[geo] Xmas
Dear All So sorry not to send yr unique Card but I hope you wont mind. The shock of Robs death and his loss has been almost unbearable for all of us, and added to that the death of Mike creates an almost unbearable situation,On a lesser not y dementia my dementia has made life very wonky. However the kindness of people on both sides of the Atlantic has been amazing t has shown how what the word l love over time and time again really means, and and how resurration can become possible Love to you all, I hope to write again ere long Much love to you all John -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
Hello Alan, I have long admired the independent stances that you have taken on aspects of climate engineering. However, by consistently focusing attention on only one idea (stratospheric sulphur) and then damning it you relegate all other ideas (such as MCB, which I am involved with) to the untenable or crazy category such as persuading seagulls to remain perpetually in sunlight. The sulphur scheme has many virtues, and some difficulties which may well be overcome - I very much hope so. The same is true of MCB, in my view. Definitive statements on the value of both ideas cannot be made until they have been rigorously field-tested. It is not sufficient to say that MCB will work because ship-tracks enhance cloud brightness. All Best Wishes, John [John Latham] On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Dear Mike and Jon, I agree with Jon. And Mike, I think you are ignoring all the unsolvable problems with geoengineering (considering only stratospheric aerosols - the most likely option). First, it looks like the aerosols will grow as more SO2 is injected. As Niemeier and Timmreck (2015) found, [A] solar radiation management strategy required to keep temperatures constant at that anticipated for 2020, whilst maintaining ‘business as usual’ conditions, would require atmospheric injections of the order of 45 Tg(S)/yr which amounts to 6 times that emitted from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption each year. Niemeier U., and C. Timmreck, 2015: What is the limit of stratospheric sulfur climate engineering? *Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.*, *15*, 10,939–10,969. And how will you deal with everyone of these risks? From Robock (2014), updated: *Benefits* *Risks* 1. Reduce surface air temperatures, which could reduce or reverse negative impacts of global warming, including floods, droughts, stronger storms, sea ice melting, land-based ice sheet melting, and sea level rise 1. Drought in Africa and Asia 2. Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation 3. Ozone depletion 4. Continued ocean acidification 5. Will not stop ice sheets from melting 6. Impacts on tropospheric chemistry 2. Increase plant productivity 7. Whiter skies 3. Increase terrestrial CO2 sink 8. Less solar electricity generation 4. Beautiful red and yellow sunsets 9. Degrade passive solar heating 5. Unexpected benefits 10. Rapid warming if stopped 11. Cannot stop effects quickly 12. Human error 13. Unexpected consequences 14. Commercial control 15. Military use of technology 16. Societal disruption, conflict between countries 17. Conflicts with current treaties 18. Whose hand on the thermostat? 19. Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere 20. Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere 21. Environmental impact of implementation 22. Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy 23. Affect stargazing 24. Affect satellite remote sensing 25. More sunburn 26. Moral hazard – the prospect of it working would reduce drive for mitigation 27. Moral authority – do we have the right to do this? Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. *Issues Env. Sci. Tech.* (Special issue “Geoengineering of the Climate System”), *38*, 162-185. Don't you think that the more we look at geoengineering, the more it is clear that it will not be a solution, and the more imperative mitigation is? I agree that Obama, who is the best President ever on this subject, could be doing much more. This just means he needs more pushing, and the Chinese and Indians need to agree to take strong steps. We're certainly not there yet, but let's not tell them that geoengineering will give them an out. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program 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 Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 On 6/2/2015 8:29 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Dear Jon—While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a good bit less than mitigation—though mitigation costs do seem to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights
Re: [geo] Comparing MCB v. Aerosol SRM
PS to last Hello Eric, Many apologies for my post-midnight slips. Although I think the the difference in costs between the 2 systems is not as important as the fact that both systems are extremely inexpensive , my long-standing collaborator Stephen Salter has conducted careful comprehensive cost calculations which indicate that MCB is cheaper than the sulphur technique. I'm sure that he'd provide you with a copy of his calculations ,[ s.sal...@ed.ac.uk] Best Wishes John [John Latham,[johnlatha...@gmail.com] On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Dr D durb...@gmail.com wrote: I've watch the recent Cafe Scientifique videos on aerosol SRM and MCB. And I've read dozens of articles on both. But I've yet to see a comparison of the two approaches? Can anyone point me to a paper comparing the two approaches (MCB v. stratospheric injection of aerosol)? Many thanks. Eric Durbrow -- 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. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Comparing MCB v. Aerosol SRM
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Dr D durb...@gmail.com wrote: I've watch the recent Cafe Scientifique videos on aerosol SRM and MCB. And I've read dozens of articles on both. But I've yet to see a comparison of the two approaches? Can anyone point me to a paper comparing the two approaches (MCB v. stratospheric injection of aerosol)? Many thanks. Eric Durbrow -- 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. -- 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. John Latham. Comparison of Sulphur MCB ideas.docx Description: MS-Word 2007 document
Re: [geo] Can super-super-super computers really help climate engineering efforts?
Hello Alan, Great! Keep on with the good work! Cheers, John On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Alan Gadian a.m.gad...@leeds.ac.uk wrote: The answer is yes. See publications on marine cloud brightening. Currently global simulations are being carried out with large nested domains down to 3km. To do the simulations at 2 or 1km. ... Well the question is , how big a power station can you provide. The results will be a lot better at 2km Alan Gadian On 15 May 2015, at 00:08, Eric Durbrow durb...@gmail.com wrote: The NYTimes had an interesting article about a researcher who wishes to create exascale supercomputing sooner rather than later using a low-power but inexact approach. I’m more interested in the hardware needs for future climate modeling mention in this article. I’m curious whether the climate modelers in the group would agree that running simulations in days rather than weeks of 200 million cells (1 km2) would *greatly* help answer some questions about risk and consequences in highly-specific climate engineering approach. Or is accurate prediction of climate modification much more than just a hardware problem? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/inexact-computing-global-warming-supercomputers.html ? -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
RE: [geo] NAS-Royal Society report - recent new report release
Hello Keith, I think your arguments are unquestionably correct. But I'm somewhat surprised that you dont mention Marine Cloud Brightening in yr SRM list. If our concept comes to fruition our only raw material is seawater, and only source of energy the wind. Best Wishes,John. [John Latham lat...@ucar.edu] 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 Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 March 2014 23:44 To: John Nissen Cc: Ronal Larson; Greg Rau; reto.knu...@env.ethz.ch; Geoengineering; John Nissen; Oliver Tickell Subject: Re: [geo] NAS-Royal Society report - recent new report release On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:34 PM, John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I think there is a connection between irreversibility and tipping points. If a system is past its tipping point, the only way of returning the system to its prior state (before the tipping point) will be by geoengineering. For example, the Arctic sea ice is arguable well beyond its tipping point (see paper by Lenton et al [1]), so geoengineering is required to restore the sea ice to a previous level. Without SRM-type geoengineering to cool the Arctic, increased albedo loss will further accelerate Arctic warming through positive feedback until the whole Arctic ice cap has gone, with dire consequences for sea level rise, Wait a second. Maybe you meant something different, like Greenland, but the melting the floating Arctic ice doesn't cause the sea level to go up. methane release and extreme weather. In this sense, the positive feedback cycle leading to complete Arctic meltdown is irreversible without geoengineering to cool the Arctic and break the cycle. Hmm. Personally I would say the more important thing to do would be tapping a really large non-carbon energy source. You really need to plug the hole before bailing out the boat. If you really want to raise the albedo, another trick might be floating thermal diodes. Those are not likely to raise the awful political objections to sulfuric acid clouds. BTW, Gregory Benford was talking about SO2 in the sky a *long* time ago. Does he ever post here? Keith The AR5 carbon budget is being used up rapidly, implying commitment to dangerous global warming and dangerous ocean acidification. Arguably, these dangers can only be mitigated by CDR-type geoengineering to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. In this sense, one could say that global warming and ocean acidification are irreversible without geoengineering to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Cheers, John [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5445 -- On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Keith etal The people who are saying climate change is irreversible would probably agree with your arithmetic on electricity from solar power satellites to turn CO2 into a wax.. However, I feel they are making a different point - and they are not ignorant. I just haven't understood what word they would want to use for what Geoengineers know can be accomplished with a small part of our solar input. There is some subtlety in nomenclature we should try to work out that is unrelated to how we do it or how much it will cost. Ron On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote: The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3.09 x 10^12 tons. [Watch the conversion from ppm (vol) to molar mass.] Long chain wax is close enough to CH2. CO2 + 3H2 - CH2 + 2H2O 44 6 I.e., to reduce 44 units of CO2 to synthetic oil would take 6 units of hydrogen. That's 0.421 x 10^12 tons of hydrogen to take all the CO2 out of the air, 0.105 x 10^12 tons to take out 100 ppm. It takes 33.3 MWh/ton to make electrolytic hydrogen. Call it 40 MWh/ton considering efficiency. The energy cost to sort CO2 out of the air is negligible compared to making the hydrogen. So the energy cost to take out 100 ppm would be ~4.21 x 10^12 MWh, ~4.21 x 10^6 TWh. Or ~480 TW years. Taking the time as 20 years, we would need 24 TW of power to do it. Current human use is around 16 TW/years/year. So we would need about 1.5 times the current energy production to take out 100 ppm in 20 years. Even if we kept burning coal (why?) a project at this scale would still reduced the CO2 by around 3 ppm/year. Considering that geosynchronous orbit will hold at least 177 TW of power satellites, 24 TW dedicated to taking out CO2 seems feasible. Most of that CO2 went into the atmosphere over the past 30 years from burning coal, so taking it out at about
RE: [geo] Re: Global solicitation for new ideas is needed more than ever
Hello Michael et al., I think you make some excellent points, Michael, and I have only one comment to make regarding them:- You say that: MCB may not provide as even a drop in temperature as SSI. This is basically true. However, work spear-headed by Stephen Salter indicates that it may be possible, with MCB, to determine [for all sets of locations] the cooling effect at chosen regions resulting from cloud seeding at a specified set of other locations. If this proves to be possible, then MCB could possess a valuable degree of flexibility - to optimize the seeding amounts and locations required (for example) for hurricane weakening or coral reef preservation [both via oceanic surface water cooling], or polar ice maintenance [via MCB seeding] in specified regions. This is in addition to our primary objective - holding roughly constant the average global surface temperature and polar sea-ice coverage. Best Wishes, John. 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 Michael Hayes [voglerl...@gmail.com] Sent: 04 September 2013 00:50 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Global solicitation for new ideas is needed more than ever Mark, It does come down to funding. Even simple ideation on this issue requires researching well into the third and even forth level of effects and doing so on multiple levels of 'context'. And, those doing that kind of work need to be funded as this is an expensive 'hobby' for most folks researching in this area. As you know the complexities are significant. An example concerning SRM is; 1) MCB may not provide an even drop in temperature as SSI, yet MCB has limited transboarder issues which is a major limiting factor for SSI. 2) MCB has no potential to cause significant second and third order effects in the polar regions where SSI does. 3) SSI not be put through much of any form of 'trial run' where MCB can. The list goes on and on. One new idea that has been developing is using large scale ocean cultivation instilations to provide both SRM and ocean surface cooling while providing CDR and profits from mariculture. Yet, it will take a small team to work through all the compleities of such an idea. Where is the money to support the developement of new ideas? If you find such, please keep my email address in mind. Best, Micahe On Sunday, September 1, 2013 5:52:37 AM UTC-7, Mark Massmann wrote: There are a number of posts, presentations and reports which have claimed that the SRM approach of stratospheric aerosols will definitely work because it would simulate how Mt. Pinatubo's eruption cooled the planet. I maintain that not only is that claim false, but it is making the search for other promising SRM methods seem much less urgent, when in fact the opposite is true. The urgent truth is that more promising SRM methods need to be identified ASAP by engaging a much wider participation from the global science and engineering communities (among other experts). After all, aren't the concepts of Sulfate Aerosols and Marine Cloud Brightening both over 20 years old? What does that say about the success of geoengineering efforts since then? The claim that sulfate aerosols would cool the planet like Mt. Pinatubo is far too simplified, and there are far too many unknowns at this point to understand the aerosol's true effect. Unknowns include everything from what to inject to how to deliver it, how to properly disperse it, the resulting particulate size and resulting albedo, the fallout time and the effect on lower level clouds, as well as the damaging effect on the ozone layer and the resulting acid rain. I have been calling for a global solicitation of SRM concepts with this group for over 3 years now. I'm afraid that we are now running out of time- so it's more urgent than ever that this gets done. Please reply with comments- thanks. Mark Massmann -- 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/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
RE: [geo] Global solicitation for new ideas is needed more than ever
Hello Mark, You are raising an interesting point.We must always be ready to embrace the possibility of superior new ideas, regarding SRM and other issues. However, since you mentioned MCB, which I'm involved with, I'd appreciate your views as to why we should not continue working on this idea, on which we have been published about a dozen papers in major refereed scientific journals.[Several other groups, in different countries, are also examining and publishing papers on MCB possibilities]. Our published work indicates that in addition to possibly being able to maintain the planet's average surface temperature and sea-ice cover for a fewdecades, it could be of value in regard to smaller-scale issues such as hurricane weakening and coral reef preservation. It is true that the first paper on MCB was published long ago (1990), but It received absolutely zero funding for about 15-18 years, and only a very small amount subsequently. I believe that the stratospheric sulphur SRM technique has also been hamstrung for lack of adequate funding. I think you are right in suggesting that new SRM ideas should be actively sought and examined, but I think you are wrong in suggesting the abandonment of the MCB and stratospheric sulphur techniques, which have not yet received adequate funding for a thorough examination.And which do show promise. All Best,John. 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 Mark Massmann [m2des...@cablespeed.com] Sent: 01 September 2013 13:52 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Global solicitation for new ideas is needed more than ever There are a number of posts, presentations and reports which have claimed that the SRM approach of stratospheric aerosols will definitely work because it would simulate how Mt. Pinatubo's eruption cooled the planet. I maintain that not only is that claim false, but it is making the search for other promising SRM methods seem much less urgent, when in fact the opposite is true. The urgent truth is that more promising SRM methods need to be identified ASAP by engaging a much wider participation from the global science and engineering communities (among other experts). After all, aren't the concepts of Sulfate Aerosols and Marine Cloud Brightening both over 20 years old? What does that say about the success of geoengineering efforts since then? The claim that sulfate aerosols would cool the planet like Mt. Pinatubo is far too simplified, and there are far too many unknowns at this point to understand the aerosol's true effect. Unknowns include everything from what to inject to how to deliver it, how to properly disperse it, the resulting particulate size and resulting albedo, the fallout time and the effect on lower level clouds, as well as the damaging effect on the ozone layer and the resulting acid rain. I have been calling for a global solicitation of SRM concepts with this group for over 3 years now. I'm afraid that we are now running out of time- so it's more urgent than ever that this gets done. Please reply with comments- thanks. Mark Massmann -- 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/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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering
Andrew, Sloppy sentence. Yes, I have to plead guilty. Cheers, John. 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: Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 August 2013 17:17 To: John Latham Cc: geoengineering; Stephen Salter; lat...@ucar.edu; rez...@gmail.com Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering Seems a bit sloppy to say that MCB can be switched off when the energy system has been decarbonized. The CO2 levels will be elevated for centuries, and without the aerosols we'll be hotter still. We're in for the long haul. Incidentally, simulations shown at the geoengineering summer school show the droplets cool and sink to the water surface. They don't whoosh out of the top of ships as typically shown. A On Aug 12, 2013 5:10 PM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.ukmailto:john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Jim 7 all, Thank you for below, in response to which I add some further information which may be helpful. The idea behind Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) is to enhance the reflectivity of low-level very thin, all-water marine stratocumulus clouds by seeding them with large quantities of seawater droplets of somewhat less than a micrometre in size. These pasticles will be created by sprayers carried on small wind-powered ships sailing underneath the clouds. A good fraction of these will be carried by turbulence into the clouds, thereby producing additional cloud droplets. This causes the reflectivity of the clouds to increase (more sunlight bounced back into space), which produces a cooling which can become global. If most of these clouds are seeded the cooling could balance the warming from fossil-fuel burning for the next few decades. The associated increase in cloud reflectivity is around 10%. The only raw materials are seawater and wind. We have still to resolve some technological problems related to the sprayers. We do not intend the create new clouds (that would be impossible) or extend existing ones. This idea (like the stratospheric sulphur one) is simply a stop-gap, to be switched off when a new, clean form of energy has been developed globally. MCB would never be utilised if significant adverse consequences were identified. Its deployment would need to be internationally approved. Silver iodide seeding relates to ice formation in higher-level clouds, with concomitant (hoped for) increase in precipitation. We have no involvement with this topic. Our principle objective of MCB is to maintain the global average surface temperature, and the polar ice coverage. It may also be useful in (1) preserving coral reefs, by cooling the surface waters in their vicinity, and (2) reducing hurricane energy (producing less damage) again by cooling propitiously located oceanic surface waters. The downwelling surface water cooling technique for hurricane weakening, suggested by Stephen Salter and developed further with Nathan Myhrvold colleagues has the same objectives as the MCB one. I attach a recently published detailed account of our MCB work. I hope all this is helpful. All Best,John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edumailto:lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.ukmailto:john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182tel:303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429tel:303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724tel:303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.commailto:rez...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 August 2013 05:38 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: John Latham; rez...@gmail.commailto:rez...@gmail.com; kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering I stand by the heading for the following reasons: 1. The title is loosely based on this title from TechDirt: Bill Gates' New Career? Patent Troll For Nathan Myhrvold?http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete and this on from The Guardian: The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyreshttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent huge storms 2. Geoengineer refers to those who study and/or advocate geoengineering SRM (I have little concern for biochar, sequestration, oif, etc). I too hate the term, what should I refer to men of your craft as? 3. Protection for Cash refers to these lines from United States Patent Application
RE: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering
Jim, There is much that I agree with you about, and I find it frustrating that what could perhaps be construed by some as shrillness on your part produces an alienation which prohibits your receiving the support that you deserve. You say, for example:- Technology and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather. I agree. In my opinion it is probably nonsense, and you are right to draw attention to this. But you also seem to condemn studies of the possible weakening of hurricanes via marine cloud brightening (MCB), by cooling the associated oceanic surface waters and thereby reducing the strength of hurricanes developing in those regions? Would it be a bad mistake to examine the possibility of cooling oceanic surface waters in such regions via the downwelling idea, or via MCB? Or preventing the bleaching of coral reefs? The geo-engineers [terrible word] that I know ask only to be able to test possibly helpful ideas, that hopefully would never have to be considered for deployment. In my perverted view, there is little virtue in doing nothing and dying – with many others – with a clear conscience. We have been engaging in geo-engineering for over 200 years now, albeit inadvertently. The possible consequences are terrible. Isn’t it acceptable to try to remedy, as far as possible, the damage that we have caused? Best Wishes,John. 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 Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 August 2013 00:10 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: rez...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering If the intention is to reduce global temperature, why do you refer to it as local climate? Do you consider reduced rainfall as a result of geoengineering SRM weather control or an unintended side-effecthttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/ipdLpbnXHeU/tAXDtadrNR0J? Do you consider creation of artificial cloudshttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515 weather control or climate modification? Those are just wordshttp://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html. Geoengineering SRM and weather modification are interchangeable: Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patentshttp://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete: Hurricane Protection for Cash! * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173386http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173386.html • Water alteration structure applications and methods * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173404http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173404.html • Water alteration structure and system * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090175685http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0175685.html • Water alteration structure movement method and system * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090177569http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html • Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods * January 30, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173801http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173801.html • Water alteration structure and system having below surface valves or wave reflectors * February 6-7, 2008 • Department of Homeland Security's Hurricane Modification Workshophttp://rezn8d.net/2013/04/16/cloud-seeding-from-pluviculture-to-hurricane-hacking/ * April 21, 2008 • Weather Modification Association Conference “New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramificationshttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm” * Atmospheric heating as a research toolhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylTQj2qX1ZM * On Engineering Hurricanes - William Cottonhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIFvTdqcA4 * Reducing hurricane intensity using upwelling pumpshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlnR_GMNIGA * May 29, 2009 • US Patent Application 20100300560http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0300560.html • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit * May 29, 2009 • United States Patent 8348550http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8348550.html • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit [Bill Gates - Hurricane steering and protection patent]http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html * Assigned to: The Invention Science Fund I, LLChttp://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/nathan
[geo] Ship-Tracks!! Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
Or one could, if so disposed, make an equivalent case for Marine Cloud Brightening, (MCB) since oceanic ships have been producing higher reflectivity ship tracks for a century or more. Cheers,John. lat...@ucar.edu 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 Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: 12 August 2013 02:13 To: macma...@cds.caltech.edu Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles? DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, What's the very most likely thing to work right now? that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done. On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edumailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: Mark – read more carefully; David’s comment regarding “won’t work with sulphates” was in the context of whether it is theoretically possible to put enough up there to freeze the planet. (Which he then goes on to point out is not something to be worried about anyway, since it would require intentional global suicide.) He was quite explicit that in the short term, if someone actually wanted to do something, it would probably involve sulphate. Regarding engineered particles, beyond his 2010 PNAS paper on photophoretic levitation, I don’t think there has been any research here, so there isn’t any suggestion to evaluate. (But no reason to believe that something couldn’t be designed to work, sounds to me like a great research topic.) From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Massmann Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Dr. Keith- I was very surprised by one of your comments in the above interview with Tony Jones. Concerning the feasibility of sulphate aerosols you state: So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols - probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won't work with sulphates - but some other engineered aerosol. Can you please explain why you now think that stratospheric sulphates will not work? Can you also explain what engineered aerosol(s) are being considered, what the likelihood is that they will work (i.e. offsetting a doubling of pre-industrial CO2)? Thank you- Mark On Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:11:27 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Australian Broadcasting CorporationBroadcast: 22/11/2012 Reporter: Tony Jones Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering. Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada. David Keith, thanks for joining us. DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions. And that fear
