Dear John - Had you a technique that worked securely, quite a few people might sleep better at night. But Ken once accused you, if I remember correctly, of "making reckless statements," and since you don't have such a technique, trying to speak in ways that intentionally builds a feeling of dependency on non-existent technologies to be deployed 9 months from now would seem to count as such.
I find it somewhat frustrating, because what you seem unwilling to do is the >2,000 year old political strategy of "divide and conquer" as applied to climate strategy (you're not alone in this, I might add), since whenever you want to create this feeling of complete dependency upon geoengineering for the near-term, you tend to revert to speaking of "emissions" as a single lump phenomenon, and therefore hopeless, when in fact it is virtually unquestionable that if your concerns are really so immediate, there are 100s of shovel-ready, very practical projects involving SLCF emissions, that no one in the world is opposed to in principal, that are vastly under-appreciated by so many people, and that you could be helping to accelerate enactment of, which could take out some forcing from the Arctic more quickly than anything else. We don't really know just how much "cooling power" would be needed to significantly improve Arctic conditions for the near-term. There's virtually a 100% chance that what I mention would help, though, and might even work better than has been projected already in the literature (i.e., in the UNEP BC/O3 study, etc.). That's because, I believe, the implications of the recent Cowtan & Way material is very significant to the concerns of your group AMEG, but you've paid little attention to it. What I mean is, there's a very close correspondence of timing between the so-called warming "pause" and an increased acceleration of Arctic amplification - so poorly recorded in the primary data sets as to virtually get rid of the pause entirely once it is corrected (see discussion at Real Climate), which to my mind has all sorts of potential implications about the causes of what we see happening in the Arctic - how much is internal feedbacks, how much comes from rather rapid changes in oceanic/atmospheric circulation, etc, and this in turn has implications for the Flanner papers that you have so often depended upon to estimate how much "cooling power" would be needed to help the Arctic. In short, Jim Hansen has often said that one of hardest things is to tell a forcing from a feedback, and I think you would need to get that straightened out first before making such an estimate correctly.... But in the meantime, I'd just suggest concentrating a lot more on the things that we already are certain will work, even if they clearly can't "solve" the problem (which, needless to say, geoengineering alone couldn't either, even if you had that technique all ready to go....) Best, Nathan On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your response, Nathan, with your concern that SRM techniques > are unready and unproven. > > I didn't say anything about which techniques might be used for cooling the > Arctic, or how well they might work, or the probability of success. If we > have no option but geoengineering to cool the Arctic - if that is the only > way to provide enough cooling power (which we can estimate as in the order > of a few hundreds of terawatts) - then *we have to find a way of doing it*, > or face the risk of complete Arctic meltdown. > > To deny the need for geoengineering to cool the Arctic is to risk > self-destruct - like pressing the trigger in Russian roulette where every > chamber may contain a bullet. Are we to rely on IPCC global climate models > which predict that sea ice will last for decades, when the models have > abjectly failed to anticipate minimum sea ice in 2007 and 2012? Are we to > believe that these minima were just one in a million year events, arising > from freak conditions in the Arctic? Are we to believe that there is no > vicious cycle of warming and melting from albedo loss, when the sea ice > volume is following an exponential trend? > > On the other hand, there are two techniques which have a good chance of > working because they are based on well-known natural phenomena: the cooling > from stratospheric haze and the cooling from cloud brightening. > > Re stratospheric aerosol, we know that this can have a dramatic cooling > effect from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. We know that the > thickness of the stratospheric haze has recently increased due to man-made > emissions of SO2 puncturing the tropopause and entering the stratosphere at > low latitude. If the SO2 were injected at suitably high latitude, in the > lower stratosphere, then Brewer-Dobson circulation would take the resultant > haze of fine droplets towards the pole where they would fall back into the > troposphere within a few months. We just need to determine the optimum > latitude and time of year to make the injection for maximum cooling effect > on currents and rivers flowing into the Arctic. There is no good reason > why deployment could not start in spring 2015, given a stock-piling of SO2 > and suitable fitment of stratotankers. > > Re cloud brightening, this can complement the stratospheric aerosol, > because it can be done