To-: [rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu];[geoengineering@googlegroups.com] From:- [lat...@ucar.edu]
Hello Alan & Colleagues, Yes, as & when convenient it would be interesting, Alan, to learn from you which of your 26 objections to stratospheric seeding apply to Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB): and, of course whether there are additional ones pertaining to MCB, which do not apply to the sulphur idea. Consideration of MCB has not been evident in the recent plethora of blog submissions, so I would like to provide a list of its associated positive and negative qualities which - in my view, on balance – provide a convincing case for being one of the SRM techniques to be selected for research support. 1.Computations from several top-class models agree in concluding that MCB – if it works – could maintain the Earth’s average surface temperature and the sea-ice coverage at both poles at roughly the current values, at least up to the CO2-doubling point. 2.Development of a system for spraying adequate quantities of sea-water aerosol is not yet fully achieved, but recent developments indicate a high likelihood of success. 3.Ship-tracks provide hard evidence of the capacity of aerosol to brighten clouds, but it does not follow that it can be achieved on the spatial scale required. 4. GCM computations indicate in one case that MCB deployment would produce unacceptable rainfall reduction in Amazonia, whereas in two other studies that is not so. Further work shows that the Amazonian rainfall loss can be eliminated by not seeding in a particular region. Provisionally, it seems possible that adverse rainfall effects can be avoided by judicious choice of seeding locations. 5.We have designed a three-phase field-test of MCB, based heavily on the larger, highly successful International VOCALS study, in which several members of our team played leading roles. Its scale would be about 100 km by 100 km, which seems too small to influence climate. Such a test would not be conducted without appropriate authorization. Please see reference below. 6. In principle, MCB is capable of being usefully applied on spatial scales much less than global. A paper on the utilization of MCB to weaken hurricanes was published in 2012 (see below). Another, on the protection of coral reefs has just been accepted. In both cases the idea is to reduce ocean surface water temperatures in appropriate oceanic areas. Best Wishes, John. 10. John Latham, Keith Bower, Tom Choularton, Hugh Coe, Paul Connolly, Gary Cooper,Tim Craft, Jack Foster, Alan Gadian, Lee Galbraith, Hector Iacovides, David Johnston, Brian Launder, Brian Leslie, John Meyer, Armand Neukermans, Bob Ormond, Ben Parkes, Philip Rasch, John Rush, Stephen Salter, Tom Stevenson, Hailong Wang, Qin Wang & Rob Wood, 2012, Marine Cloud Brightening, Phil.Trans.Roy. Soc. A . 2012, 370, 4217-4262. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0086 12.John Latham, Ben Parkes, Alan Gadian,Stephen Salter, 2012. Weakening of Hurricanes via Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.402 John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham ________________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Alan Robock [rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu] Sent: 01 June 2013 18:03 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] NASA Ames meeting Dear Stephen, My list of 26 problems is in slide 157 of http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/RobockGeoEngineering72ForDistribution.ppt I have been mainly focused on stratospheric aerosols. My latest publication on this is a response to Seitz's bubbles proposal at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Bubble2.pdf Some of the issues also apply to marine cloud brightening (MCB). Our GeoMIP project is making progress on understanding the climate response to stratospheric aerosols. We are beginning additional experiments related to MCB, and they will be described in a paper that will be submitted later this month to a special issue on GeoMIP to be published in JGR. I'll send it out as soon as it is submitted. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 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 http://twitter.com/AlanRobock On 6/1/13 9:52 AM, Stephen Salter wrote: > Dear Alan > > Can you tell me which of your 26 objections apply to marine cloud > brightening? > > I am sure that many of the people who want research on but not > deployment of geoengineering systems are greatly reassured that you > are there to spot the nasty problems. Keep up your valuable work. > > I too was at the Ames meeting and confirm your recollection. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering > University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland > s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 > WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > > > On 01/06/2013 17:33, Alan Robock wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I also was at the NASA Ames meeting. It was my first geoengineering >> meeting, and it was there that I was struck with the very >> enthusiastic endorsement of geoengineering as a solution to global >> warming by people who did not seem to be aware of the potential >> negative impacts. But Lane and Kheshgi were not among those who were >> blindly advocating geoengineering, as I remember it. I agree with >> Clive that the reason we are even considering this Plan B is that >> Exxon and other fossil fuel companies have had a dedicated campaign >> to deny anthropogenic global warming, and that AEI has been part of >> this campaign, and that if they were to now advocate mitigation we >> would not be nearly as interested in geoengineering. But it was not >> such a black and white discussion at the Ames meeting – it was more >> of a general discussion of geoengineering and a learning opportunity >> for many. >> >> It was at the Ames meeting that I wrote down my 20 reasons why >> geoengineering may be a bad idea, as I listened to two days of >> presentations. (My research program since then has been to >> investigate those reasons. I have now crossed out three of them, but >> added nine new ones, so the total is now 26.) >> >> Alan >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