[geo] PS TO LAST!!: Ship-Tracks!! Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of John Latham [john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: 12 August 2013 02:36 To: kcalde...@gmail.com; macma...@cds.caltech.edu Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Ship-Tracks!! Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith THOUGH WE WOULD USE SEA-WATER PARTICLES INSTEAD OF ONES FROM SHIP-EXHAUSTS. JL. Or one could, if so disposed, make an equivalent case for Marine Cloud Brightening, (MCB) since oceanic ships have been producing higher reflectivity ship tracks for a century or more. Cheers,John. lat...@ucar.edu 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 Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: 12 August 2013 02:13 To: macma...@cds.caltech.edu Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles? DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, What's the very most likely thing to work right now? that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done. On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edumailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: Mark – read more carefully; David’s comment regarding “won’t work with sulphates” was in the context of whether it is theoretically possible to put enough up there to freeze the planet. (Which he then goes on to point out is not something to be worried about anyway, since it would require intentional global suicide.) He was quite explicit that in the short term, if someone actually wanted to do something, it would probably involve sulphate. Regarding engineered particles, beyond his 2010 PNAS paper on photophoretic levitation, I don’t think there has been any research here, so there isn’t any suggestion to evaluate. (But no reason to believe that something couldn’t be designed to work, sounds to me like a great research topic.) From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Massmann Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Dr. Keith- I was very surprised by one of your comments in the above interview with Tony Jones. Concerning the feasibility of sulphate aerosols you state: So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols - probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won't work with sulphates - but some other engineered aerosol. Can you please explain why you now think that stratospheric sulphates will not work? Can you also explain what engineered aerosol(s) are being considered, what the likelihood is that they will work (i.e. offsetting a doubling of pre-industrial CO2)? Thank you- Mark On Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:11:27 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Australian Broadcasting CorporationBroadcast: 22/11/2012 Reporter: Tony Jones Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering. Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada. David Keith, thanks for joining us. DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off
[geo] Playing God With the Planet - danger of being too sweeping
Hello Jim, I agree with most of what you say below, but in my view it woulsd be a mistake to tar all cloud-based SRM possibilities with the same brush. Like you, I am highly skeptical of the possibility that electromagnetic / ion generation schemes might be of value in SRM. However satellite records over several decades have demonstrated - via the phenomenon of ship-tracks - that particles emitted from powered ships produce highly visible ship tracks in the clouds above, as a consequence of their entering the bases of low-level extensive clouds and being activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) which form droplets which grow and add to the cloud albedo. Those of us working on Marine Cloud Brightening MCB would use very small, benign seawater particles as CCN rather than exhaust particles from ships, but the physics of the technique is essentially the same, and well-established. We do not yet know whether MCB will pass all necessary tests, but we do think that it is worthwhile to perform research to establish whether or not it could. Cheers, John (Latham). 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 Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com] Sent: 10 August 2013 03:21 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering As you could clearly see, my video comment was in response to a low information voter and I agree with Mick's response. Geoengineering seeks to do globally what cloud seeders claim to do locally: control the weather. We lack the knowledge/ability to control rain after 60 years of cloud seeding, no scientific body recognizes cloud seeding as solid science, and the geoengineering SRM gang seems to think that in a relatively short time they can master their art and deploy. I can't see how. Currently, many different countries are modifying their skies, and there is little accountability or transparency. When Meteo Systems Weathertec claimed to create rain in the Abu Dhabi desert using ion generatorshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-discovered-create-downpours-desert.html, the WMO's expert team on weather modificationhttp://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf had a meeting and issued the following condemnation: “It should be realised that the energy involved in weather systems is so large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate severe weather phenomena. Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with suspicion. Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a sound scientific foundation.” The same is true for geoengineering SRM. Too large, too many variables: treat with suspicion. Nonetheless, weather modification using ionization methods continue: [http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aquiess-sciblue-april-july-2012-cloud-ionizers-end-texas-drought.png]http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aquiess-sciblue-april-july-2012-cloud-ionizers-end-texas-drought.png Aquiess and Sciblue are claiming to move tropospheric rivers using Weather Resonance Technology and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather. How many other companies/countries have their hand in the cookie jar? My stance: ClimateViewer Position Statement, aka the “Clarity Clause” We intend to push for greater transparency in the world of climate engineering. [Terraforming Incorporated, How do you like your weather?] 1. Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, and atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection on key characteristics” [1]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/10011310.htm. 2. Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with hourly updates on atmospheric activities. 3. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability
[geo] Response to D Keith lecture at Harvard: SRM definition.
Hello Andrew et al, Good to have yr comments Andrew on what was clearly a fine lecture by David. It is incorrect, however, to regard SRM as synonymous with stratospheric sulphur seeding. The latter is the most discussed SRM technique, but it is not the only one. They will be synonymous only if and when all other SRM techniques have been discarded. All best,John. 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 Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: 06 August 2013 17:37 To: David Keith; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Response to D Keith lecture at Harvard David Below are a few questions and comments from your interesting lecture today. I'm copying to the Google group to invite wider comment on the important issues your raised. It would be great to hear any comments you have, if you are able to respond. Thanks A Ramp up You considered a linear and shallow ramp up of SRM intervention. This perhaps works particularly well for a linear climate response. Should we not instead be looking at more rapid temperature reductions, to reduce risks of crossing tipping points (Greenland, permafrost, etc)? Health impacts You assume quantifiable health impacts from particulate rain out. However, the aerosol rain out would be well distributed, with much occurring in depopulated areas. Are the health impacts of distributed particulates comparable to those from concentrated loading patterns (eg focussed on harbours and cities)? I assume the calculated risks were derived from these concentrated loading patterns. Will the health risks be reduced because rain out will likely mix with, or condensate, raindrops - hence diluting them to destruction. Delivery mechanism Previously you considered homogeneous condensation of H2SO4, and today you discussed in-situ high-altitude combustion of solid S to release SO2. In response to my verbal question, you stated that particle size distribution issues only kick in around 'a few' MT. However, having a constant delivery mechanism reduces the risk of 'nasty surprises' on switching, despite increased lofting costs in earlier stages. Is there an argument for 'starting as you mean to carry on'? Distribution pattern Particularly with high aerosol loads, there may be advantages to a temporally bound injection regime (when using precursor gases instead of direct particulate injection). This is due to the benefit of constrained particle growth. (See reference below) Does a potential requirement for a temporally-concentrated injection regime mean that the use of aircraft becomes problematic from a cost point of view? EG to do all the injection in a month per year, you'd likely need up to 12x as many aircraft. You also considered the spatial distribution pattern. A 30N to 30S injection regime may take advantage of the Brewer Dobson circulation. However, is there not a risk of particle size growth and rain out. See Heckendorn et al ( http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045108 ), who discussed particle growth, and I recall this paper may also have discussed spatial (vertical and latitude) and temporal distribution patterns, and advocated a more spatially varied injection regime. Smart particles You touched on the concept of 'smart particles'. Is there a risk that these can be weaponised to make a solar concentrator, capable of burning buildings on the ground? -- 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/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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
FW: [geo] Coral Reef preservation via Marine Cloud Brightening. parasol
From: John Latham Sent: 26 June 2013 22:11 To: Fred Zimmerman Subject: RE: [geo] Coral Reef preservation via Marine Cloud Brightening. Interesting question, Fred. Much yet to be worked out, but I think not the so much shape of a parasol, as of a line of people waiting for bread. The scale of the seeding would be greater than that of the reefs, but could be very much less than global. Cheers, John. 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: Fred Zimmerman [geoengineerin...@gmail.com] Sent: 26 June 2013 21:58 To: John Latham Subject: Re: [geo] Coral Reef preservation via Marine Cloud Brightening. Can MCB be deployed like a parasol for particular reef areas? --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.ukmailto:john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: [geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com];[andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Hello All, The paper outlined below has just been published. The full paper is attached as a pdf. One could argue that if ever we reach a situation in which the field testing of an SRM technique is under general consideration, the possibility of selecting the role of Marine Cloud Brightening in preserving coral reefs may be more palatable than other candidates, because it is probably more benign. Best Wishes,John. ** Can marine cloud brightening reduce coral bleaching? John Latham,1,2 Joan Kleypas,1 Rachel Hauser,1,5 Ben Parkes3 and Alan Gadian4* 1NCAR, Boulder, CO, USA 2SEAS, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 3ICAS, University of Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK 4NCAS, ICAS, University of Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK 5Environmental Studies Program and Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, UK *Correspondence to: A. Gadian, NCAS, ICAS, University of Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK. E-mail: a...@env.leeds.ac.ukmailto:a...@env.leeds.ac.uk Received: 19 December 2012 Revised: 5 March 2013 Accepted: 20 May 2013 Abstract Increases in coral bleaching events over the last few decades have been largely caused by rising sea surface temperatures (SST), and continued warming is expected to cause even greater increases through this century. We use a Global Climate Model to examine the potential of marine cloud brightening (MCB) to cool oceanic surface waters in three coral reef provinces. Our simulations indicate that under doubled CO2 conditions, the substantial increases in coral bleaching conditions from current values in three reef regions (Caribbean, French Polynesia, and the Great Barrier Reef) were eliminated when MCB was applied, which reduced the SSTs at these sites roughly to their original values. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edumailto:lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.ukmailto:john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182tel:303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429tel:303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724tel:303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham -- 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.commailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
Hello All, I'm told that it might be an airborne study associated with the SPICE project, but I cant gauge the accuracy of that supposition. Cheers, John. 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 Hawkins, Dave [dhawk...@nrdc.org] Sent: 17 June 2013 01:33 To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: “There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
Well said, Mike! I dont know why yr critical point is so often overlooked. Actually, I think I do know. But it's so hard to accept that we can be so obtuse, and also fail to deliver clearly your crucial message,. All Best, John. 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 Mike MacCracken [mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: 17 June 2013 19:27 To: gh...@sbcglobal.net; bstah...@gmail.com; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting Hi Greg—I share all your concerns. I would just note that to fit into the three-option analysis of the problem (mitigation, adaptation, or suffering) used by John Holdren, I count CDR and the second (for reforestation, etc.) and third (for carbon scrubbing) stages of mitigation, and SRM as the second (for regional climate engineering—assuming it is possible) and (for global SRM) third stages of adaptation. I do this because it seems to me continually overlooked in the discussion of geoengineering that what is appropriate is not a risk-benefit analysis of geoengineering (of any type) on its own, but a risk-benefit analysis of global warming with or without geoengineering. Mike On 6/17/13 2:04 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Thanks, all, for your words of wisdom re my original post. However, my feelings of doom are not assuaged. If Bill's emerging preparedness/adaptation consensus is in fact an incremental step toward SRM/CDR then where is this mentioned in NYC's or especially PCAST's and IPCC's roadmaps stating the concensus view, and thus locking in policy, RD, and modes of action for decades? Starting with the Stern Report, the costs and consequences of going down the preparedness/adaptation road are pretty clear and bleak. Yes, we need to consider this path just in case we fail otherwise. But to have this as item #1 in the PCAST report, and then to fail to mention anything about the possibility of post-emissions CO2 management or SRM is what I find very disturbing, especially considering what is at stake and the narrowing time window in which to act. Yes, Mike, we must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time; we must redouble our efforts to reduce emissions while also very actively soliciting and considering all other alternatives. What I find dangerously shortsighted and narrow-minded is the listing of preparedness/adaptation as the only alternative worth supporting, while intentionally ignoring all of the other possibilities that have been voluminously discussed on this list and in many other public, ST and policy venues. I conclude that a decision has been made at very high levels that GE and related technologies are off the table, and we are stuck with failed policies and technologies to reduce CO2 emission (in time) and/or with preparing for the consequences. Any thinking, planning, and RD on alternatives will continue to be relegated to the backwaters of ST and policymaking, insuring that if Plan A and preparedness/adaptation don't go so well, we will be forced to take measures that are poorly tested and whose risks are therefore poorly understood. I welcome any evidence that would allay this concern. Meantime, why not party like it's 1750, because, thanks to PCAST, we are now going to be oh so prepared to live in the aftermath? Greg From: Bill Stahl bstah...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting I wonder if this emerging preparedness/adaptation consensus is not an alternative to geoengineering but an incremental step toward it. Governments are quantifying their expected costs, which they will eventually weigh against the costs of, for example, high-latitude SRM. Assuming (and I realize that's assuming a lot) that high-latitude SRM more or less works as suggested by some on this list (slowing Greenland icemelt, stopping permafrost melting), How high would its pricetag have to be for it not to be about the highest ROI on money spent imaginable? The preparedness/adaptation pricetag will answer that question. Of course framing it as an investment is odd- does a sailor on a sinking ship think of a lifejacket as an 'investment'? - but those are the terms in which governments must think. On Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:17:26 PM UTC-6, Lou Grinzo wrote: I strongly agree. If we fall into the trap of a viewing this situation as a false dichotomy, then we're making it much worse and dramatically reducing our chances
[geo] Marine Cloud Brightening: Rainfall; Patchiness: KenC
of energy efficiency, desirable though that is, need not dictate the selection of type of spray vessel. Latham et al. [2008] pointed out that the main reason that this ratio is so high for MCB is that Nature provides the energy required for the increase of surface area of newly activated cloud droplets, by four or five orders of magnitude as they ascend to cloud top and reflect sunlight. 5.Other issues that might be addressed by exploiting the initially localized cooling of oceanic surface waters that we believe could be produced by MCB are coral reef protection and hurricane weakening. In the latter case, it may prove possible to cool oceanic waters in the regions where hurricanes spawn. This would probably require continuous seeding over several months, culminating in the hurricane season. Also, it may prove possible to produce sufficient polar cooling to maintain existing sea-ice cover by seeding specially selected cloudy regions of much smaller total area than considered in earlier papers. Details of a recently published paper on hurricane weakening via MCB are Presented below. A paper on the utilization of MCB for the preservation of coral reefs will be published in 2 or 3 weeks time. Cheers, John. TWO RECENT PAPERS. 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 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 -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Marine Cloud Brightening pros cons. Alan Robock criteria
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
RE: [geo] Re: Marine Cloud Brightening pros cons. Alan Robock criteria
Hello again Alan, I agree entirely with your comments below, and look forward to learning the results of yr assessment. All Best,John. 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: 03 June 2013 17:09 To: John Latham Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Marine Cloud Brightening pros cons. Alan Robock criteria Dear John, We are designing an MCB GeoMIP experiment so we can see how robust the results are from the climate models that have already done these experiments, but all differently. In theory, there would be both benefits and risks, and these must be quantified. From my list, you can cross our ozone depletion, no more blue skies and effects on remote sensing and astronomy, as well as other stratosphere-specific issues. But I think it is premature to claims that MCB would be safe and effective. And detailed indoor computer modeling experiments will be needed to provide an environmental impact statement for outdoor experiments. Indeed, a lot more research is needed. 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 6/3/13 4:56 AM, John Latham wrote: 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
[geo] RE: Marine Cloud Brightening pros cons. Alan Robock criteria
Hello Olaf, I should have mentioned that, re hurricanes coral, our idea is to maintain the SST's in the appropriate areas at current values, using MCB to counter CO2 increase. Trying to reduce SSTs below current values is a different and possibly dangerous game, which we are not considering. John. 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: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) [r.d.schuil...@uu.nl] Sent: 03 June 2013 13:14 To: John Latham; rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Marine Cloud Brightening pros cons. Alan Robock criteria Is there not a problem about reduction of photosynthesis, particularly for polar plankton? Olaf Schuiling -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Latham Sent: maandag 3 juni 2013 13:56 To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Marine Cloud Brightening pros cons. Alan Robock criteria 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
[geo] SRM and droughts in the Sahel - rectification
SRM and droughts in the Sahel, Hello Oliver, Jim, Andy, and All, Good to read the several interesting results and arguments, hopefully to be developed further. However, I’d like to request rectification of a common tendency for the terms SRM, and sometimes climate geoengineering to be regarded as synonymous with stratospheric sulphur seeding. The latter is without question the best known SRM technique, and clearly has a significant likelihood of proving useful, but other SRM ideas, including Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) and Russell Seitz’s microbubble technique also have promise and should not be disregarded at this stage. Bala, Caldeira et al. found that extensive oceanic cloud seeding via MCB did not significantly reduce rainfall over land. Jones et al. found that – with geographically more limited seeding - the occurrence of rainfall reduction over land via MCB did or did not occur dependent on the choice of seeding locations. Our own work on MCB, with larger seeding areas, gave results similar to those of Bala et al. So it is too sweeping and also misleading to say that SRM would cause droughts in the Sahel. Although designed to produce global effects MCB, in principle, could also be used to address much smaller-scale issues, such as hurricane weakening and coral reef preservation: and could perhaps prove helpful regarding the prevention of polar sea-ice loss Best Wishes, John. 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 O Morton [omeconom...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 April 2013 14:53 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] SRM and droughts in the Sahel Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall * Jim M. Haywoodhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-1, * Andy Joneshttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-2, * Nicolas Bellouinhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-3 *David Stephensonhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-4 Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1857 Received 23 October 2012 Accepted 22 February 2013 Published online 31 March 2013 Article tools The Sahelian drought of the 1970s–1990s was one of the largest humanitarian disasters of the past 50 years, causing up to 250,000 deaths and creating 10 million refugees1http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref1. It has been attributed to natural variability2http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref2, 3http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref3, 4http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref4, 5http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref5, over-grazing6http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref6 and the impact of industrial emissions of sulphur dioxide7http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref7, 8http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref8. Each mechanism can influence the Atlantic sea surface temperature gradient, which is strongly coupled to Sahelian precipitation2http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref2, 3http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref3. We suggest that sporadic volcanic eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere also strongly influence this gradient and cause Sahelian drought. Using de-trended observations from 1900 to 2010, we show that three of the four driest Sahelian summers were preceded by substantial Northern Hemisphere volcanic eruptions. We use a state-of-the-art coupled global atmosphere–ocean model to simulate both episodic volcanic eruptions and geoengineering by continuous deliberate injection into the stratosphere. In either case, large asymmetric stratospheric aerosol loadings concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere are a harbinger of Sahelian drought whereas those concentrated in the Southern Hemisphere induce a greening of the Sahel. Further studies of the detailed regional impacts on the Sahel and other vulnerable areas are required to inform policymakers in developing careful consensual global governance before any practical solar radiation management geoengineering scheme is implemented. Full article at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html Blogpost by me at http
RE: [geo] SRM and droughts in the Sahel - rectification
Hello Oliver, Thank you for the correction. Apologies! I must have muddled-up the authorships of the various papers. All Best Wishes from yr semi-senile friend,John. 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 O Morton [omeconom...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 April 2013 22:25 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: omeconom...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] SRM and droughts in the Sahel - rectification Dear John In my piece I didn't use the term SRM, which I try to avoid, and specifically addressed the application of cloud brightening in such a scenario Best o On Tuesday, 2 April 2013 20:09:16 UTC+1, JohnLatham wrote: SRM and droughts in the Sahel, Hello Oliver, Jim, Andy, and All, Good to read the several interesting results and arguments, hopefully to be developed further. However, I’d like to request rectification of a common tendency for the terms SRM, and sometimes climate geoengineering to be regarded as synonymous with stratospheric sulphur seeding. The latter is without question the best known SRM technique, and clearly has a significant likelihood of proving useful, but other SRM ideas, including Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) and Russell Seitz’s microbubble technique also have promise and should not be disregarded at this stage. Bala, Caldeira et al. found that extensive oceanic cloud seeding via MCB did not significantly reduce rainfall over land. Jones et al. found that – with geographically more limited seeding - the occurrence of rainfall reduction over land via MCB did or did not occur dependent on the choice of seeding locations. Our own work on MCB, with larger seeding areas, gave results similar to those of Bala et al. So it is too sweeping and also misleading to say that SRM would cause droughts in the Sahel. Although designed to produce global effects MCB, in principle, could also be used to address much smaller-scale issues, such as hurricane weakening and coral reef preservation: and could perhaps prove helpful regarding the prevention of polar sea-ice loss Best Wishes, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.l...@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: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of O Morton [omeco...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 April 2013 14:53 To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] SRM and droughts in the Sahel Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall * Jim M. Haywoodhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-1, * Andy Joneshttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-2, * Nicolas Bellouinhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-3 *David Stephensonhttp://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#auth-4 Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1857 Received 23 October 2012 Accepted 22 February 2013 Published online 31 March 2013 Article tools The Sahelian drought of the 1970s–1990s was one of the largest humanitarian disasters of the past 50 years, causing up to 250,000 deaths and creating 10 million refugees1http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref1. It has been attributed to natural variability2http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref2, 3http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref3, 4http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref4, 5http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref5, over-grazing6http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref6 and the impact of industrial emissions of sulphur dioxide7http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref7, 8http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref8. Each mechanism can influence the Atlantic sea surface temperature gradient, which is strongly coupled to Sahelian precipitation2http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref2, 3http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1857.html#ref3. We suggest that sporadic volcanic eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere also strongly influence this gradient and cause Sahelian drought. Using de-trended
[geo] Weather Climate Control via Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)
[geoengineering@googlegroups.com];[rez...@gmail.com];[f...@nimblebooks.com];[w...@nimblebooks.com];[kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Weather Climate Control Hello All Following on from several recent postings:- Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) is a technique that has been developed with the objective of inhibiting planetary warming, but can in principle also be applied to more localized, sub-global issues such as polar sea-ice coverage maintenance and hurricane weakening. Thus it can be regarded as applicable to both climate and weather control or modification. It is not yet at a fully operational stage. The following selection from our papers on MCB illustrates some of our work on these topics. Latham, J., 1990: Control of global warming? Nature 347. 339-340. J. Latham, P.J. Rasch, C.C.Chen, L. Kettles, A. Gadian, A. Gettelman, H. Morrison, S. Salter., 2008. Global Temperature Stabilization via Controlled Albedo Enhancement of Low-level Maritime Clouds. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 366, 3969-3987,doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0137. 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 P.J.Rasch, J. Latham C.C.Chen, 2010. Geo-engineering by Cloud Seeding: influence on sea-ice Climate System. Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045112 (8pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112 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 The micro-bubble geoengineering technique developed by Russell Seitz could also have global and sub-global, climate/weather applications Seitz, R. 2011 Bright water: hydrosols, water conservation and climate change. Climatic Change 105, 365–381. Cheers, John [Latham] 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 -- 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.