in specific areas and specific times. The effect > will last weeks rather than months. Thus it can be finely tuned to provide > cooling when and where it's most effective - providing there are suitable > clouds to brighten. As you suggest, Nathan, SO2 could be used. The use of > seawater spray would be brilliant, but it is still an engineering challenge > to produce the droplets of the right size. If the development were fully > funded, the challenge might be met, ready for deployment in spring 2016. > Why isn't the government putting the necessary funding into this? The > answer is in the meme! The government thinks that geoengineering to cool > the Arctic "would be premature", because that's what they've been told. > > So we should explain the situation to governments and urge them to fund > preparation for deployment for SO2 cooling (both stratospheric and > tropospheric) in spring 2015, and development and deployment for cloud > brightening with salt spray to replace SO2 in spring 2016. This would be > the best possible course of action to reduce the risk of Arctic meltdown to > a minimum. There is strong scientific evidence that we are heading that > way, with no natural negative feedback in sight. > > Cheers, John > > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Nathan Currier <natcurr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> In answering what John Nissen writes, I’d like to try to draw together >> various recent conversations at this group – first I’ll respond a bit here, >> since John was sending this my way, but then will try to continue on >> another thread. Basically, I consider what John writes to itself contain >> unwittingly one of the key 'false memes' of geoengineering for Ken's >> consideration. The basic problem is much the same in what John writes as in >> what Andrew was complaining about in his “govern-nonsense” thread, deriding >> its pernicious effects and describing the need to get back to the basic >> science, which I agreed with strongly. >> >> The ‘meme’ was a concept of Dawkins meant to parallel the gene in the >> realm of ideas, so a ‘false meme’ is a bit like a virus, and people can >> easily spread one around unknowingly. The really pernicious thing about all >> the talk about governance with geoengineering is that it creates the false >> impression, once people get into too many heated arguments about >> geoengineering’s side effects, or how it could or couldn’t be controlled, >> that it actually exists. That is to say, that there really is an executable >> SRM technique already that actually works. It is self-perpetuating, because >> the more that people unintentionally reify that concept, the more they will >> argue vociferously, and more or less endlessly, about whether its side >> effects are too damaging, if its disincentives to emissions reductions are >> too powerful, etc. >> >> All of which hides the clear and honest truth: that no one yet knows if >> there is any viable SRM geoengineering technique that really will work >> (except Mike MacCracken’s idea of tropospheric SO2, a small-scale >> Arctic-only version of which I suggested to John Nissen and those at AMEG a >> couple of years ago, as a derring-do trial study, but they actually had no >> interest in it......). It seems clear to me that, although coming from a >> far less common position, John is actually passing around a mutation of the >> very same ‘virus’, when saying that we should consider *this* a >> fundamental false meme of geoengineering: >> >> That you can prevent catastrophic meltdown of the >> Arctic ice cap without SRM geoengineering to cool the Arctic. >> >> >> >> This statement clearly has the intention and effect of creating the same >> false assumptions as the “govern-nonsense” crowd, lending tacit feelings of >> certainty, given enough repetitions, as to the existence of some viable SRM >> technique. But that is really not the case as of now. >> >> I would like to note that, in a side correspondence with Adrian Tuck, >> after discussing the stratospheric H2O issue recently, I was impressed by >> how, despite the brevity of our exchange, he was so completely negative on >> my question to him about the ability of an Arctic-only stratospheric SRM to >> actually work with any efficacy. Adrian probably has more expertise on >> stratospheric dynamics than anyone else who has been writing about SRM in >> these threads (he was, if I remember correctly, Chief Scientist for the >> Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s ESRL during the height of the ozone >> hole crisis period, and thus has a great deal of experience in dealing with >> many of the most complex relevant dynamics involved), and he thinks that >> arctic-only SRM basically will not work (the lofting at these latitudes >> will be found to be quite poor, he feels.....). >> >> Best, Nathan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> I hope I am not too late to bring this up. >> >> There are two fundamental memes about geoengineering which worry me >> because the leading scientific evidence suggests they are false: >> 1. That you can reduce CO2 to a safe level in the atmosphere (as regards >> its global warming and ocean acidification effects) without CDR >> geoengineering. >> 2. That you can prevent catastrophic meltdown of the Arctic