you will not understand all its effects until it has >> > >> been deployed." This is true, in the sense that you could not >> > >> predict in advance detailed effects that the interstate highway >> > >> system would have on the spread of suburbia, traffic jams, the rise >> > >> of the SUV, and so on. >> >> > >> But, in the 1950's they could have tested the concrete, built a >> > >> small stretch of road and learned about its construction and use >> > >> etc. Would we say "/The interstate highway system cannot be tested >> > >> without full-scale implementation?/" Would we say "T/he interstate >> > >> highway system is untested and untestable?/" I think we would say, >> > >> "There are plenty of tests we can do, but of course we will not >> > >> understand the full consequences of our implementation until the >> > >> implementation is complete." >> >> > >> We perform tests to improve our understanding. We never have full >> > >> understanding of consequences of our actions before we act. We >> > >> hopefully act in ways that will have the greatest rational >> > >> expectation of positive outcomes. We do research to avoid having >> > >> rational expectations that do not accord with facts on the ground. >> >> > >> Many people have regarded Mt Pinatubo as performing a natural >> > >> experiment of geoengineering -- a test of the idea of solar >> > >> radiation management. Like all tests, Mt Pinatubo was not a perfect >> > >> test (e.g., the aersols were not maintained in the stratosphere, >> > >> etc). Nevertheless, Mt Pinatubo has functioned as a natural test of >> > >> some of the concepts underlying solar radiation management. >> >> > >> In 2003, Alan Robock wrote a paper called "Introduction: Mt. >> > >> Pinatubo as a test of climate feedback mechanisms". >> > >> (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf). >> > >> How is it logically possible that Mt Pinatubo could function as a >> > >> test of climate feedback mechanisms, but not of geoengineering (ie >> > >> SRM), when those climate feedback mechanisms are central to the >> > >> climate system response to any geoengineering effort? >> >> > >> Furthermore, hasn't Alan claimed to have tested geoengineering >> > >> concepts in his climate models and found them wanting? How can you >> > >> have it both ways: testing geoengineering concepts and claiming the >> > >> concepts are untestable? >> >> > >> The list of possible useful geoengineering tests could be a long >> > >> one, and includes tests of small scale physics, climate model >> > >> simulations, observations of climate variability, ecosystem >> > >> experiments, observations of behavior of natural or introduced >> > >> particles on stratospheric transport and chemistry, small scale or >> > >> short-term deployments, etc. (I am not advocating all of these, just >> > >> listing them.) >> >> > >> It seems odd, when there are a number of people eager to perform a >> > >> wide range of tests on geoengineering concepts, to have a small >> > >> minority claiming that these concepts simply can't be tested >> > >> (especially when members of that minority have themselves been >> > >> involved in testing geoengineering concepts). >> >> > >> So, do the people who say that "geoengineering can't be tested" mean >> > >> something that is both true and substantive (i.e., couldn't also >> > >> have been said of, for example, the development of the US interstate >> > >> highway system)? If so, it would be interesting to hear what this >> > >> non-trivial interpretation might be. >> > >> Best, >> >> > >> Ken >> >> > >> ___________________________________________________ >> > >> Ken Caldeira >> >> > >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> > >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> > >> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu >> > >> <mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> >> > >>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> > >> -- >> > >> 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. >> >> > -- >> > John Latham >> >> > lat...@ucar.edu & john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk >> >> > Tel. 303-444-2429 (H) & 303-497-8182 (W) > > -- > 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. > > -- John Latham lat...@ucar.edu & john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel. 303-444-2429 (H) & 303-497-8182 (W) -- 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.