RE: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering
Hello Mike plus All, To amplify slightly Mike's arguments re field testing of SRM techniques, using Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) as an example, I mention that in the penultimate section of our recent Phil Trans Roy Soc review of MCB (full reference below) we present an outline of a three-stage field test of MCB [which may never be conducted]. It would last for several weeks and be conducted over an oceanic area of about 100km x 100km. 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 Cheers,John. 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 Mike MacCracken [mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: 21 February 2013 17:28 To: dmorr...@gmail.com; Geoengineering Cc: Doug MacMynowski Subject: Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering Just to take the issue one step further, it has come up in the area of even doing field testing. Let’s suppose that we want to do a field test of the cloud brightening approach. The field test would be done at such a low level that it would not really generate present benefits (i.e., any significant counter-balancing of adverse impacts) for anyone, but let’s suppose it might (though not clear how) cause some negative influence to some one—say someone on an island out in the remote area where the test is being done. Let’s also suppose that the field experiment would be expected to show that this approach could be used to counter-balance significant future climate change and in that way create a large net benefit (so, yes, some relatively limited negative impacts, but many, widespread benefits (or, at least, significant reductions in anticipated adverse impacts). So the question then arises, what if the present offended party objected to the experiment going forward because of negative impacts (or possible unknown consequences)? The net present effects of this experiment would be negative, but there would be great potential benefits in the future that would be foregone. In some sense, for the close-in direct consequences, this is likely not unlike the testing of new medicines, so there would be a need for informed consent and damages. While there may be precedents for the potential direct damages, a key question would be how to deal with the less well-defined unknowns and how does one consider the benefits of gaining knowledge about potentially achieving net benefits (so, yes, some damages) in the future. Pretty clearly, climate engineering will not go forward without testing, and testing raises the question of how to weigh/consider potential near-term negative consequences to gain confidence in an approach that would provide net benefits in the future. Basically, I would just suggest that we need to have social science consideration of both the issues arising around testing as well as for potential application. Mike On 2/21/13 9:28 AM, David Morrow dmorr...@gmail.com wrote: Doug, Interesting question. I'd have to think about it more; it's probably more complicated than it appears. (What isn't?) The basic issue is that on most ethical frameworks, one party may sometimes have the right to insist that some other party refrain from harming them, even when the latter party would benefit from doing so. To take a well-worn but dramatic example, I have a right to insist that you refrain from harvesting my organs, even if you were confident that doing so would save the lives of several other people. I certainly don't need to compensate people for refusing to give them my organs. The wrinkle is that this right may not apply when the first party is responsible for the second party's distress -- and that may be the case in your SRM scenario. Let us stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that in virtue of their fossil fuel exports, Russia and Canada bear some non-neglible responsibility for the climate change that some future SRM-seeking states are trying to counteract. If Russia and Canada oppose SRM because the warmer climate benefits them, they might not be able to defend themselves
RE: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering
Hello All, Just to add a little to Steve's excellent points:- Jones et al (2009) reported that their computations re MCB - in which they seeded 3 large regions of stratocumulus clouds - produced a significant rainfall reduction in the Amazonian region. In their (2011) paper they report that if seeding of one of the 3 regions (Namibia) is switched off there is no significant Amazonian rainfall reduction. Studies by Bala,Caldeira et al (2010) and Rasch et al (2009), in which MCB seeding occurs over much larger oceanic areas do not indicate significant rainfall loss in this region. It follows that it is not justifiable, in the light of these studies, to state that significant rainfall reduction in this area WOULD occur. COULD is of course still acceptable. As the work of Steve colleagues shows, the geographical distribution of MCB seeding is critical in determining the impacts. It behoves us therefore to become more enlightened re seeding patterns. Cheers,John. 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 Stephen Salter [s.sal...@ed.ac.uk] Sent: 20 February 2013 15:48 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering Hi All There are so many papers on the ethics of geo-engineering (two today already) that the guys trying to do the practical bits cannot read all of them even though they are mostly the same. But I hope that there may be time for some minor corrections in the one by Tony and Peter. They quote Jones et al 2009 saying that marine cloud brightening would cause a large reduction in Amazon rainfall when this it is only 300 mm a year out for a typical 2300 mm a year and then only for spray off Namibia. Figure 3 from the attached paper based on results from Ben Parkes shows that spray in many other places, including amazingly south of the Aleutian islands, can increase precipitation in the Amazon. So far no modellers have thought of varying the spray rate or position with respect to monsoons or the phase of the el Nino oscillation. It would be very odd if these had no effect. Tony and Peter quote Bala et al. 2010 in Climate Dynamics saying that SRM decreases annual precipitation in some regions. In fact the final line of Climate Dynamics 36 (5-6), pp 1-17 reads Climate Dynamics 37(5-6), pp. 1-1 '. . . . our study indicates that reflecting sunlight to space by reducing cloud droplet size over the oceans could lead, on average, to a moistening of the continents.' I will be very grateful to anyone who can save me wasting my time working on something which has bad effects but so far it really seems that keeping sea surface temperatures close to where they used to be is good and that by choosing the time and place for cloud albedo control we can vary precipitation in either direction. The only people who have benefited from the droughts in America and Russia are grain speculators. Nobody benefited from the floods in Queensland and Pakistan. Droughts and floods are we we must expect, more and worse. They are what geo-engineering is trying to stop. Tony and Peter write that SRM does nothing for ocean acidity. They might have added that it does not turn base metals into gold or cure AIDS. It is also true that fixing ocean acidity does nothing for melting ice caps. We are allowed more than one tool in the box and we should use all possible tools to do what they are good at. If Tony and Peter could read the attached short note they might be persuaded to write two more papers. One would be the 'Rewards to people who managed to get practical hardware for friendly geo-engineering developed just in time despite having no money'. The second paper would be 'Punishments to people who delayed the development of essential geo-engineering hardware by use of dodgy references'. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.ukmailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shshttp://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 20/02/2013 13:59, p.j.irvine wrote: Toby Svoboda and I have produced a piece on some of the difficulties that would face a compensation scheme for SRM geoengineering. The link below is for a pre-print version of the article which is forthcoming in the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment. This will not make it into print until late 2013 or early 2014 but we thought it would
[geo] Re: Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper)
Hello All, It seems to me that it is vital to develop much better understandings between those people in geoengineering whose principal focus is on engineering/scientific aspects, and those largely concerned with legal/ethical issues. A crucial problem is that most important words are only approximations. [That can be their beauty, also]. So, I think, we need to learn how to communicate much more fully and precisely, which is perhaps best achieved by more fraternization, which must even so leave ample time for the pursuance of our primary goals. Until recently I lived, when in England, about 50 yards from where Lewis Carroll was born. A large placard welcomes people to the Lewis Carroll birthplace and museum. But there is nothing there except an empty field, across which the Mad Hatter occasionally galumphs, at twilight. We need to learn each other’s languages. All Best, John. 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 Russell Seitz [russellse...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 February 2013 07:44 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: russellse...@gmail.com; Kate Ricke; Juan Moreno-Cruz; kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper) Ken should recall that Humpty Dumpt 's assertion did not go unchallenged : The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master— that's all. On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:01:39 AM UTC-5, Ken Caldeira wrote: Russell, I am prone to side with Humpty Dumpty when it comes to words that do not yet have a narrow agreed-upon definition. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1872. We are defining solar geoengineering in the context of our study. Other definitions may be appropriate in other contexts. Best, Ken On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.com wrote: Ken's ERL abstract commences : Solar geoengineering is the deliberate reduction in the absorption of incoming solar radiation by the Earth's climate system with the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. It is worth noting the unsuble distinction between this global paradigm and aiming to reduce the uptake of solar energy to limit warming locally for purposes quite unrelated to the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. such as water conservation or mitigating urban heat island effects. -- 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?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. -- 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.
[geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques - MVB points
Hello Chris et al. I think this is a very interesting paper. With respect to Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), outlined therein, I would like to add a couple of points:- If MCB is found to function as assumed in our modeling studies – which remains to be determined – it could possibly:- (1) inhibit or prohibit further coral reef damage by cooling ocean surface waters in selected areas – as with the hurricane weakening possibility mentioned in the article. (2) maintain sea-ice cover at around current values, at least up to the CO2-doubling point. Best Wishes, John lat...@ucar.edu Papers relevant to the above points are listed below:- Philip J Rasch, John Latham Chih-Chieh (Jack) Chen, Geoengineering by cloud seeding: influence on sea ice and climate system. Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009) 045112 (8pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112 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 Ben Parkes, Alan Gadian John Latham, 2012. Investigation into the effects of Geoengineering on Seasonal Polar Temperatures and the Meridional Heat Flux. ISRN Geophysics. Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 142872, doi:10.5402/2012/142872 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 Chris Vivian [chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk] Sent: 18 February 2013 11:22 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques For your information, see the attached leaflet on marine geoengineering techniques that has been submitted to the IMO as a UK information paper for the forthcoming London Convention/Protocol Scientific Groups meeting. The leaflet is also on the Cefas website at: http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/20120213-Brief-Summary-Marine-Geoeng-Techs.pdf Best wishes Chris. -- 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.
RE: [geo] How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?
Hello Jim, In the case of Marine Cloud Brightening, the sprayed material to enhance cloud albedo is seawater. The energy for spraying, guiding the spray-ships etc comes from the wind. Cheers, John (Latham) 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 Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com] Sent: 27 December 2012 16:36 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: rez...@gmail.com; kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Subject: Re: [geo] How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification? When I asked Stephen Salter thishttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/9pEK5_Np16E/_jdf983Raw4J: 6. How will you address the AMS, WMO, and NRC's statements that: Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with suspicion Geoengineering makes the claim that it can dramatically reduce the temperature of the planet, and many scientists in the field acknowledge that these actions will modify the weather drastically. More specifically, geoengineering methods that intend to modify weather by artificially blocking the sun are forms of weather modification, and subject to all applicable laws/regulations and international agreements (which I'm sure you already knew). He repliedhttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/9pEK5_Np16E/oUuIoXwnpzEJ: 6. The work of Sean Twomey has a sound scientific basis and is widely respected. �� You can show a neat pocket demonstration of the optical principle with jars of glass balls of different sizes. A photograph is attached.� The fact that some ideas do not work does not tell us anything about quite different ones.� We do NOT want to make dramatic reductions to the temperature of the planet.� We want stop dramatic increases.�� There is evidence in the thesis which I mentioned in my previous email than we can also vary precipitation on both directions by choosing when and where to spray. Which seems to be a non-answer. You however acknowledge the obvious, that geoengineering techniques that affect the climate are forms of weather modification. There are thousands of videos discussing weather modification, followed by comments like you can't control the weather idiot, therefore I would argue that most people are completely uninformed of the practice. I understand it is common to use silver iodide, CO2, sodium chloride, and fertilizerhttp://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~noaaforms/eforms/nf17-4a.pdf in cloud seeding, should NOAA add sulfur and ocean spray to the list? I believe you to be honorable men with good intentions, and my concern is only for transparency. The world of weather modification is filled with non-disclosure, and when tampering with mother nature, I believe that public awareness is key. I intend to push for greater transparency in the world of cloud seeding, and would hope to see public disclosure of all geoengineering SRM programs before they're attempted. Nothing more, nothing less. Thank you for the response Ken, and I fully agree with your comments. Without transparency, how can you model an environment that is being modified by so many unseen hands? Would you be opposed to public disclosure of all atmospheric testing and experimentation? Jim Lee http://climateviewer.com/ On Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:53:28 AM UTC-5, Ken Caldeira wrote: Jim, You seem to be arguing against a straw man. -- First: Of course, if climate is modified, weather is also modified. Nobody is rebranding anything. There are two ends of a spectrum: one end in which people would try to influence specific weather events and the other end in which people would try to influence weather statistics (i.e., climate). There is no rebranding here. -- Second: You say weather modification is unproven science. Science does not try to prove nouns. Scientists try to falsify statements. Scientists work only on the unproven. ___ 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 @kencaldeira Our YouTube videos The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI Special AGU lecture: Ocean Aciditication: Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfz2l29aX9c More videoshttp://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jim Lee rez...@gmail.com
RE: [geo] Hurricane weakening via Marine Cloud Brightening MCB
Gene, I share your sentiments entirely. Taking Sandy's $80 billion + with concomitant personal agonies, add to that, from a few weeks later, the tragic loss of more than 500 lives in the Phillipines, and extrapolate into the future, we create an utterly devastating picture. Our problem is that we have no significant funding., so our rate of progress with this work is substantially and increasingly slowed down. We need to complete the development of our spraying system, extend our computations, in several directions including a thorough examination of possible adverse consequences and associated remedial action: and we need to field-test the system over a limited oceanic area, on a scale of perhaps 100km, and build the required number of spray-ships. A rough estimate of costs for a fully functioning operational full-scale system averaged over 20 years is not more than $100M per year. Any suggestions as to how to procure the required support would be most welcome. Best Wishes, John. 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: euggor...@comcast.net [euggor...@comcast.net] Sent: 08 December 2012 15:59 To: John Latham Cc: Geoengineering; Mike MacCracken; Kelly Wanser; Armand Neukermans Subject: Re: [geo] Hurricane weakening via Marine Cloud Brightening MCB John: When you consider that Hurrican Sandy caused at least $80 billion in damage to NY, NJ and Conn plus the negative impact on people (as a victim I can attest and my neighbor totally lost their uninsured home at the Jersey shore) it is clear that the topic raised here is of extreme importance. Hurricanes are extremely costly in general and the negative impact on quality of life is growing rapidly. From a localized in time perspective the topic raised here is incredibly important; I would argue more important than climate control in the near term. The costs, the distractions and the impacts on humans are immense. Hurricane modification research can be a winner and would certainly enhance the view of geoengineering's importance and its ability to get funding later to focus on climate control. I applaud the interest being illustrated here. -gene From: John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk To: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net, Kelly Wanser kelly.wan...@gmail.com, Armand Neukermans arma...@sbcglobal.net Cc: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 10:17:22 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Hurricane weakening via Marine Cloud Brightening MCB Many Thanks, Mike. Interesting! Should certainly be looked in to. All Best, John. 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: Mike MacCracken [mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: 08 December 2012 01:19 To: John Latham; Kelly Wanser; Armand Neukermans Cc: Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Hurricane weakening via Marine Cloud Brightening MCB Hi John, Kelly, ad Armand--With respect to hurricane modification, there may be an alternative approach to consider other than cooling the areas where the hurricanes develop. Stu Ostro of The Weather Channel has written a review of this year's hurricane season; see http://www.wunderground.com/blog/stuostro/show.html?entrynum=18 What is interesting is that there is a channel that seems to control the tracks of hurricanes up and into the North Atlantic where the storms hopefully die. So, maybe an approach is to think about altering North Atlantic temperature changes in a way that keeps hurricanes out to sea in the Atlantic. And for Hurricane Sandy, that alters conditions in the Labrador Sea area so that the hurricanes heading up the East Coast of North America don't get trapped along the coast and can be blown out to sea. Now, I know this does not benefit Caribbean island nations and so this is likely not the only approach to be thinking about, but might it be that an alternative approach would be to try to steer hurricanes to areas of the ocean where coastal cities and infrastructure would not be much affected? At least it could be evaluated if this might be easier, at least during some years. Mike MacCracken On 12/7/12 1:41 PM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Hello All, Regarding the unfortunately topical issues of hurricane strength and damage, I attach a press release written by our MCB colleague Kelly Wanser, describing our work on the possibility of weakening hurricanes via MCB: and also our recently published
[geo] RE: X ray cloud seeding?