ice cap >> without SRM geoengineering to cool the Arctic. >> >> The first meme is widely promoted in the media, who have the mistaken >> assumption that the CO2 level will drop quickly if you stop emissions, >> ignoring that the lifetime of CO2 is over a hundred years (and a proportion >> over 10k years). One often sees statements that a strategy of drastic >> emissions reduction will reduce the effects of global warming to the extent >> that adaptation to the worst effects of climate change will be affordable. >> This strategy is encapsulated by IPCC AR5 in a carbon budget for keeping >> below 2 degrees C; however this budget is almost certainly bust already >> because of underestimations of climate sensitivity, warming from methane >> over 20 years, and albedo loss in the Arctic. Dangers from continued ocean >> acidification over decades are ignored in AR5. >> >> The second meme is promoted by IPCC, Met Office and others, who base >> their projections of sea ice longevity on models rather than observations. >> There is an assumption that natural negative feedback will mysteriously >> appear to offset the forcing from albedo loss, which (between 1979 and >> 2008) amounted to 0.45 W/m2 averaged globally according to Mark Flanner >> [1]. The scientists claim that the observed exponential trend of PIOMAS >> sea ice volume decline [2] cannot and will not continue, hence the summer >> sea ice will last for many decades. The media seem to believe that >> emissions reductions can halt Arctic warming and save the sea ice. >> >> Even if these two memes cannot be *proved* to be false, the evidence >> that they might be false is *plausible*, so, on the*precautionary* principle, >> we should be immediately *preparing* for geoengineering deployment on >> the necessary scale, whilst seeking more evidence one way or the other. >> >> Cheers, John >> >> [1] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/abs/ngeo1062.html >> >> [2] http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/sea-ice-melt-by-2016/ >> >> On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:18:03 AM UTC-4, Nathan Currier wrote: >>> >>> Oh! Could you point me towards those discussions, papers, etc, >>> describing the mechanism of this? >>> The volcanic H2O paper I just attached discusses lower stratospheric >>> warming's role in it, but if true, >>> what you mention would seem very likely to be involved.....and provide >>> an example of the kind of thing >>> I was wondering about.....Nathan >>> >>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:24:47 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: >>>> >>>> There's an intrinsic connection as SRM warms the tropopause >>>> >>>> A >>>> On 11 Aug 2014 04:24, "Nathan Currier" <natcu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, Andrew - I fully agree, and really enjoyed your post "SRM >>>>> interaction with atmospheric anomalies (plus water)" >>>>> of several days ago, which had mentioned the importance of "folding >>>>> events." >>>>> >>>>> In this case, I was particularly trying to bring up whether there >>>>> might be evidence sitting right in front of us coming from >>>>> Pinatubo itself, but perhaps somewhat obscured from our thoughts by >>>>> the "questionable meme" of Pinatubo as a primary >>>>> demonstration of "cooling the planet", that stratospheric SRM might >>>>> inherently contain forcings of opposing signs - such >>>>> that its radiative effects would always be the net effects of both >>>>> negative and positive forcings from its various dynamics. >>>>> Folding events could potentially get messy with geoE, but I don't >>>>> think one could say there's any intrinsic connection >>>>> (at least I haven't heard of one). >>>>> >>>>> If it were true that both + and - forcings are always there with this >>>>> kind of SRM, it might of course still work, but this should lower our >>>>> confidence >>>>> level in the concept's ultimate viability considerably, because as I >>>>> say, you'd really have to keep track of all slight but longer-term >>>>> positive >>>>> radiative >>>>> signals it is putting into the climate system (i.e., cooling the >>>>> stratosphere, warming us), since you certainly need some degree of >>>>> prolongation for the technique >>>>> to have much value......and of course, these are just the kinds of >>>>> things where we currently seem to know quite little......... >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Nathan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:17:04 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Great point, Nathan. However, you're ignoring an additional issue. >>>>>> Warming of the tropopause means it's easier for water to convect or fold >>>>>> in >>>>>> to the stratosphere. This is a potentially serious problem, and one I put >>>>>> on the list of unknowns already. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bulk air movements also bring more methane into the stratosphere, >>>>>> which ultimately end up as water. >>>>>> >>>>>> My view is that we need urgent improvements in our ability to monitor >>>>>> and model the tropopause, if we are to have a hope of making SRM >>>>>> predictable and safe. >>>>>> >>>>>> A >>>>>> On 10 Aug 2014 04:39, "Nathan Currier" <natcu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> One very widespread geoengineering 'meme' concerns stratospheric >>>>>>> SRM and Pinatubo. One reads about it continuously - "like Pinatubo," we >>>>>>> will “cool the planet” through stratospheric aerosols. How real is this? >>>>>>> Pinatubo clearly cooled the planet *initially*, but are we sure – >>>>>>> really >>>>>>> sure – that it cooled the planet at all temporal scales? When you >>>>>>> turn on a conventional coal plant, it, too, “cools the planet”, if you >>>>>>> care >>>>>>> to look only at the initial response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no discussion, as far as I remember, on the causes of the >>>>>>> increased stratospheric water vapor changes in Solomon et al 2010 that I >>>>>>> brought up recently at this group, a paper suggesting considerable >>>>>>> climate >>>>>>> warming from increased stratospheric H2O. In the attached paper, there’s >>>>>>> discussion of how volcanic eruptions might impact stratospheric water >>>>>>> vapor, causing a pulse of increased water vapor over 5-10 years. >>>>>>> Although >>>>>>> the volcano injects water vapor itself, its initial impact is actually >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> *dry* the stratosphere, since the SO2 reaction uses up so much >>>>>>> water vapor, meaning that the much longer pulsed increase must come from >>>>>>> perturbations in the stratospheric chemistry/climate itself. One >>>>>>> question I >>>>>>> wonder about is how intrinsically tied to the sulfur itself these H2O >>>>>>> pulses might be, perhaps because of changes in methane oxidation, of the >>>>>>> kind I was hypothesizing before? In the paper, the modeled increased >>>>>>> forcing of roughly +.1w/m2 might seem modest, compared to the >>>>>>> initial large negative forcing of –3w/m2 or so, but one lasts a year, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> other possibly a decade, and how accurate are these modeled estimates? >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> is clearly far easier to recognize the sudden cooling from the eruption >>>>>>> when it takes place, than a slight warming signal persisting through a >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> longer period of time in an already warming climate system. Yet clearly >>>>>>> this is vital to understand if anyone is going to be doing useful >>>>>>> geoengineering based on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It’s interesting that in the Solomon the water vapor increase is >>>>>>> noted to have gone into a considerable decline around 2000-2003, around >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> decade after Pinatubo. Further, it is important to note that the complex >>>>>>> dynamics leading to these entangled positive and negative forcings from >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> single pulse will almost certainly be shifted by the sheer act of >>>>>>> continuous prolongation inherent in geoengineering, so the constant >>>>>>> Pinatubo meme becomes a little....empty? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, Nathan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 2:38:34 PM UTC-4, kcaldeira wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am supposed to give a keynote talk at CEC14 in two weeks. For >>>>>>>> this talk, I would like to try to develop a list of oft-cited memes >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> many assume are established facts, but which may not in fact be true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am thinking of things like: "With solar geoengineering, there >>>>>>>> will be winners and losers." "Termination risk is an important reason >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> to engage in solar geoengineering." "Solar geoengineering will cause >>>>>>>> widespread drying." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't want to discuss all of these things here but simply to >>>>>>>> develop a list. You could help me by sending an email answering the >>>>>>>> questions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2a. What memes are out there which many "experts" regard as >>>>>>>> well-established facts but which in fact might not be correct? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2b. Why do you suspect the correctness of that meme? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2c. (optional) Can you provide a citation or a link to where >>>>>>>> someone is assuming the meme is true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thoughtful responses would be most appreciated. If you want to >>>>>>>> start discussion about a meme, please do so in a separate thread so >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> this thread can be easily used to develop a list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________ >>>>>>>> Ken Caldeira >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carnegie Institution for Science >>>>>>>> Dept of Global Ecology >>>>>>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>>>>>>> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu >>>>>>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Assistant: Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "AMEG" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to arcticmethane+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
