Some questions:
1. I am assuming that we are talking about 10.8 Tg yr of sea water and not 10.8 Tg of salt. Is this correct? 2. To what height is the injection being modelled at? 3. Any idea of the predicted energy calculation for delivering and spraying this much material to this height? David Sevier Carbon Cycle Limited 248 Sutton Common Road Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW England Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128 www.carbon-cycle.co.uk From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: 09 November 2022 21:04 To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: [geo] The Shortwave Radiative Flux Response to an Injection of Sea Salt Aerosols in the Gulf of Mexico https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2022JD037067 Authors P. B. Goddard,B. Kravitz,D. G. MacMartin,H. Wang November 4th, 2022 Abstract Marine cloud brightening (MCB) has been proposed as a potential means of geoengineering the climate, temporarily providing cooling to offset some of the effects of climate change. Marine sky brightening (MSB), involving direct scattering of sunlight from sea salt injection into the marine boundary layer, has been proposed as an additional geoengineering method that could work in areas that are not regularly cloudy. Here we use a regional atmospheric model to simulate MCB and MSB over the Gulf of Mexico and nearby land, a highly populated and economically important region that is not characterized by persistent marine stratocumulus cloud cover. Injection of sea salt in the Aitken mode from a region in the central Gulf of Mexico equivalent to 10.8 Tg yr-1 produces an upwards 8.4 W m-2 radiative flux change across the region at the top of the atmosphere, largely due to cloud property changes. Comparatively, a similar mass injection in the accumulation mode produces a 3.1 W m-2 radiative flux change driven primarily by direct scattering. Injection of even larger particles produces a much smaller radiative flux change. Shortwave flux changes due to clouds are largely driven by an increase in cloud droplet number concentration and an increase in cloud liquid water path (each contributing about 45% to the flux change), with a much lower contribution from cloud fraction changes (10%). Source: AGU -- 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 <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06cx5enV31_vMyRO%3DJmazuthh4nQ-gVnw7LrSTA6q3oiA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06cx5enV31_vMyRO%3DJmazuthh4nQ-gVnw7LrSTA6q3oiA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/01a901d8f51f%24213348b0%246399da10%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk.