Hello Andrew, The conditions inside a Wilson cloud chamber are very different from in the atmosphere.The supersaturations are immense, because all natural CCN have been removed.Only then can Xrays initiate droplets. These conditions dont exist in nature. What is most needed for natural cloud formation is an unstable temperature structure and a mechanism for inducing sustained upward motion of moist air.There are virtually always CCN available, on which droplets will form. Artificial cloud production is essentially a non-starter in my view. What can be done is to increase the CCN and therefore droplet number concentration and cloud albedo in existing clouds. . This is the principle of cloud brightening. Not creating clouds, but brightening existing ones! All Best, John. 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: Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: 07 December 2012 03:35 To: Stephen Salter; John Latham; Alan Gadain; geoengineering Subject: X ray cloud seeding? Cloud chambers detect ionising radiation because the ions act as cloud condensation nuclei. Could high energy and intense x-rays be used to trigger cloud formation in the marine boundary layer? This might also work for drying the upper troposphere - by triggered nucleation and subsequent rain out, using low intensity, high energy x rays. A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
RE: [geo] Hurricane weakening via Marine Cloud Brightening MCB
Many Thanks, Mike. Interesting! Should certainly be looked in to. All Best, John. 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: Mike MacCracken [mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: 08 December 2012 01:19 To: John Latham; Kelly Wanser; Armand Neukermans Cc: Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Hurricane weakening via Marine Cloud Brightening MCB Hi John, Kelly, ad Armand--With respect to hurricane modification, there may be an alternative approach to consider other than cooling the areas where the hurricanes develop. Stu Ostro of The Weather Channel has written a review of this year's hurricane season; see http://www.wunderground.com/blog/stuostro/show.html?entrynum=18 What is interesting is that there is a channel that seems to control the tracks of hurricanes up and into the North Atlantic where the storms hopefully die. So, maybe an approach is to think about altering North Atlantic temperature changes in a way that keeps hurricanes out to sea in the Atlantic. And for Hurricane Sandy, that alters conditions in the Labrador Sea area so that the hurricanes heading up the East Coast of North America don't get trapped along the coast and can be blown out to sea. Now, I know this does not benefit Caribbean island nations and so this is likely not the only approach to be thinking about, but might it be that an alternative approach would be to try to steer hurricanes to areas of the ocean where coastal cities and infrastructure would not be much affected? At least it could be evaluated if this might be easier, at least during some years. Mike MacCracken On 12/7/12 1:41 PM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Hello All, Regarding the unfortunately topical issues of hurricane strength and damage, I attach a press release written by our MCB colleague Kelly Wanser, describing our work on the possibility of weakening hurricanes via MCB: and also our recently published paper on the same topic. All Best, John. 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
[geo] Localisation Geoengineering Could Be Essential to Reducing the Risk of Climate Change | MIT Technology Review
Hello Eugene Andrew, In connection with localization, have you considered Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)? Although this idea has largely been developed with global influence in mind, it could also address much more localised issues. If MCB is found to be efficacious it could possibly weaken the strength of hurricanes (and the associated damage) by cooling the surface waters in regions where hurricanes spawn.We have just published a paper on this topic:- 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 We are also about to submit for publication a paper on the possible conservation of coral reefs via MCB. (again, by cooling oceanic waters, in this case in the regions of coral reefs. Our first results [as with the hurricane idea] are encouraging. Another possibility - by MCB seeding on a substantially sub-global scale, is polar ice-cover conservation. Comments welcomed Best Wishes,Johnlat...@ucar.edu PS If the micro-bubbles technique proposed by Russell Seitz was found to viable, it also could be applied to these more localised issues. 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 euggor...@comcast.net [euggor...@comcast.net] Sent: 26 October 2012 00:43 To: andrew lockley Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering Could Be Essential to Reducing the Risk of Climate Change | MIT Technology Review One of the problems with sulfate engineering is that it can't be easily localized, if at all. On the other hand warming should be combatted locally if it is to be accepted by all countries. Some would use it, some would not or use to variable extent. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Space umbrellas is another unlikely candidate for the same reason. It would be interesting to hear views on this. If there is a consensus it would provide some guidance. From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:13:05 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering Could Be Essential to Reducing the Risk of Climate Change | MIT Technology Review http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506256/geoengineering-could-be-essential-to-reducing-the-risk-of-climate-change/ GLOBAL EDITIONABOUTNEWS ANALYSISMAGAZINELISTSEVENTSMORECONNECTLOGIN / JOIN MIT Technology Review ENERGY NEWS Geoengineering Could Be Essential to Reducing the Risk of Climate Change Using technology to cool the planet may be the only way to deal with the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, argues scientist David Keith. By Kevin Bullis on October 25, 2012 Why It Matters The limited reductions in carbon emissions that are likely over the next several decades will do little to offset climate change. Counteracting greenhouse gases directly is one possible alternative.David Keith spoke at MIT Technology Review’s EmTech conference this week.Geoengineering—using technology to purposefully change the climate—is the only option for reducing the risk of climate change from greenhouse-gas emissions in the next few decades, says David Keith, a professor of public policy and applied physics at Harvard University. And he says that if it’s done in moderation, it could be much safer than some experts have argued. In fact, says Keith, effective methods of geoengineering are so cheap and easy that just about any country could do it—for better or worse.Keith, speaking this week at MIT Technology Review’s annual EmTech conference, says it is already too late to avoid climate changes by reducing carbon emissions alone. The carbon dioxide that’s been released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is already likely to cause significant harm, such as raising temperatures enough to hurt crop yields in many places. “If you want to, say, really stop the loss of Arctic sea ice or stop heat-stress crop losses over the next few decades, geoengineering is pretty much the only thing you can do,” he says (see “Why Climate Scientists Support Geoengineering Research”).Keith’s preferred method of geoengineering is to shade the earth by injecting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere, imitating a similar process that happens with large volcanic eruptions, which are known to temporarily cool the planet. The technique could be effective even if far less sulfate were injected than is currently emitted by fossil-fuel power plants. A million tons per year injected into the stratosphere would be enough—whereas 50 million tons are injected
[geo] Guardian articles on geo-engineering
To:- [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu];[andrew.lock...@gmail.com];[j...@noc.soton.ac.uk];[rea...@guardian.co.uk];[john.vi...@guardian.co.uk];[chris.elli...@guardian.co.uk];[david_ke...@harvard.edu];[geoengineering@googlegroups.com] From:- John Latham [lat...@ucar.edu] 12/10/12 To The Guardian personnel involved: About 60 Years ago I started to subscribe to the Manchester Guardian, as it then was. In my view without question, it was by far the best of the UK newspapers. It was enlightened and dispassionate, with brilliant writers. I still (somewhere) have clippings from those days. As a student in London I was idiotically proud of the fact that the greatest newspaper in the land was based in the North of England, which is where I came from. So it is shocking, sad, and bewildering to me that the Guardian would publish such biased, shrill, utterly inaccurate and irresponsible portrayals of geoengineering, the principal players in this field and their motivations. [I am also working in this field, on a topic called Marine Cloud Brightening]. All the scientists that I know in this arena, and unquestionably those people whose motives you have maligned, are concerned, brilliant and objective scientists, whose goal is to perform research to establish whether or not geoengineering – in some form or another – might be of value in ameliorating climate change or providing time within which a clean form of energy might be developed. These people are not committed to geoengineering. I think the Guardian owes it to both the scientists insulted and endangered, and to its hitherto outstanding reputation, to publish openly (with apologies) a detailed retraction of those statements made which are false and abusive. Yours Sincerely,John Latham. 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
[geo]
kcalde...@stanford.edu geoengineering@googlegroups.com Hello Ken et al., I am in total agreement with the views expressed by Ken regarding the need for conducting extremely well-planned, wholly open, carefully assessed, limited duration geoengineering field-tests. The case for not conducting such experiments is in my view vanishingly small. I see absolutely no virtue in dying with a clear conscience, based on doing nothing, especially if that entails the concomitant demise of billions of other people who are not in a position to influence their own future. Best Wishes,John lat...@ucar.edu 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
[geo] Ken Caldeira - Yale interview. Response
Sent: 29 September 2012 16:40 To: [andrew.lock...@gmail.com];[kcalde...@stanford.edu];[geoengineering@googlegroups.com] kcalde...@stanford.edu geoengineering@googlegroups.com Hello Ken et al., I am in total agreement with the views expressed by Ken regarding the need for conducting extremely well-planned, wholly open, carefully assessed, limited duration geoengineering field-tests. The case for not conducting such experiments is in my view vanishingly small. I see absolutely no virtue in dying with a clear conscience, based on doing nothing, especially if that entails the concomitant demise of billions of other people who are not in a position to influence their own future. Best Wishes,John lat...@ucar.edu 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 Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: 29 September 2012 08:26 To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Profile - Ken Caldeira Posters Note - Yale interview is best read online where the formatting is preserved and audio is available. Ken is a list moderator but was not involved in drafting this email. A A selection of video interviews http://zomobo.net/ken-caldeira Yale Interview http://e360.yale.edu/feature/geoengineering_the_planet_the_possibilities_and_the_pitfalls/2201/ Geoengineering the Planet:The Possibilities and the Pitfalls Interfering with the Earth’s climate system to counteract global warming is a controversial concept. But in an interview with Yale Environment 360, climate scientist Ken Caldeira talks about why he believes the world needs to better understand which geoengineering schemes might work and which are fantasy — or worse. Atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira first became known for his groundbreaking work on ocean acidification, a phrase originally coined as a headline for one of his papers. Of late, however, Caldeira’s research has led him into the controversial area of geoengineering — the large-scale, deliberate manipulation of the Earth’s climate system.Many scientists have shied away from the subject because they feel it is a wrongheaded and dangerous path to pursue. But Caldeira — who heads a research lab at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University — has not been so dismissive, in part Ken Caldeirabecause his climate modeling has demonstrated that some geoengineering schemes may indeed help reduce the risk of climate change. In fact, few scientists have thought harder about the moral, political, and environmental implications of geoengineering.Caldeira has become a focal point recently in the controversy surrounding the publication of Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s SuperFreakonomics, the follow-up to their previous best-seller, Freakonomics. A chapter of the book that deals with geoengineering and quoted Caldeira was circulated on the Internet prior to the book’s publication and was widely criticized for its poor understanding of climate science and its cynical, contrarian perspective.In an interview with Yale Environment 360, conducted by author Jeff Goodell, who is working on a book about geoengineering, Caldeira spoke about how his work was misrepresented in SuperFreakonomics, as well as the prospects — and pitfalls — of plans to engineer the planet’s climate system. He views geoengineering as a last resort, one fraught with risks and unintended consequences. What if, for example, industrialized nations decide to inject heat-reflecting dust into the stratosphere and set off a climate reaction that causes drought and famine in India and China? For this and many other reasons, Caldeira argues that sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions is by far the most prudent course.Still, given the huge volume of carbon dioxide that humanity continues to pour into the atmosphere, Caldeira says it would be folly not to undertake research into geoengineering. With the prospect that the world could reach a level of dangerous warming this century, Caldeira maintains it’s necessary to determine which projects — such as putting particles in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight into space — might work and which will not. He likens geoengineering schemes to seatbelts — a technology that might reduce the chance of injury in case of a climate crash.But, warned Caldeira, “Thinking of geoengineering as a substitute for emissions reduction is analogous to saying, ‘Now that I’ve got the seatbelts on, I can just take my hands off the wheel and turn around and talk to people in the back seat.’ It’s crazy.”Yale Environment 360: I want to start with this little dust-up over
[geo] MCB paper
Hello Andrew, I hope you dont mind my checking with you as to whether you kindly sent out to Google-group members the pdf I sent to you of our Phil Trans Roy Soc MCB paper. I feel sure that you did, but I've had no reaction and I dont seem to have recd a copy. All Best Wishes, John. 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 Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 August 2012 14:38 To: Russell Seitz; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Testing brightwater Russell, I've been thinking further about testing the 'brightwater' idea. Reference Seitz, R. (2010). Bright water: Hydrosols, water conservation and climate change. Climatic Change 105 (3–4): 365–381. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9965-8 I'm interested to know whether the salinity of the water is likely to have a material effect? My suggestion is that testing in rivers would be a good first step. There is limited mixing with unaltered water, and there should be a clear correlation between distance and time, which would potentially allow residency testing in a variety of different temperatures and turbidity environments with ease. Costs of such testing could be considerably lower than in open water, as an unmanned bubbler could be placed in a static location, left running, and samples taken downstream. By using a pseudorandom pulse, it should be possible to get a very clear indication of the effect of mixing and dilution on the bubble flow. Albedo and turbidity measurements could be taken continuously. However, all of that is irrelevant if it doesn't work in rivers. Perhaps you, or another reader, could comment. Thanks A On 21 April 2011 01:28, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Hi It seems to me that Brightwater is suitable for 'homebrew' testing, and indeed would greatly benefit from this work. Water bodies are very variable by salinity, choppiness, cloudiness, temperature, etc. Is it possible to create a set of standard tests which can be conducted by people to test BW in their local area? A bucket filled with seawater in California may behave very differently to a bucket of seawater in Scotland. I would imagine that it would be possible to test the idea using a 2 gallon bucket, a bicycle or car tyre pump, clock, standard diffuser nozzle and a ruler with a coin taped to it (for checking cloudiness). A colour- comparison chart may also be useful. Sure, these would be very basic results, but they would be very helpful if (for example) we discovered that water near river mouths was better than water from open ocean shorelines. I'm guessing that all the equipment that wasn't available in an average home would be able to be bought and posted for likely a lot less than 50 dollars. I may be offending the sensibilities of those with big labs and high standards, but my guess is we could quickly gain some very useful data on this with the participation of some people on this list, and maybe beyond. Who knows, maybe this could become a very popular experiment in schools and colleges? A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 geoengineering@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.
RE: [geo] Good popsci article on key SRM facilitator tech
Hello Andrew, Not sure if this is the same point as that made by Steve below. Please dont call stratospheric sulphur seeding SRM. The implicit message conveyed by doing so is that there is only one SRM scheme whereas in fact there are several. Sulphur seeding is the best recognised and best supported SRM idea. It can easily handle having a few neighbours. You are of course not the only one who doesnt make this distiction. All Best Wishes, John. 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 Stephen Salter [s.sal...@ed.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 3:40 PM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Good popsci article on key SRM facilitator tech Andrew May I suggest the insertion of the word 'stratospheric' before SRM in your last email. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 27/04/2012 15:27, Andrew Lockley wrote: Mech eng fans will be interested in this great article on high altitude engines, which have potential for application to the heavy, high altitude lift needed for SRM. Please view online to access rich media. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17864782 A More from Jonathan Follow Jonathan on Twitter Key tests for Skylonspaceplane project COMMENTS (215) The pre-cooler demonstration is a major step in proving the Skylon concept UK engineers have begun critical tests on a new engine technology designed to lift a spaceplane into orbit. The proposed Skylon vehicle would operate like an airliner, taking off and landing at a conventional runway. Its major innovation is the Sabre engine, which can breathe air like a jet at lower speeds but switch to a rocket mode in the high atmosphere. Reaction Engines Limited (REL) believes the test campaign will prove the readiness of Sabre's key elements. This being so, the firm would then approach investors to raise the £250m needed to take the project into the final design phase. We intend to go to the Farnborough International Air Show in July with a clear message, explained REL managing director Alan Bond. The message is that Britain has the next step beyond the jet engine; that we can reduce the world to four hours - the maximum time it would take to go anywhere. And that it also gives us aircraft that can go into space, replacing all the expendable rockets we use today. To have a chance of delivering this message, REL's engineers will need a flawless performance in the experiments now being run on a rig at their headquarters in Culham, Oxfordshire. The test stand will not validate the full Sabre propulsion system, but simply its enabling technology - a special type of pre-cooler heat exchanger. Sabre is part jet engine, part rocket engine. It burns hydrogen and oxygen to provide thrust - but in the lower atmosphere this oxygen is taken from the atmosphere. The approach should save weight and allow Skylon to go straight to orbit without the need for the multiple propellant stages seen in today's throw-away rockets. But it is a challenging prospect. At high speeds, the Sabre engines must cope with 1,000-degree gases entering their intakes. These need to be cooled prior to being compressed and burnt with the hydrogen. Reaction Engines' breakthrough is a module containing arrays of extremely fine piping that can extract the heat and plunge the intake gases to minus 140C in just 1/100th of a second. Ordinarily, the moisture in the air would be expected to freeze out rapidly, covering the pre-cooler's pipes in a blanket of frost and compromising their operation. But the REL team has also devised a means to stop this happening, permitting Sabre to run in jet mode for as long as is needed before making the transition to a booster rocket. Sabre engine: How the test will work Groundbreaking pre-cooler 1. Pre-cooler During flight air enters the pre-cooler. In 1/100th of a second a network of fine piping inside the pre-cooler drops the air's temperature by well over 100C. Very cold helium in the piping makes this possible. On the test rig, a pre-cooler module of the size that would eventually go into a Sabre has been placed in front of a Viper jet engine. The purpose of the 1960s-vintage power unit is simply to suck air through the module and demonstrate the function of the heat exchanger and its anti-frost mechanism. Helium is pumped at high pressure through the module's nickel-alloy piping. The helium enters
RE: [geo] Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
Hello Ken et al, Not having an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, and my involvement with the subject being confined to participating in demonstrations and marches led by Bertrand Russell in the 1950/1960s, I am not competent to challenge or comment on any of the specific points Ken raises. But I wonder whether - since geoengineering is related to issues concerned with a novel situation: the possible extinction of many of Earth's life-forms and associated massive planetary disruption - there may be philosophical questions hitherto not recognised or fully examined, perhaps not thought to be important or valid, which could profitably be addressed now. I do not know the answer to this question. All Best Wishes, John. 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 Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:27 PM To: a.r.gam...@gmail.com Cc: ise...@listserv.tamu.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?) Having but an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, you can forgive me for asking stupid questions, but ... Does geoengineering raise any ethical issues not already considered by historical figures such as Aristotle, Hume, Kant, and so on? Isn't the ethics of making decisions that affect others not involved in making the decisions a problem as old as humanity? I just don't understand how there is anything new here for philosophy. Surely there are difficult decisions to be made with moral dimensions, but I just can't imagine how geoengineering could pose fundamentally new philosophic problems. Perhaps someone can compensate for my failure of imagination and tell me in what way geoengineering poses fundamentally new philosophic problems not previously addressed. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Currently visiting Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)http://www.iass-potsdam.de/ and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK)http://www.pik-potsdam.de/ in Potsdam, Germany. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Andrea Gammon a.r.gam...@gmail.commailto:a.r.gam...@gmail.com wrote: The Mansfield Center for Ethics and Public Affairs at the University of Montana (with support from the National Science Foundation) is pleased to announce the launch of the Ethics of Geoengineering Online Resource Center. We have attempted to make this an exhaustive resource for materials, organizations, and events related to geoengineering and ethics. We will continue to work to make the site increasingly comprehensive, accessible, and engaging. We welcome feedback and suggestions about significant resources that are not yet included. Please bring to our attention any papers, events, and other media you think may be missing. Visit the site at: https://ch1prd0102.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=OWAMf8GxrUmH3DmLPhvEmRVCg4-F5s4Ia3rgDEllyFha_7YuC8CjtGrFU9mOVuqXWwDCLmctAsw.URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.umt.edu%2fethics%2fresourcecenter%2fdefault.php http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/default.php Please email feedback or suggestions to mailto:geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com geoengineeringeth...@gmail.commailto:geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com Thanks! Andrea Gammon Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Philosophy University of Montana, '13 Christopher Preston Associate Professor of Philosophy and Fellow at the Program on Ethics and Public Affairs University of Montana -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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 geoengineering@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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[geo] RE: Rough sketch of a small-scale tropospheric aerosol program
Hello David, I'm in strong agreement with the basic content and spirit of your letter below. However, it would help me to know what you regard as some serious disadvantages of MCB. All Best Wishes, John. . 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: David Keith [david_ke...@harvard.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:25 AM To: Tenney Naumer; Mike MacCracken Cc: P. Wadhams; Nathan Currier; Geoengineering; Andrew Lockley; John Latham; Govindasamy Bala; Veli Albert Kallio; v.ga...@open.ac.uk; John Nissen; Peter R Carter; Gary Houser; Anthony Cook; Graham Innes; PaulHenry Beckwith; Brian Orr; JON HUGHES; Nick Breeze Subject: RE: Rough sketch of a small-scale tropospheric aerosol program Folks Part of this thread is spinning into an exercise in drafting a statement. I suggest that this activity move off-line to a smaller group. A few specific comments: 1. “we have a method that does not use sulphur”. Maybe. As a method of SRM, sea salt aerosols offer many potential advantages and some serious disadvantages. For this reason I strongly support research including active field research. But, there are still **very** large uncertainties and it is entirely possible that the method will prove to have very limited applicability. Over hype of high-leverage technologies is a recipe for disaster. 2. Stratospheric sulfates are plausible because (a) we know how to deliver sulfate at low cost with current technologies and (b) the experience with volcanic emissions gives us some confidence that we understand some of the key chemistry and physics. There will still be unexpected outcomes. Here is a specific example. I you wanted to increase the radiative forcing using strat sulfate aerosols at a rate sufficient to roughly offset the growth of anthropogenic radiative forcing you would need ramp up the sulfate addition rate at about 1/3 of a Mt-S per decade. That is if you started at zero you would need about 1/3 of a Mt-S per year after a decade and 2/3 after two decades. (This assumes 0.25 Wm^-2/decade forcing ramp and 0.7 Wm^-2 for 1 Mt-S/year see; Pierce et al, http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/preprints/127.Pierce.EfficientFormStratsAerosol.p.pdf) Sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere are promising. I would not support deployment without a much broader effort on both science and governance, but with luck, I think this could be accomplished reasonably quickly. There are lots of other options that offer similar promise. We are spending considerable effort thinking about how to increase the effectiveness and understand the risks of sulfate and other aerosols. 3. Tropospheric sulfates require much large injection rates to achieve the same radiative forcing. Do the math on health impacts using paper I cited a few posts back. It’s not promising. I would respectfully suggest that one be cautious about propose something that will have health consequences that large without a **very** clear rational for why you are doing it. David From: Tenney Naumer [mailto:alais.el...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:06 PM To: Mike MacCracken Cc: P. Wadhams; Nathan Currier; Geoengineering; Andrew Lockley; john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk; Govindasamy Bala; Veli Albert Kallio; David Keith; v.ga...@open.ac.uk; John Nissen; Peter R Carter; Gary Houser; Anthony Cook; Graham Innes; PaulHenry Beckwith; Brian Orr; JON HUGHES; Nick Breeze Subject: Re: Rough sketch of a small-scale tropospheric aerosol program Dear Mike, I think the point is that we have a method that does not use sulphur. The fact that many people are exposed to atmospheric sulphur now is no logical justification for its use in geoengineering. We need cleaner air in general. World governments need to invest in methods for drawing down CO2 and rid the air of other man-caused aerosols. Why exacerbate a problem that we will have to work extra hard to clean up later? Best regards, Tenney Tenney Naumer Climate Change: The Next Generationhttp://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com Tel.: (618) 967-6453 (cell) skype: tenneynaumer On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.netmailto:mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Peter and Tenney-- I think your proposed proscription of sulfur is too harsh a restriction. As far as people are concerned, the problems have come with high concentrations and lots of other toxins mixed with them from fossil fuel power plants. As far as ecological impacts are concerned, aside from there being agricultural areas that are sulfur deficient and farmers add sulfur, the problems arise in certain types of situations (like accumulated deposition onto the snow fields of Scandinavia and then rapid melting
RE: [geo] Source on SRM causing warming - tropospheric health effects.
Hello Alan, Re tropospheric health effects:- Are you talking exclusively about sulphur, or would you apply the same argument to seawater droplets, as used in MCB? Estimated global seawater volumetric dissemination rate to produce cooling to balance warming from 2xCO2 is about 10 m**3 / sec, almost all of which would fall back into the oceans. All Best, John. 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: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:03 PM To: mmacc...@comcast.net Cc: Stephen Salter; Ken Caldeira; Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering; j.e.kristjans...@geo.uio.no Subject: Re: [geo] Source on SRM causing warming Dear Mike, I don't know how you do this 6 to 1 calculation. We found that the e-folding time for stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic s 2-4 months, with 4 months in the summer, the relevant time. (see http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/2008JD010050small.pdf ) If we compare this to the lifetime of tropospheric aerosols, on week, and add a week to the 4 months for their tropospheric time, the ratio is 130 days to 7 days, which is 19 to 1, not 6 to 1. Furthermore, the health effects of additional tropospheric pollution are not acceptable, in my opinion. Alan [On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me is by email, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edumailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, or at 732-881-1610 (cell).] Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edumailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On 3/18/2012 5:49 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Hi Stephen--My wording must have been confusing. For stratospheric injections at low latitudes, the lifetime is 1-2 years. The aerosols do move poleward and are carried into the troposphere in mid and high latitudes. This is one approach to trying to limit global climate change, and, as David Keith says, studies indicate that these cool the polar regions, though perhaps not in the stratosphere. Your cloud brightening approach is also to limit global warming. I'd also suggest that we could offset some of the global warming by sulfate aerosols out over vast ocean areas instead of sulfate's present dominance over, now, southeastern Asia, China, etc.--so keeping or modestly enhancing the present cooling offset. [And reducing cirrus may also be a viable approach.] A third approach is to cool the poles (and this might be good for regional purposes alone), but cooling also pulls heat out of lower latitudes and helps to cool them somewhat. The Caldeira-Wood shows it works conceptually (they reduced solar constant) and Robock et al. injected SO2 into stratosphere to do (but the full year injection of SO2/SO4 likely spread some to lower latitudes and the monsoons were affected). One thing Robock et al. found was that the lifetime of sulfate in the polar stratosphere is about two months, and so that means that the potential 100 to 1 advantage of stratospheric sulfate is not valid, and we're down to 6 to 1 compared to surface-based approaches such as CCN or microbubbles to cool incoming waters, sulfate or something similar over Arctic area, surface brightening by microbubbles, etc.--noting that such approaches are only needed (and effective) for the few months per year when the Sun is well up in the sky. As David Keith also says, there is a lot of research to be done to determine which approaches or alone or in different variants might work, or be effective or ineffective and have unintended consequences, much less how such an approach or set of approaches might be integrated with mitigation, adaptation, suffering, etc. Best, Mike MacCracken On 3/18/12 12:52 PM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.ukmailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Mike I had thought that the plan was stratospheric aerosol to be released at low latitudes and would slowly migrate to the poles where is would gracefully descend. If you can be sure that it will all have gone in 10 days then my concerns vanish. But if the air cannot get through the water surface how can the aerosol it carries get there? It will form a blanket even if it is a very low one. A short life would mean that we do not have to worry about methane release. But can we do enough
RE: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
Hello John Nissen and All, John N says:- Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. The major stages of the required research involve modelling, resolution of all technological questions, examination of - and international agreement on - possible adverse consequences of deployment, and the execution of (in the case of MCB, for example), of a limited area field-testing experiment. If the required funding was available now I think I think all the above goals could be achieved in 5 years, perhaps even 3. At the moment these goals are far from being achieved. An attempt to successfully deploy now any likely SRM technique would be doomed to failure. The technological questions have not been fully resolved - so it would not work - and there would be - in my opinion - an international outcry against deployment. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot, I think, if we tried to deploy now. If there was a major failure - which is likely - the response could be such as to prohibit further SRM work for a long time.We need to engage in crash programmes of research now, which means that we need immediately to obtain the required funding. [How, I dont know, I'm afraid]. All Best, John (Latham) 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 John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:40 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering; John Nissen; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Hi Josh, Before commenting on your question, I need to explain the recent activities of AMEG, a group whose position Professor Salter supports. Professor Peter Wadhams and I gave evidence, on behalf of AMEG, to the first of two hearings of the Environment Audit Committee (AEC) inquiry Protecting the Arctic on 21st February. We were given an opportunity to make a further presentation of the AMEG case to the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (APPCCG) on 13th March, i.e. last Tuesday, where we were joined by Professor Salter and journalist, Jon Hughes. Richard Black, of the BBC, reported on the APPCCG meeting [1]. The second hearing of EAC was on 14th March, at which the Met Office gave oral evidence, reported by the Guardian [2] [3]. I am a great supporter of Stephen's cloud brightening approach, and we both want it deployed as soon as possible. Stephen is a supporter of Peter Wadhams and the AMEG position, that geoengineering is urgently needed to try to save the sea ice. The sea ice is disappearing extraordinarily rapidly as Richard Black reports from the APPCCG presentation [4] and you can see from the graph of sea ice volume decline [5]. One can see from this graph that, if we are unlucky and the sea ice volume declines this summer as much as it did between the minimum in 2009 and 2010, i.e. ~2000 km-3, then it would halve the sea ice left this September. Such a collapse in volume is likely to be accompanied by a collapse in sea ice extent. With less heat flux going into melting the ice, there could be a sudden spurt in Arctic warming, making a reversal to restore the ice, by geoengineered cooling, extremely difficult if not impossible. A point of no return could be reached this summer. Therefore we are in a desperate situation. As I pointed out to the EAC, beggars can't be choosers, so we have to use available means to try and cool the Arctic quickly, and avoid any actions which could make this daunting task more difficult. Thus for example, we urged EAC to recommend an immediate halting of Arctic drilling because escape of methane (the main constituent of natural gas) would have a warming effect on the Arctic. Stephen was not at the EAC hearing on 21st February, but afterwards made it clear to the committee that he supported the AMEG position. Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. The signatories had apparently included Stephen Salter, but this was a mistake
RE: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
John (N) Taking yr 3 questions:- 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? Performing research is not doing nothing. It is a vital component of the total effort (as is fund-raising, unfortunately) and must precede deployment. This includes assessments of adverse consequences, seeking international agreement and field-testing the idea. Not to follow this route could SLOW DOWN geo-eng drastically, as argued earlier. 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? I did not say that, John. I said that I am not aware of any SRM scheme that has been optimally and exhaustively studied in the way defined above, and is therefore ready for deployment. In the case of MCB, we do not yet have a fully functioning spray production system. Our work on adverse consequences is far from completion.etc. Our modelling work provides us with encouragement to continue. 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? I suppose you could say that you issued warnings which were not listened to sufficiently. I could not. All of us are trying to help avoid the scenario you pose. It is healthy for us to fight, try to persuade, allow oneself to be persuaded. I may be completely wrong, John, but I think that the people who agree with you have - in some instances - a different interpretation of the scientific facts, or the completeness or general validity of them than people who do not.. If so, with time and tolerance, it should be possible to reach concerted agreement. You might like to know that we have initiated computational studies of the possible role of MCB in inhibiting coral bleaching. Should the work turn out to be potentially valuable, the required field-testing of the idea need only be on a small spatial scale. All Best, John (L). 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: John Nissen [j...@cloudworld.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 5:23 PM To: John Latham Cc: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; geoengineering; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Dear John, How I wish we had the time. We should have been doing what you suggest immediately after the crash in sea ice extent of September 2007 - a wake-up call. We have just left it far too late, and have no option but to try anything that might reduce the chance of a collapse in sea ice extent this year. If you just look at the PIOMAS graph of sea ice volume which is down 75% in three decades and compare it with the sea ice extent which is down 40%, it is obvious that the sea ice extent cannot hold out much longer while the ice continues thinning. There must be a great deal of heat going into melting the ice - and much of this heat is from the heating of open water by the sun when the sea ice retreats - i.e. from the albedo flip effect. After a collapse such that there's little sea ice left in September, there will be a spurt in Arctic warming, perhaps to double the current rate of warming. And after we have a nearly sea ice free Arctic ocean for six months, the warming could increase to triple or quadruple the current rate. Meanwhile there is the methane to contend with. There are already signs of an escalation of methane emissions from shallow seas of the continental shelf. That by itself would be cause for concern, since the sea ice retreat is allowing the seabed to warm well above the thaw point for methane hydrates. So I have three questions for you: 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? Kind regards, John --- On 18/03/2012 15:29, John Latham wrote: Hello John Nissen and All, John N says:- Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. The major stages of the required research involve modelling, resolution of all technological questions, examination
RE: [geo] tropospheric aerosol use
Hello All, Budyko’s points – re tropospheric vvs stratospheric aerosol - reiterated by Govindasamy Bala (below), in response to Nathan Currier’s question (also below) are clearly valid vis-à-vis cooling via scattering of solar radiation and concomitant global cooling. However, it does not follow that the effectiveness of stratospheric seeding is greater than that of the Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) geo-eng technique, which involves the (tropospheric) seeding of marine stratocumulus clouds with sea-water aerosol, in order to increase their droplet number concentration, and therefore their albedo (with concomitant global cooling). Latham et al (2008) presented arguments indicating that the ratio of the rate of planetary radiative loss to required operational power is very large (in the range 10**5 to 10**7 according to the type of vessel used for the continuous spraying required). They pointed out that the main reason why this ratio is so high for MCB is that Nature provides the energy required for the increase of surface area of newly activated cloud droplets by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude as they ascend to cloud top and reflect sunlight. All Best,John. 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 Govindasamy Bala [bala@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:52 AM To: natcurr...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] tropospheric aerosol use Climate changes by Budyko, on page 244, discusses why tropospheric aerosols are not as effective as stratospheric aerosols for climate modification. 1) life time is only a couple of weeks 2) Particle size becomes too big quickly and hence not effective for scattering 3) Presence of clouds make them less effective 4) absorption by aerosols of near IR shortwave could partially cancel the cooling by scattering. Bala On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.commailto:natcurr...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know of any published papers exploring the use of tropospheric aerosol use? cheers, Nathan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- Best wishes, --- Dr. G. Bala Associate Professor Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Indian Institute of Science Bangalore - 560 012 India Tel: +91 80 2293 3428 +91 80 2293 2075 Fax: +91 80 2360 0865 +91 80 2293 3425 Email: gb...@caos.iisc.ernet.inmailto:gb...@caos.iisc.ernet.in bala.govhttp://bala.gov@gmail.comhttp://gmail.com Web:http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/gbala.html --- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 geoengineering@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.
RE: [geo] Ballistics - failure to distinguish
Hello Andrew., You say Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar Radiation Management, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, you mean Stratospheric Sulphur Seeding, not SRM. Stratospheric Sulphur Seeding is certainly the SRM scheme that has attracted most attention, and I wish it well, but it is only one of several. Others include sunshades in space, Russell Seitz's micro-bubbles, painting roofs white cloud brightening. It is good to distinguish clearly between the all-embracing term SRM, and individual techniques in that category. I wouldnt have written at this point, but this lack of distinction has been made recently by others, too. Good luck with yr poster. All Best, John. 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 Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 11:55 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Ballistics The below will form the basis of my poster at PUP, and the subsequent paper. It's at a relatively early stage, and references haven't yet been added. Comments on or off list would be appreciated. Thanks A -- Ballistics for delivery of SRM materials - an engineering principles approach Introduction Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar Radiation Management has been proposed and appraised by various authors. Evaluation of technologies has been generally limited to redeployed military hardware, such as tank or battleship guns. Such technologies were not designed to deliver SRM materials, and are poorly suited to the purpose, leading to high cost estimates in previous analyses. The design of ballistic systems is reappraised with geoengineering use in mind, and a literature review of alternative launch technologies is given. The intent is to inform later engineering studies and cost analyses which may seek to design in detail, or to cost, a suitable gunnery system. Design requirements Modern military weapons *Infrequent firing *Portable/vehicle mounted *Operating costs relatively unimportant *Accuracy critical *Shells never recovered Geoengineering guns *Frequent or continuous firing *Potentially static *Operating costs relatively important *Accuracy relatively unimportant *Shells may be recovered Engineering differences --- The objectives listed above will result in geoengineering guns being very different from military weapons. Below are detailed a range of design principles to guide the development of appropriate guns. *Large calibre: Energy costs are reduced substantially by the lower aerodynamic drag per payload kilo on larger rounds (assuming constant shape). *Static installation: Guns will likely be stationary, but may rotate to disperse projectiles widely. *Elevated, mid latitude firing position: Firing from a tall tower or mountain top will reduce muzzle velocities significantly, both by increasing altitude and limiting aerodynamic drag. It will therefore reduce propellant costs and require a less robust shell. Inserting precursors into the ascending arm of the Brewer-Dobson circulation may also reduce insertion altitudes, as well as aiding dispersion. As an alternative, an ocean-submerged gun could be used, which will allow easy repositioning and reorientation, as well as a very long barrel. However, submerged guns will necessarily require a longer trajectory through thicker atmospheric strata to attain the same elevations. *Barrel length unrestricted: Static guns can use long barrels. This means lower pressures are needed, as the propellant can act for longer. This will permit less robust shell designs. *Barrel wear costs are significant: Conventional barrels need relining or replacing regularly due to the friction between the projectile and the barrel. System design which minimises barrel wear is important. (See projectile design, below) *Propellant costs are significant: Hydrocarbon fuel/air mixtures are alternatives for evaluation. *Accuracy is unimportant: Minor trajectory changes resulting from barrel distortions and sub-calibre projectile designs are largely irrelevant. This allows a lighter barrel with a lower-friction fit. *Shell costs are significant: Within the limits of a given manufacturing technique, costs generally fall with a larger shell, as the ratio of volume/surface area changes with size. Further, lower pressures resulting from a longer barrel allow the use of less robust shells than would otherwise be the case. *Externally stabilised barrel: Military barrels are typically self-supporting, whereas a scaffolding can be built to stabilise
RE: [geo] Ballistics - failure to distinguish
Hello All, Please see below message from Roger Angel All Best John (Latham) Hello Roger, I've sent on yr message (below), as requested, to: [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] Good to hear from you, John. ** 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: Roger Angel [ang...@email.arizona.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:59 PM To: John Latham Subject: Re: [geo] Ballistics - failure to distinguish Hi John, I sent the following reply to the geo group, but I don't think it went through. I have not sent anything for a long while, though I get it all. You may want to circulate it. Thanks, Roger Angel Re: Ballistics - failure to distinguish Another reason to distinguish carefully - the lowest energy solution to get sulphur to the stratosphere will get there with zero velocity. Technology for orbiting will in general be mismatched because of the premium on very high velocities. - Roger Angel On 3/14/2012 12:46 PM, John Latham wrote: Hello Andrew., You say Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar Radiation Management, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, you mean Stratospheric Sulphur Seeding, not SRM. Stratospheric Sulphur Seeding is certainly the SRM scheme that has attracted most attention, and I wish it well, but it is only one of several. Others include sunshades in space, Russell Seitz's micro-bubbles, painting roofs white cloud brightening. It is good to distinguish clearly between the all-embracing term SRM, and individual techniques in that category. I wouldnt have written at this point, but this lack of distinction has been made recently by others, too. Good luck with yr poster. All Best, John. 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 Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 11:55 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Ballistics The below will form the basis of my poster at PUP, and the subsequent paper. It's at a relatively early stage, and references haven't yet been added. Comments on or off list would be appreciated. Thanks A -- Ballistics for delivery of SRM materials - an engineering principles approach Introduction Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar Radiation Management has been proposed and appraised by various authors. Evaluation of technologies has been generally limited to redeployed military hardware, such as tank or battleship guns. Such technologies were not designed to deliver SRM materials, and are poorly suited to the purpose, leading to high cost estimates in previous analyses. The design of ballistic systems is reappraised with geoengineering use in mind, and a literature review of alternative launch technologies is given. The intent is to inform later engineering studies and cost analyses which may seek to design in detail, or to cost, a suitable gunnery system. Design requirements Modern military weapons *Infrequent firing *Portable/vehicle mounted *Operating costs relatively unimportant *Accuracy critical *Shells never recovered Geoengineering guns *Frequent or continuous firing *Potentially static *Operating costs relatively important *Accuracy relatively unimportant *Shells may be recovered Engineering differences --- The objectives listed above will result in geoengineering guns being very different from military weapons. Below are detailed a range of design principles to guide the development of appropriate guns. *Large calibre: Energy costs are reduced substantially by the lower aerodynamic drag per payload kilo on larger rounds (assuming constant shape). *Static installation: Guns will likely be stationary, but may rotate to disperse projectiles widely. *Elevated, mid latitude firing position: Firing from a tall tower or mountain top will reduce muzzle velocities significantly, both by increasing altitude and limiting aerodynamic drag. It will therefore reduce propellant costs and require a less robust shell. Inserting precursors into the ascending arm of the Brewer-Dobson circulation may also reduce insertion altitudes
[geo] Electromagnetic Forced Precipitation.
[geoengineering@googlegroups.com];[kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu];[s.sal...@ed.ac.uk]
Electromagnetic Forced Precipitation.
Hello All,
The following comments are presented diffidently, because I
do not have sufficient info re the physics observational evidence
to be categoric.
However, our Atmos. Phys. Res. Group at the U of Manchester {and similar groups
in many countries) have performed field, laboratory and computational
research over several decades into topics such as:- ice crystal aggregation;
rain formation,
droplet coalescence; the influence of electrostatic forces on the above
processes,
field studies of the influence of cloud seeding on precipitation formation and
amounts,
electrostatic dissipation of fogs etc etc. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers
have been published
on this work.
I realize that the proposed electromagnetic forced precipitation techniques is
different from the techniques employed in the earlier work, but there are
common features/problems applying to these techniques. An important one is
that of spatial scale. To be of practical consequence, the proposed cloud
clearance technique would need to able to cover an enormous area of
ever-changing clouds, as the cloud particles are continuously being created and
destroyed. Also, the separation of adjacent particles in these clouds would be
at least a hundred diameters. Nature is very efficient at forming clouds, if
the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere is appropriate.
I seems to me that before considering this interesting idea as an effective
geo-engineering candidate, it needs to be much more fully examined and defined,
ideally by several independent groups, and be multiply published in top-rank
journals, with the papers subjected to rigorous and comprehensive peer review.
Happy New Year!, John. {lat...@ucar.edu}
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: Stephen Salter [s.sal...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 3:04 PM
To: John Latham
Cc: John Nissen; Sam Carana; Malcolm Light; Graham Innes; Jon Hughes
Subject: Cloud clearing beams
John and John
I mentioned the possibility of winter cloud clearance over the Arctic
by means of electromagnetic radiation along the lines suggested by
Russian rain makers. When I was last in Abu Dhabi I was asked about
Russian work there. I saw some bits of kit out in the desert but could
not get any details. I can see that a transmission with a half wave
length which was equal to the separation of a pair of ice crystals might
make them attract one another and that, in a random soup of crystals,
many would by chance hit the sweet separation distance. But I have no
idea about the power level needed to make them collide. The surface
tension forces on small water drops are immensely strong and the Weber
number for collision has be over one but less than 12 to make then
coalesce. Ice crystals might lock together more easily.
The most respectable reference I have been able to trace is at
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/electric-rainmaking-technology-gets-mexicos-blessing
IEEE will not have published many articles about snake oil. However
this was back in 2004 and it they had the funding indicated and it had
worked we should have heard more about it since then.
However there are a fragments dated 2011 at
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/rainmakerits-electrical/
and
http://www.livescience.com/10398-rainmaking-middle-eastern-desert-success-scam.html
some of which is a rehash of IEEE. Hartmut Grassl is a real person ex
Max Planck. Perhaps someone could get an opinion from him.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
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
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
RE: [geo] RE: Aerosol engineers: Intergenerational criminals?
Hello Steve, Thank you for your sensitive comments. I look fwd to reading yr papers as soon as my recovery from eye surgery is a little more advanced. All Best Wishes, John. 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: Stephen Gardiner [smg...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 3:32 PM To: John Latham Cc: r...@llnl.gov; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; kl...@psu.edu Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Aerosol engineers: Intergenerational criminals? Dear All, For whatever it is worth, I've tried to make sense of some of this dispute in a couple of papers. What I call the 'arm the future argument' - which seems to be being offered here - is itself an ethical one. However, it is usually presented as if it is a simple and decisive rebuttal to ethical concerns. I don't think that it is simple, or decisive. I also argue that it underestimates the wider ethical questions, and - in particular - what so bothers some people (including some scientists) about the geoengineering turn. None of this implies, or relies on, claims such as that geoengineering research is an inherently bad thing, should be prohibited, etc. But it does cast the whole question in a different light. (A light, I hasten to add, that it is not clear to me that Greg and John need to resist.) Respectfully, Steve Gardiner P.s. One paper is directly on the arm the future argument; the other is on the Royal Society report, and includes some relevant discussion (e.g., 172-176). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
[geo] RE: Aerosol engineers: Intergenerational criminals?
Hello All, I agree entirely with Greg’s points, and would like to make a few additional ones. A minor one:- In their paper,the authors discuss “Aerosol Geoengineering” but actually are entirely focused on one Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technique, to do with stratospheric seeding. There are other aerosol-based techniques to consider, including Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) which I happen to be involved with, which is concerned with seeding tropospheric maritime clouds, in order to enhance their albedo. The time-constant for aerosol removal is in this case a few days. More importantly, I accept the validity of the argument that the development of a workable, or at least promising, method for reducing or eliminating global temperature rise and concomitant adverse effects might give the oil companies and governmental accomplices a further excuse for continuing to foster the burning of fossil fuels. However, since there is no reason to trust that they will ever have any other goal than monetary gain, it seems on balance vital to examine thoroughly – not deploy – any idea which offers a significant hope of keeping the Earth habitable until some alternative, clean source of energy can be developed and globally adopted. All potentially viable SRM techniques should be subjected to the closest possible authoritative scrutiny and discarded if they possess any significant adverse consequences that cannot be rectified. If they pass this test they should be put on the shelf, in the hope that they will never be needed, yet available in the event of a crisis that they have a reasonable prospect of being able to ameliorate. SRM techniques are not a solution, but merely a stopgap. But we may be sorely in need of one before long. Everyone has the right to do nothing new, and die with a clear conscience. But in the interests of bequeathing to all grandchildren, not just ours, the prospect of a fruitful future, I believe that we should put major effort into examining ways of escaping from the dire situation that we, citizens of the rich countries, have created. Best Wishes, John Latham lat...@ucar.edu 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 Rau, Greg [r...@llnl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:47 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: kl...@psu.edu Subject: [geo] Aersol engineers: Intergenerational criminals? Substituting aerosol geoengineering for greenhouse gas emissions abatements constitutes a conscious risk transfer to future generations, in violation of principles of intergenerational justice which demands that present generations should not create benefits for themselves in exchange for burdens on future generations. OK, but what happens if sufficent greenhouse gas abatements don't/can't happen? Aren't we also intergenerational criminals if we fail to make sure that there are no other alternatives for maintaining earth habitability? - Greg From: Lashgari, Ash@ARB [klash...@arb.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:17 PM Subject: The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering - please do not distribute The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering Marlos Goes, Nancy Tuana and Klaus Keller From the issue entitled Climatic Change Letters | Edited by Michael Oppenheimer | pages 791-825 Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth’s climate and impose substantial risks for current and future generations. What are scientifically sound, economically viable, and ethically defendable strategies to manage these climate risks? Ratified international agreements call for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Recent proposals, however, call for a different approach: to geoengineer climate by injecting aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. Published economic studies typically neglect the risks of aerosol geoengineering due to (i) the potential for a failure to sustain the aerosol forcing and (ii) the negative impacts associated with the aerosol forcing. Here we use a simple integrated assessment model of climate change to analyze potential economic impacts of aerosol geoengineering strategies over a wide range of uncertain parameters such as climate sensitivity, the economic damages due to climate change, and the economic damages due to aerosol geoengineering forcing. The simplicity of the model provides the advantages of parsimony and transparency, but it also imposes severe caveats on the interpretation of the results
RE: [geo] Thunder and lightning - ja
Hello Andrew, The development of lectric fields in thunderstorms is produced by the rebounding collisions of ice crystals with small hail (graupel) in the presence of supercooled water droplets.To produce appreciable lightning significant atmospheric instability is required and the clouds need to be at least 3 or 4 Km deep, with cloud-top temperature colder tharn -20C. Updraught speeds of at least 6-10m/s are required , and are often much greater.The amount of energy involved is prodigious. The only possible route to change thunderstorm activity that I am aware of is to over-seed them with ice-forming particles - silver iodide the best known material - so that hail formation is suppressed (thus associated hail damage), with a reduction of lightning activity, which I think is not what you want. Basically, I feel that thunderstorms are too energetic and localised for significant modification. In my view the same is true for hurricanes. Far better, in the latter case, to use some scheme for cooling the surface waters in regions where hurricanes form(via Marine Cloud Brighteing (see AGU poster) or the Seitz microbubble approach).in order to weaken the hurricane development. Cheers,John. lat...@ucar.edu 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 Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 8:00 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Thunder and lightning Lightning creates NOx which degrades methane. It's a major source of natural NOx, I'm advised. This is likely climate significant, although I don't have figures. Thunderstorms also redistribute heat and moisture, although I'm not sure if either is significant. We've looked at killing hurricanes. Could we use a similar but reverse approach to make thunderstorms? A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 geoengineering@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.
RE: [geo] GEOENGINEERING IMPLICATIONS: Adapting to Climate Change - Issue 19
Hello Albert, Stephen Salter has done a great deal of worl on this! Cheers,John. 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 Veli Albert Kallio [albert_kal...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:31 AM To: Geoengineering FIPC Subject: [geo] GEOENGINEERING IMPLICATIONS: Adapting to Climate Change - Issue 19 I have recenly been occupied many non-geoengineering aspects of climate change, but today I received email from UK Met Office which is good news for SRM geoengineers. There are clear geoengineering potential arising from the latest research that the surface ocean warming has been halted by heat transport into the deep ocean: An artificial heat pumps or deflecting sea currents to dive deeper by some barrier would help to cool the climate temporarily and buy time to address the emissions. This suggests good SRM methods could be devised to hide the sun's heat under the carpet of surface waters: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/ocean-warming Kind regards, Albert From: metoff...@ma001.com To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com Subject: Adapting to Climate Change - Issue 19 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:00:09 +0100 If this email appears distorted please view our onlinehttp://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130302C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C version. http://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130312C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C If this email appears distorted please view our online versionhttp://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130322C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C [http://info.ma002.com/anony/newsletters/C4/files/650wideebannerglobe.jpg]http://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130332C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C [http://info.ma002.com/anony/newsletters/C4/files/MA3003e_menuTop_650.jpg] Climate change factshttp://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130342C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C Latest weatherhttp://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130352C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C Climate Change Centrehttp://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130362C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C Contact ushttp://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130372C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C Insider Make a difference with the latest climate change news, views and findings from the Met Office Dear Veli Albert, Factoring in climate change isn’t easy, but our science is already providing real help to people and businesses. Highlights in this issue of Insider include helping businesses factor in climate risk into long-term decisions and providing advice on the financial risks associated with climate variability. Exploring the potential consequences of climate change helps prepare for the opportunities and threats it may bring. This newsletter covers examples of collaborations with industry and academics. Read on to discover how, by working together, we can make more informed choices on climate change. StormTracker [http://info.ma002.com/anony/newsletters/C4/files/Climate_change_newsletter/hurricane.gif] Hurricane Irene highlighted the importance of having accurate information to evaluate risk and aid decision making. StormTracker, our new tropical storm prediction service, provides a complete mapped picture of the latest forecasts and tracks of tropical storms across the globe. With forecast tracks for tropical storms up to 15 days ahead, StormTracker also enables the comparison of past and present storms. A basic version of StormTracker is available for free. Find out more about StormTrackerhttp://info.ma002.com/anony/articles.asp?link=%2a3130382C303930382C43342C32353132393_23936332C68746D6C2C2C382C2C323836332C [http://info.ma002.com/anony/newsletters/C4/files/MA3003n_spacer.gif] Warming break explained [http://info.ma002.com/anony/newsletters/C4/files/Climate_change_newsletter/seatemp.gif] Research from the Met Office and the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) shows how natural climate variability can temporarily hide longer-term trends in upper ocean heat content and sea-surface temperature. Climate model simulations explain why the world's oceans have seen a recent pause in warming despite continued increases
Cloud Brightening:[geo] Geoengineering at EGU 2011, April 3-8
. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 geoengineering@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.
Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested? Cloud whitening - More!
* * * Hello again Alan, It is true that to absolutely KNOW things in this virgin and complex territory is extremely difficult, but to take your points:- I imagine a field experiment extending over perhaps 6 weeks, in order to encompass a variety of meteorological conditions.. Three days is a rough figure for the estimated average duration in the atmosphere of the sprayed seawater aerosol, almost all of which will fall back into the oceans. Unless this late-night calculation is wrong, the ratio of the area of the earth to the 100 x 100 km seeded area is about 50,000, although there is bound to be some influence outside this seeding area, as you surmise. The number of seawater aerosol introduced naturally into the oceanic atmosphere via white-capping etc would be much greater than that resulting from our spraying . If our technique worked as we hope ? which requires satisfactory resolution of technological and other problems ? the seeding could produce a local cloud-albedo enhancement of around 20 to 30%, which should be readily detectable via satellite and in-cloud measurements. Best Wishes, John. Quoting Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu: 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.edu http://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 SciencesPhone: +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
Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be 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.
Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
I think Bill is absolutely right. I too agree with John N's concerns, but the next step should be - I believe - an adequately funded RD effort to examine thoroughly those few SRM ideas that have some prospect of being affordable and quantitatively adequate, if deployed. It seems to me quite likely that two such techniques acting in concert could prove to be significantly more powerful and flexible than one acting alone.. All best,John (L). Quoting William Fulkerson wf...@utk.edu: Dear John: You know that I agree fully with your concerns about the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, but I can¹t sign your letter. I am tired of calls for a new Manhattan Project. The Arctic does not require it. What is required is a fully funded RDD effort (multilateral if possible) to understand better the importance of the consequences from loosing summer sea ice and of applying solar radiation management techniques to arrest it. The RDD should be carried out under the rules suggested at the Asilomar Conference. We need to give John Holdren a well thought out proposal. As far as I know no such proposal has been written by anyone except by Ehsan Khan of DOE early in the decade, and the draft report was finally released last year . The America¹s Climate Choices report of the NAS has not yet been released. I know, however, that geoengineering was covered in the science part of the reports and in the mitigation part, I believe, but I haven¹t seen them yet. I attended the geoengineering workshop that was part of this study. With best regards, Bill On 7/11/10 1:38 AM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote: In view of the situation in the Arctic, I would be grateful for support for an open letter to John Holdren, along the following lines. Please let me know whether you agree with this text and whether you'd be happy for me to add your name at the bottom. Cheers, John --- To John P Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy Dear Dr Holdren, The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the Earth. The sea ice has been retreating far faster than the IPCC predicted only three years ago [1]. But, after the record retreat in September 2007, many scientists revised their predictions for the date of a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean from beyond the end of century to beyond 2030. Only a few scientists predicted this event for the coming decade, and they were ridiculed. In 2008 and 2009 there was only a slight recovery in end-summer sea ice extent, and it appears that the minimum 2010 extent will be close to a new record [2]. However the evidence from PIOMAS is that there has been a very sharp decline in volume [3], which is very worrying. The Arctic warming is now accelerating, and we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from as early as 2011 onwards, which will lead inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change. All this could become apparent if the sea ice retreats further than ever before this summer. We could be approaching a point of no return unless emergency action is taken. We suggest that the current situation should be treated as a warning for us all. The world community must rethink its attitude to fighting global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions sharply. However, even if emissions could be cut to zero, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to warm the planet for many decades. Geoengineering now appears the only means to cool the Arctic quickly enough. A geoengineering project of the intensity of the Manhattan Project is urgently needed to guard against a global catastrophe. Yours sincerely, John Nissen [Other names to be added here.] [1] Stroeve et al, May 2007 http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf [2] http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png [3] http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100608_Figure5.png -- 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.
[geo] Impact of cloud brightening on rainfall over land: Science News geoengineering story
paragraph reads /In summary, prior studies have suggested that offsetting global warming by reflecting sunlight to space would result in a drying of the continents. In contrast, our study indicates that reflecting sunlight to space by reducing cloud droplet size over the oceans could lead, on average, to a moistening of the continents. /The Bala paper is too big to attach to an email but you can download a copy from the root of the file below my signature. The difference is very important and your article could affect decisions on research funding. May I ask you to look into the matter? Stephen Salter / / Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs[1] http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs Erika Engelhaupt wrote: My feature story on geoengineering is out in the June 5 issue of Science News, which you should be receiving a complimentary copy of in the mail. In the meantime, here is a link to the online version, where you can also see the illustration featured on our cover: http://www.sciencenews.org/index/feature/activity/view/id/59391/title/Engineering_a_cooler_Earth (A better view of the cover is up on /Science News/’ Facebook site: http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?pid=4002108id=35695491869http://www.facebook.com/#%21/photo.php?pid=4002108id=35695491869 http://www.facebook.com/#%21/photo.php?pid=4002108id=35695491869 ) /Science News/ is now also available on select Barnes Noble and Borders newsstands nationwide, although I’m not sure if they’ve received the new issue quite yet. I hope you enjoy the story and find that I’ve balanced the issues fairly—there was much more that I would have liked to have included if I’d had more space. Best regards, Erika Erika Engelhaupt Deputy News Editor /Science News/// -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Climate Intervention group. To post to this group, send email to climateintervent...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateintervention+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comclimateintervention%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?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) Links: -- [1] http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs -- 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.
Re: [geo] Polar Sea-Ice Maintenance - SRM time-frames
afloat and wafting spray into marine clouds. If I am to feel reasonably safe for my children, the SRM with aerosols would be be started this year, to at least to establish an engineering solution that could be quickly scaled up. Cheers, John --- John Latham wrote: * * * * To:- geoengineering@googlegroups.com,climateintervent...@googlegroups.com From:- john latham lat...@ucar.edu Hello All, Yesterday?s contributions from Alan Robock, Gregory Benford and Kelly Wanser are very useful in highlighting a variety of important, delicate and unresolved questions regarding geoengineering, especially SRM ideas and polar ice cover. I agree with Kelly that although Paul Crutzen?s stratospheric sulfur idea is the long-standing front-runner amongst the SRM schemes and should certainly be fully funded for comprehensive examination, the focus on it as against other SRM schemes ? especially cloud whitening ? has perhaps been somewhat excessive. Two independent recent papers, employing very different models, indicate that ? subject to satisfactory resolution of each one of a number of crucial questions regarding technological, cloud behavior and adverse consequence issues, which may of course not be achieved ? the cloud whitening scheme, deployed in a 2xCO2 atmosphere, could maintain the sea-ice coverage at both poles (and also globally averaged surface temperature) at approximately current values, although the geographical distributions would be different from at present. I attach a recently published paper by Rasch et al. which gives more detail on some of this work. I agree with Kelly that should it ever be generally deemed that SRM geoengineering was necessary, and if intensive research showed that both above-mentioned schemes were technologically feasible, with no unacceptable adverse consequences, then using them both in concert may well be optimal, as more flexibility would thereby exist. Cheers, John. -- 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.
[geo] Nathan Myhrvold argues for geoengineering: two schemes better than one?
* Hello John et al, Thank you, John, for drawing attention to the fascinating Nathan Myhrvold interview. In my view the stratospheric seeding SRM scheme developed by Nathan, Lowell Wood (both colossally brilliant and creative scientists) and others is very likely to work effectively if it were to be deployed: and funding for an examination of the idea and its ramifications should be made available as a matter of urgency. I?d argue also that two eggs in the basket are better than one, and that the cloud whitening (cloud albedo enhancement) scheme also holds significant promise of being able to stabilize the Earth?s temperature and polar sea-ice cover at about current values for some decades into the future ? at least until the 2xCO2 point. To examine this statement please read the just-published paper on this idea, by Rasch, Latham Chen, in the special geo-engineering issue of Env. Res. Lett., edited by Ken Caldeira David Keith, link http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/4/045112 Figure 2 of this paper, emanating from fully-coupled atmosphere/ocean GCM computations, illustrates how the proposed maritime cloud seeding, conducted in a 2xCO2 situation, can restore sea-ice cover to values existing at 1xCO2. I?d also point out that the cloud seeding produces its maximum cooling in the polar regions. Pursuing a little further the eggs-in-basket metaphor, it seems possible that although both the stratospheric sulphur and maritime cloud seeding schemes ? if technological and other problems were satisfactorily resolved ? could both prove to be independently able to ?buy significant time?, they might, acting in concert prove to be more powerful and flexible than either acting alone. One possible scenario is that the bulk of the cooling would result from stratospheric scheme while cloud whitening ? which is in principle capable of making localized (as well as global) changes ? could provide fine tuning in important selected areas. All Best, John (lat...@ucar.edu)12/27/09 *** Quoting John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk: Hi all, Have you seen this? Best case for SRM in Arctic I've seen! Inventor Nathan Myhrvold describes space hose for getting aerosols into stratosphere - and he's done the modelling to show it could be used at the Arctic, to cool whole hemisphere, without disrupting weather (see about 9 minutes in). Cooling the Arctic shuts of a whole lot of tipping points. It shows incredible promise, but governments aren't running to him - so far. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn Suppressing the only technology that could get us out of this pickle... would be plain silly. He argues (as nobody I've seen to argue before), that even emissions reduction to zero overnight, would not solve the problem of global warming, because about 20% CO2 stays in atmosphere for thousands of years. Geoengineering has to be part of the debate. We have to examine the options. You can't rule these things out. Cheers, John -- 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.
[geo] Rasch Latham Chen paper on Cloud Whitening polar Ice Cover etc
To:- geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Hello All, A paper Geo-engineering by cloud seeding: influence on sea-ice and climate system by Phil Rasch, John Latham Jack Chen has just been published online in the geo-eng special issue of Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009) 045112. It's primary focus is on the influence of marine cloud seeding on polar ice cover, but it also touches on global surface temperature and rainfall rate changes..It is available at http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/4/045112 Comments welcomed! Cheers, John lat...@ucar.edu PS I hope it cheers you up a little, John (Nissen) -- 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.
[geo] Re: cloud seeding - need for research
Hello Neil, Andrew et al. Cloud seeding (principally to make rain) has had a long and highly chequered history in the 60 years since Vonnegut, Schaefer Langmuir did their pioneering work. Many studies since then were contaminated by commercial interests. There is no essentially no consensus as to whether and under what circumstances it will work. This is especially true for clouds that contain ice. Whether seeding will enhance, reduce or have negligible effect on such clouds depends on: atmospheric stability, cloud-base temperature, updraught speed, presence or absence of conditions in which natural secondary can function, level and location etc etc. I think there is good reason to feel sceptical of studies reporting quantitative estimates of changes induced by seeding. My view is that - as with several geoengineering schemes - what is urgently required is well-controlled , comprehensive field experiments. Only then will it be possible to establish whether cloud seeding might, on a regional scale, be important vis-a-vis climate change. Cheers, John. Quoting Neil Farbstein pro...@att.net: I'm glad we agree. Small cloud seeding experiments over Greenland should be practical. We should give this some thought and modeling. Can you do that at your lab? Google satellite pictures and weather satellites can locate clouds that are likely targets to seed; The bigger clouds in the places that are most strategic. An international organization or groups of industrialized nations can pay the local residents or the greenland government subsidies for participating in the cloud seeding program. On Dec 15, 8:27 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: For clarity, the main reason my for suggesting cloud seeding is that it can be used to build up greenland to a height where the air temperature is low enough to sustain the ice sheet. The could potentially reverse the catastrophic Greenland tipping point - which will unleash several metres of sea level rise over a few hundred years. Game over for London, Venice, Florida, New York, etc. if that happens. Worth a bit of jet fuel or a few rockets to prevent that, I'd argue. A 2009/12/15 Neil Farbstein pro...@att.net I suggested the same cloud seeding strategy a month ago. Somebody authoritative said that the biggest snowfall recorded over the alaskan arctic caused the biggest melt water recorded during the spring. That's anecdotal evidence but I dropped the idea of working on that anyway. There wont be a melt water problem if clouds are seeded over large parts of the gulfstream to cool it and the winds that blow off it. On Dec 15, 5:47 am, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I note the use of cloud seeding by the Chinese, and its unexpected effect in causing huge snowfalls in Beijing. It seems that there may be two useful geoengineering approaches with this technique, and I'd be interested in hearing comments. 1) Rebuild ice - by inducing snowfalls over Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, it would perhaps be possible to maintain ice. In Greenland, where the height of the ice cap is critical, this would seem a particularly appealing prospect. 2) Albedo modification - Fresh snow is whiter than old snow, especially in polluted areas. Is the albedo change worth pursuing? My guess is not. HOWEVER, I suspect that triggering significant autumn and spring snowfalls in permafrost regions, we could potentially significantly modify albedo. I invite comments. A -- 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.comgeoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.
Re: [geo] Re: cloud seeding - need for research - ja
Hello Mike et al, I agree entirely with you Mike that seeding can cause ice fogs to disperse. Also electrostatic droplet seeding could help dissipate warm fogs. I should have more carefully indicated that I was focusing on seeding of clouds containing ice, and particularly mixed-phase clouds. Cheers, John. Quoting Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net: With one exception, I agree with John. The exception is that I think it has been demonstrated that one can clear an ice fog with seeding, and this has been done to open airports, etc.--not to generate precipitation (in any form). I would add that the water vapor content of air and clouds above Greenland is likely so low that one could not be likely to get a significant buildup of snow. Whether one could seed storms or change sea surface temperatures in surrounding areas in a way that would lead to greater likelihood of storms depositing snow on Greenland (or Antarctica, etc.) has not, to my knowledge, been looked at at all. Mike On 12/16/09 4:00 AM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Hello Neil, Andrew et al. Cloud seeding (principally to make rain) has had a long and highly chequered history in the 60 years since Vonnegut, Schaefer Langmuir did their pioneering work. Many studies since then were contaminated by commercial interests. There is no essentially no consensus as to whether and under what circumstances it will work. This is especially true for clouds that contain ice. Whether seeding will enhance, reduce or have negligible effect on such clouds depends on: atmospheric stability, cloud-base temperature, updraught speed, presence or absence of conditions in which natural secondary can function, level and location etc etc. I think there is good reason to feel sceptical of studies reporting quantitative estimates of changes induced by seeding. My view is that - as with several geoengineering schemes - what is urgently required is well-controlled , comprehensive field experiments. Only then will it be possible to establish whether cloud seeding might, on a regional scale, be important vis-a-vis climate change. Cheers, John. Quoting Neil Farbstein pro...@att.net: I'm glad we agree. Small cloud seeding experiments over Greenland should be practical. We should give this some thought and modeling. Can you do that at your lab? Google satellite pictures and weather satellites can locate clouds that are likely targets to seed; The bigger clouds in the places that are most strategic. An international organization or groups of industrialized nations can pay the local residents or the greenland government subsidies for participating in the cloud seeding program. On Dec 15, 8:27 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: For clarity, the main reason my for suggesting cloud seeding is that it can be used to build up greenland to a height where the air temperature is low enough to sustain the ice sheet. The could potentially reverse the catastrophic Greenland tipping point - which will unleash several metres of sea level rise over a few hundred years. Game over for London, Venice, Florida, New York, etc. if that happens. Worth a bit of jet fuel or a few rockets to prevent that, I'd argue. A 2009/12/15 Neil Farbstein pro...@att.net I suggested the same cloud seeding strategy a month ago. Somebody authoritative said that the biggest snowfall recorded over the alaskan arctic caused the biggest melt water recorded during the spring. That's anecdotal evidence but I dropped the idea of working on that anyway. There wont be a melt water problem if clouds are seeded over large parts of the gulfstream to cool it and the winds that blow off it. On Dec 15, 5:47 am, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I note the use of cloud seeding by the Chinese, and its unexpected effect in causing huge snowfalls in Beijing. It seems that there may be two useful geoengineering approaches with this technique, and I'd be interested in hearing comments. 1) Rebuild ice - by inducing snowfalls over Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, it would perhaps be possible to maintain ice. In Greenland, where the height of the ice cap is critical, this would seem a particularly appealing prospect. 2) Albedo modification - Fresh snow is whiter than old snow, especially in polluted areas. Is the albedo change worth pursuing? My guess is not. HOWEVER, I suspect that triggering significant autumn and spring snowfalls in permafrost regions, we could potentially significantly modify albedo. I invite comments. A -- 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
RE: [geo] Greenland ice sheet - tipping in progress
Hello Oliver et al., Just to add that our computations producing the graphics mentioned are spearheaded by Phil Rasch, ably supported by Jack Chen. We hope soon to be able to provide considerably more information on this work. All Best,John. Quoting Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org: I just saw some of John Latham's graphics (shown by John Shepherd in lecture in Oxford today) on effects of increasing marine cloud reflectance by saline droplets and the biggest insolation differentials are in the tropical oceans where you are getting 50W/m2. One idea might be to deploy the boats in the tropical / subtropical Atlantic and so reduce the temperature of the North Atlantic Drift, as it is this warm water flux that is surely doing much of the sea ice melting. This may be a necessary adjunct to directly cooling the Arctic as otherwise you are not doing any cooling in the winter when the Arctic ocean is all frozen up (still) - and in any case there is no sunshine to reflect away. Or indeed this may just a more effective approach in all seasons. Anyone up for some modelling? One further thought of Shepherd's is that you have to balance any Arctic cooling with Antarctic cooling, or run risk of N-S shift of jet stream, monsoon etc. Best, Oliver. _ From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk] Sent: 18 November 2009 14:32 To: Oliver Tickell Cc: 'Veli Albert Kallio'; m.hu...@uea.ac.uk; 'John Davies'; christ...@christianclot.com; 'Edward Hanna'; 'R.D. Schuiling'; John Latham; Geoengineering; P. Wadhams; Mark Serreze Subject: Re: [geo] Greenland ice sheet - tipping in progress Hi Oliver, I think we should all be extremely alarmed by what Albert has said!! So a plan of action is urgently needed. I've been talking about this with Albert, on and off, for nearly two years now. Somehow we have to stabilise the Greenland ice sheet. But if we do not save the Arctic sea ice, it is highly unlikely that we can save the Greenland ice sheet. Albert estimates that the Greenland ice sheet could become unstable within 5 years of end-summer disappearance of the Arctic sea ice. Moreover, once this end-summer disappearance has happened, it is highly unlikely that the sea ice can be restored and eventually it will be gone throughout the year. The approaches to trying to stabilise the Greenland ice sheet (either directly or indirectly through saving the sea ice) mainly fall into two categories: mechanical/hydrological techniques, and solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. I also mention a third, concerning Siberia and Canada, which hasn't been discussed much, to my knowledge. 1. Mechanical/hydrological techniques At first Albert and I discussed techniques, such as ice barriers, river diversion and blocking up moulins. Such techniques have generally been dismissed by other experts, such as Peter Wadhams, and they are unlikely to succeed in stabilising the Greenland ice sheet on their own. However they could be a step in the right direction, and perhaps buy a little time for SRM to get going. Ice barriers would be used to stop the flow of ice to the south between islands, or to prevent icebergs leaving fiords. We are not sure that they would work - or rather could be designedto work effectively. Albert has considered diversions of Russian rivers flowing into the Arctic ocean, as they transfer considerable heat in the process. These would be massive projects, probably taking years to complete. However they might not work as intended, since the fresh water decreases salinity of the ocean, making it easier to freeze. Also there is the possibility of spraying, or otherwise distributing, the fresh river water over existing sea ice to thicken it in winter. I don't know how much thought anybody has given to this - e.g. whether it would work. The blocking of moulins is an interesting possibility - Albert has suggested using plugs of ultra-cold material - I have wondered about using pykrete. This might be done at end summer, when the moulins are of maximum size. The costs of barriers and river diversions would be typical of very large construction projects, perhaps a few billion dollars - but essentially one off. The cost of blocking up moulins would be ongoing. Operating in Greenland is extremely expensive, but we would be talking of perhaps millions of dollars per year rather than billions. 2. SRM geoengineering techniques I had hoped we could have got SRM geoengineering off the ground by now, but it looks as if it could be too late, unless we are lucky and Albert is wrong on the timescale. Unfortunately almost all other experts on the Arctic have proved optimistic. (Mark Serreze might have some comment here.) The main thought is to try and save the Arctic sea ice, rather than deal with the Greenland ice sheet directly. There are three approaches that I know of: stratospheric aerosols, marine cloud brightening
[geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback - ja
Hello All, I think this is an interesting and seemingly authoritative observational study, with some so far limited modelling support.It will be valuable to ascertain whether the findings - at the moment limited to low clouds over the NE Pacific - are reproduced globally, and confirmed in other models.. If we assume that they are, it is pertinent to ask what the implications are vis-a-vis solar radiation management geoengineering schemes. If, as with our cloud albedo enhancement scheme, the idea is - as far as possible - to stabilise the Earth's average surface temperature, probably at current values, by varying the cooling in concert with the warming, the cloud cover / temperature positive feedback relationship would not come in to play. If, for any reason, we wished to produce an overall smallish cooling - for example to cool ocean waters in order to try to reduce the energy of hurricanes that subsequently form in those regions - the positive feedback should reinforce the geo-engineered cooling. So Steve should not sigh too deeply. All Best, John. Quoting Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com: From reading the paper, it seems that the reason for less clouds with higher SST due to CO2 forcing is due in part to a much quieter ocean, i.e., less wind and less waves. The way that CCN from DMS from marine bacteria and salt particles get into the atmosphere is in part due to breaking of waves. If you heat the water gently, without disturbing it, you may get more water vapor into the atmosphere, but without the accompanying CCN. Better put some big assed propellers on those cloud boats, Salter as your mission may have just been expanded. - Original Message - From: Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Cc: Climate Intervention climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:07 AM Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback The real issue is the total magnitude of feedbacks, as characterized by (e.g.) the equilibrium global-mean warming for 2xCO2 (DT2x). The breakdown of the feedbacks is not directly relevant to this -- although it is of interest in model validation. This paper tells us nothing about DT2x or its uncertainty. My comment -- so what. Tom. + Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All Science July 24 from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5939/460.pdf has a something about a positive feedback between sea temperature and cloud cover. I had thought that warmer seas would increase evaporation and so cloud cover but drying them out seems to win. Sigh. Stephen -- 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 geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Pros and Cons of SRM geoengineering more widely
Hello All, As JohnN says, marine cloud brightening is, in principle, a viable, quantitatively adequate alternative to stratospheric seeding, and I think that possibility should definitely be looked into. However, Ken Caldeira has suggested an interesting variation, which is that these two geoengineering schemes could perhaps be deployed in concert, the stratospheric scheme providing a general cooling, and the cloud brightening technique providing localised fine tuning, which is possible because not all clouds need to be seeded, and judicious choices as to where to cool can therefore be made. Such a combination (or perhaps cloud brightening alone) could, for the above reasons, possibly ameliorate or eliminate the Amazonian problem. I should add that fully-coupled atomosphere/ocean GCM computations by Phil Rasch and Jack Chen, indicate that the cloud brightening scheme produces its maximum cooling in the Polar regions. Cheers, John. Quoting John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk: Hi all, Recently the geoengineering group discussed the pros and cons of solar radiation management (aka SRM geoengineering) using stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic [1]. A possible downside of more widespread deployment of stratospheric aerosols has come to light; it is from decreased rainfall on Amazon [2]. Some of us were already concerned by possible slight weakening of monsoons. This decreased rainfall is liable to be aggravated by the growing El Nino. (The last strong one was in 1998.) Yet some experts (e.g. Jeff Ridley) are saying that deployment in the Arctic will not be sufficient to save the sea ice. (And if the sea ice goes, the methane could come out of permafrost, Greenland ice sheet disintegrate, etc.) And Alan Gadain, from the University of Leeds was warning me, last week [3], that Arctic deployment wouldn't work, yet on the other hand an effect of more general deployment would be to cool the Arctic. Who is right, and what should we do? Could there be a way to protect Amazon and elsewhere from reduced rainfall, while deploying stratospheric aerosols at a range of latitudes to produce both widespread cooling effect and specific cooling in the Arctic? We could use marine cloud brightening rather than stratospheric aerosols, because the risk of undesirable side effects is smaller and because the technique can be applied locally, but do we have the luxury of time to develop the technique? The Arctic sea ice is liable to disappear more rapidly than anyone expected - we just cannot predict with any certainty. Likewise the Amazon rainforest could perish if there were consecutive years of drought - which we cannot predict. Isn't there an overwhelming case for some kind of experimental trial of stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic, preferably starting next spring, before El Nino effects set in? There is so much at stake, wouldn't it be stupid to delay? And shouldn't some significant funding be put into marine cloud brightening? Cheers from Chiswick, John [1] Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering thread: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/b045b6428fc89a93/95b940c3c3352e35?#95b940c3c3352e35 [2] Aerosol effects investigated by Met Office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090604.html [3] Geoengineering seminar at the House of Commons, 15th July 2009. -- 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 geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Comments on Mike MacCracken article cloud albedo scheme
would be to moderate climate change and its impacts. For example, nations might choose to try to emulate the cooling influence of major volcanic eruptions by, on a continuing basis, augmenting the amount of particulate matter in the stratosphere. Injecting sulfate aerosols globally or at the right latitudes could be done in a way that would reflect an amount of solar radiation equal to the increased trapping of energy by the greenhouse gases. Although this could limit global warming, thus reducing impacts like the loss of sea ice and slow the increase in sea level, there would be several side effects, including whitening of the sky, perhaps altering the course of storm systems, and reducing the efficiency of many types of solar energy systems. While this might seem an acceptable tradeoff today, it is worth noting that future generations would have to continue these injections for centuries, or the warming that was being offset would reappear relatively rapidly. The report, Beyond Mitigation: Potential Options for Counter-Balancing the Climatic and Environmental Consequences of the Rising Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases, just published provides an overview of the range of proposals that have been made over the past few decades. In addition to limiting global change through mitigation, a conceivable complementary approach could be to augment the international approach could be augmented with specially designed efforts to limit the intensity of specific, particularly severe impacts. In my view, four possible actions deserve intense analysis because the potential losses appear to be far larger than the likely cost of implementation: 1.. Limiting the solar radiation that reaches the Arctic and Antarctic in order to restore conditions needed by the region's species and to limit sea level rise from the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets. 2.. Enhancing uptake of carbon by the ocean, storing it in the deep ocean in order to moderate ocean acidification and limit damage to the marine food web. Alternatively, ocean acidification might be limited in specific areas such as the Great Barrier Reef by adding a buffering compound to ocean waters. 3.. Limiting the warming of the ocean in the regions that contribute to intensification of tropical cyclones (i.e., hurricanes, typhoons, etc.). 4.. Actively managing the global emissions of sulfur dioxide in order to maintain, or even enhance, the global cooling influence of tropospheric aerosols. Each of these actions, and there may be others worthy of consideration, would focus on intervening to moderate a specific impact. There are viable technological approaches for each of these activities, and they would be readily reversible if unexpected, adverse consequences arose. What is needed now is an aggressive research and development effort that determines the optimum approach, carries out small scale tests, investigates and compares unintended side effects with the impacts of greenhouse gases that are alleviated, and puts forth a near-term plan for active consideration at an appropriate regional or global forum. None of these actions would be a substitute for aggressive global mitigation of emissions or alleviate all of the adverse consequences. However, they could more evenly spread the burden of global warming and potentially slow the onset of at least some of the irreversible consequences. In this way, geoengineering could buy a small amount of time for global mitigation to be negotiated and take hold. Undertaking research on these impact interventions seems important and timely. - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:31 AM Subject: [geo] World Bank posting You might be interested in the World Bank posting at https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/ It is an intro and pointer to a background report that reviews many of the possibilities for geoengineering prepared in support of the major World Bank report to be issued on Sustainability and Climate Change. Best, Mike MacCracken -- 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 geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
the rest of the world. Reversed propellers and other hydrodynamic brakes, in order to exchange angular momentum, could be fitted to submarines as well as to ships. Their strength and the kites' one is a matter of design, but mainly of size and finally of materials quantities. I do not pretend that I have done the least beginning of an economic appraisal, but if anyone was willing to, it would be a good thing. Best, Denis. De : David Schnare [mailto:dwschn...@gmail.com] Envoyé : jeudi 11 juin 2009 13:09 À : Bonnelle Denis Cc : ds...@yahoo.com; geoengineering; lmich...@vortexengine.ca Objet : Re: [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season For those of us who have been on a ship, on the ocean and near a hurricane, much less under it, the idea of having any ship, much less many of them, flying kites and reversing engines in some kind of large circle is beyond nonsensical. It's sort of like having the government control GM - might sound like a good idea, but really! d On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Bonnelle Denis dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr wrote: This analysis is interesting, but I'd split the first sentence in three parts: To have harmful wind speeds, a hurricane needs to have a large underpressure air column in its middle, and this underpressure has to be protected by the centrifugal force, which results from a lot of angular momentum. However, when these ideas are being translated to figures (numbers), an important parameter comes in : the radius. The centrifugal force effect is negligible at the beginning of the air path (when Coriolis's force builds the angular momentum up) and at the end of the same path. It is only in its middle, i.e. at a middle altitude (maybe from 1000 m to 8000 m) that this effect is maximum. So, if you'd like to use some strong kites to create a drag, a useful device could be to have some boats along a circle in the hurricane's eye, being drawn by kites 1000 or 2000 m high, using their propellers as brakes (and even transmitting some mechanichal power to an electrical engine which would act as a power generator). This would transfer the hurricane's angular momentum - at the point where this momentum is most implicated in the hurricane's self-stability - to the sea, i.e. it would create an interesting angular drag. Conversely, I am not very much convinced by angular momentum exchanges with the upper layer of the hurricane's air. Best, Denis Bonnelle denis.bonne...@normalesup.org -Message d'origine- De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] De la part de dsw_s Envoyé : mercredi 10 juin 2009 10:55 À : geoengineering Objet : [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season To have harmful wind speeds, a hurricane needs to have lots of angular momentum. If some of the angular momentum could be dispersed to farther from the center of the storm, wind speeds would be lower. If I understand it right, a hurricane has air coming in from the periphery at low altitude, rising in the middle, and dispersing at higher altitude. If the storm is remaining steady or strengthening (in terms of the total angular momentum of its winds), the outgoing air must have less angular momentum than the incoming air by an amount at least equal to the angular momentum lost to drag at the surface. Suppose we have something for drag suspended at an altitude where air is moving inward, from balloons at an altitude where air is moving outward. That should transfer angular momentum from the inward-moving air to the outward-moving air. Alternatively, one could fly over the edges of the storm and drop long ropes with a kite on one end and on the other end a weight of approximately the same density of water. The kites would fly themselves for a while before being destroyed, creating drag and decreasing the angular momentum of the air they came in contact with. As the air moved in toward the center of the hurricane, the change in wind speed would be multiplied according to conservation of momentum just as the wind speed itself is. -- 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 geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
You are right, of course, Mike! Cheers, John. Quoting Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net: Hi John—I certainly agree with you for dealing with storms generally—not sure you could do for a particular storm, which is what the question/suggestion related to. On 6/13/09 11:33 PM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Hello All, A further possibility is to attempt to emasculate incipient hurricanes by cooling oceanic surface waters in regions where hurricanes spawn. One way of doing this would be to seed low-level shallow clouds in appropriate regions so as to increase their droplet number concentration and thereby their albedo. Exploratory GCM exploration of this idea yields the highly provisional result that a cooling of one or two degrees (perhaps more) could possibly be achieved: which could be significant vis-a-vis hurricane development.. Other cooling ideas could prove to be of importance. Cheers, John. Quoting Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net: You need to get more creative. Lowell Wood's idea some decades ago was orbiting mirrors in space that would redirect sunlight on to the storm. The problem remains, however, storm energy is huge, and it is not at all clear that such efforts could trigger a change, much less one would want and be able to predict. Mike M On 6/13/09 6:35 PM, dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com wrote: Does a hurricane live moment-to-moment, running entirely on the power it dissipates? Or does it accumulate energy, and have its ability to release energy depend not only on how much it's dissipating but also on how much it has accumulated? If it depends on accumulated energy, an intervention only has to affect an amount of power on the order of the difference between power in and power out. If an intervention can make even a small difference in energy accumulation rate, then having it run for a long time would make a larger difference in the amount of energy accumulated. My latest thought is to warm the top of the hurricane by suspending sheets of black plastic in the air. If we could suspend a square kilometer of plastic sheet, the sunshine heating it would be less than the power the hurricane dissipates by a factor of something like 10**7. That's still a lot of effect-multiplier needed: brute-force alteration of the whole hurricane is out of the question, as always. A good choice of where to heat the air might let us decrease the efficiency with which the storm turns the dissipated heat into mechanical work. One way to get some multiplier effect might be to use a bunch of smaller sheets to nucleate convection cells and turn a region of just-barely-stable air into a region of scattered cumulus clouds. Maybe the same thing could be done in the area where hurricanes form: instead of having convection cells merge into a tropical depression, perhaps they could be managed so that there would be enough room for air to sink in between the cells. Or we could go the opposite way, making tropical depressions form at the very beginning of the season or at the fringes of the area of hurricane formation, so that they grow only into moderate tropical storms instead of strong hurricanes, and then the sea surface would be cooler when hurricanes pass over it. Replacing a few powerful hurricanes with a larger number of weak tropical storms could be a part of overall geoengineering: the smaller storms might mix less heat down into the ocean, so that less heat is transported to the poles. On Jun 12, 8:42 am, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Dear Denis‹You really need to do some order of magnitude estimating: Based on the earlier email on the energy involved in and dissipated by hurricanes, the heat release of a hurricane (on average‹big ones are higher by a good bit) is on order of 5.2 * 10**19 Joules per day. Convert that to calories, assume you want to dissipate 10% of the energy to slow the storm down a bit (and this would really mean increasing the natural dissipation rate by a factor of 40‹which is lot given that the drag of the surface ocean is now the major sink of drag energy‹that this factor is so large should give you real pause). But any way, to deposit the energy you are talking about as heat in the ocean, your drag devices would have to warm the upper 10 meters of the ocean over an area having a radius of 300 km by roughly 0.3 C‹that is a very great amount (just think how much effort the Sun takes over the seasonal cycle to warm a bit thicker layer by somewhat more). We are talking about huge amounts of energy‹so, on this argument, I am on the side of David saying ³nonsensical.² Your arguments on CO2 lifetimes, etc. are being addressed by others. Mike On 6/12/09 3:24 AM, Bonnelle Denis dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr wrote: About this beyond nonsensical idea: I
[geo] Re: stopping hurricanes
John's supposition is correct. Members of our research team are currently performing GCM computations with an ocean/atmosphere coupled model in an effort to determine whether marine cloud seeding could produce sufficient cooling in regions where hurricanes develop to emasculate them. Preliminary results are encouraging but not definitive. Cheers,John. Quoting John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk: Hi Andrew, Perhaps marine cloud brightening [1] would work. Certainly it would be inexpensive compared to the cost of damage caused by hurricanes - running into $trillions for Katrina: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/hurricane-katrina-claims-47010702 It is possible that Stephen Salter and John Latham have already proposed this application for their marine cloud brightening technique, involving the spraying of seawater into the atmosphere. Cheers, John [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_enhancement - Original Message - From: Bonnelle Denis To: Andrew Lockley Cc: geoengineering Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:20 AM Subject: [geo] Re: stopping hurricanes Thank you, The required amount of liquid N2 would probably be gigantic, its production would reject more heat in the atmosphere than the hurricane is consuming, and all it would achieve would be to create, at the surface of the ocean, some cold water, which would very quickly dive down and be replaced by new warm water coming from just under it. So, this option can be written off very quickly. I don't know whether the two others face such criticism. Best, D. Bonnelle De : Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mardi 5 mai 2009 11:13 À : Bonnelle Denis Cc : geoengineering; f.m.maugis; lmich...@vortexengine.ca Objet : Re: [geo] stopping hurricanes There are already various hurricane-busting programmes. Off the top of my head, these are: 1) Using lasers to discharge lightening in the precursor storms 2) Burning soot in the outer wall to make it absorb heat and cool down 3) Pouring liquuid N2 onto the surface of the sea Sadly these are not detailed on wikipedia, but you can find a summary at http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/hurricane.html Further discussion of whether these may help reduce AGW would be welcome. A 2009/5/5 Bonnelle Denis dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr Dear Andrew, First, I think your call for something to be done is not only about stopping hurricanes (i.e., when they are fully mature - I can't guess any easy way to achieve this), but also preventing them from developing at once. This seems more thinkable. Basically, it means cooling the upper layer of the oceans down, before the beginning of the hurricane season. One method has already been presented to this group, but I had answered that, by burying the heat deeper into the sea, it would contribute to ocean dilatation. If not downwards, one may try to dispose of this heat upwards. A solution could be derived from that which had been frequently advocated here by F. Maugis: the atmospheric vortex engine (AVE - also developed by L. Michaud, from Canada). I have long been a fierce critic of AVE, which, in my opinion, would be highly unstable as long as a shortcut from high to low pressures wouldn't be prohibited. Indeed, prohibiting it provides the solution, which is, finally, as follows: 1 - moist air, coming from the surface of the ocean, rises (first, it is either drawn, or pushed, upwards - several initializing options are possible) through a middle-sized (200 to 300 m high) chimney, which also contains wind turbines and is shaped so that the flow lines look like spirals; 2 - still rising above the chimney, this spiraling air creates some centrifugal force, so that a region of low pressure develops at its centre, and keeps on attracting new air from the system's bottom; 3 - moving upwards, i.e. being adiabatically cooled, this moist air reaches the altitude where its vapor content begins to condensate, which liberates latent heat; from now on, its temperature will quite stop diminishing, so that this operating air will soon become warmer than the ambient air, and thus buoyant; 4 - our hypothetical central low pressure is now justified in three respects: from above (1 in the figure hereunder), it is justified by the condensing moist air buoyancy; from under (3), it is consistent with the idea that more moist air has to be attracted so that the system should keep on working (and even produce renewable energy by drawing the turbines); and from the outer space at the same altitude (2), it is justified by the cumulative effect of the centrifugal force; 5 - However, there remains a problem along the (4) path: the low pressure at the chimney exit
[geo] Re: stopping hurricanes
Hello Andrew, The fraction of the total energy of a hurricane that is electrical is very small when it is fully developed, and utterly miniscule when it is tiny wee. So what would zapping achieve? Zapping an embryonic hurricane would be no more effectual than a small child in a tantrum - because he's swallowed salty water - spanking the Pacific Ocean with his spade to flatten the waves. If you dont believe me, seek out papers by lightning experts such as Phil Krider, Hugh Christian, Paul Krehbeil, Marx Brook, Earle Williams, Clive Saunders, Martin Uman, Walt Petersen, Pierre Laroche, Don Macgorman, Jim Dye, etc, etc I think it's a good thing to throw novel and unorthodox ideas into the ring, and long may you continue doing so. But one has also to be prepared to throw them out from time to time. Sometimes, unfortunately, it's necessary to contaminate an elegant idea with a modicum of physics. Cheers, John. Quoting Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com: Yep, but only lightening storms become hurricanes. You have to zap them when they're tiny wee things. A 2009/5/5 John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Hello Andrew, The fraction of hurricane energy in the form of lightning is negligible. If you could zap the lightning - a very tall order - it would make no difference. Far better to weaken the growth of hurricanes than to take them on when fully fledged, in my view. Cheers,John. Quoting Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com: There are already various hurricane-busting programmes. Off the top of my head, these are: 1) Using lasers to discharge lightening in the precursor storms 2) Burning soot in the outer wall to make it absorb heat and cool down 3) Pouring liquuid N2 onto the surface of the sea Sadly these are not detailed on wikipedia, but you can find a summary at http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/hurricane.html Further discussion of whether these may help reduce AGW would be welcome. A 2009/5/5 Bonnelle Denis dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr Dear Andrew, First, I think your call for something to be done is not only about stopping hurricanes (i.e., when they are fully mature - I can't guess any easy way to achieve this), but also preventing them from developing at once. This seems more thinkable. Basically, it means cooling the upper layer of the oceans down, before the beginning of the hurricane season. One method has already been presented to this group, but I had answered that, by burying the heat deeper into the sea, it would contribute to ocean dilatation. If not downwards, one may try to dispose of this heat upwards. A solution could be derived from that which had been frequently advocated here by F. Maugis: the atmospheric vortex engine (AVE - also developed by L. Michaud, from Canada). I have long been a fierce critic of AVE, which, in my opinion, would be highly unstable as long as a shortcut from high to low pressures wouldn't be prohibited. Indeed, prohibiting it provides the solution, which is, finally, as follows: 1 - moist air, coming from the surface of the ocean, rises (first, it is either drawn, or pushed, upwards - several initializing options are possible) through a middle-sized (200 to 300 m high) chimney, which also contains wind turbines and is shaped so that the flow lines look like spirals; 2 - still rising above the chimney, this spiraling air creates some centrifugal force, so that a region of low pressure develops at its centre, and keeps on attracting new air from the system's bottom; 3 - moving upwards, i.e. being adiabatically cooled, this moist air reaches the altitude where its vapor content begins to condensate, which liberates latent heat; from now on, its temperature will quite stop diminishing, so that this operating air will soon become warmer than the ambient air, and thus buoyant; 4 - our hypothetical central low pressure is now justified in three respects: from above (1 in the figure hereunder), it is justified by the condensing moist air buoyancy; from under (3), it is consistent with the idea that more moist air has to be attracted so that the system should keep on working (and even produce renewable energy by drawing the turbines); and from the outer space at the same altitude (2), it is justified by the cumulative effect of the centrifugal force; 5 - However, there remains a problem along the (4) path: the low pressure at the chimney exit is jeopardized by the high pressure just before the air goes through the turbine, and the whole air system can be destabilized by some Kelvin-Helmholtz instability; 6 - Hence, we must bar this path. The solution is to add a horizontal annulus around the chimney's top, with radii ranging from R to around 2.5 R. This annulus can
[geo] Other aerosol scheme: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table
reddit del.ico.us ShareThisSETH BORENSTEIN | April 8, 2009 11:55 AM EST | WASHINGTON - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort. It's got to be looked at, he said. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table. Holdren outlined several tipping points involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of really intolerable consequences, he said. Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog. At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions. Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea. The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment. Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically. But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air _ making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested _ could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said. Still, we might get desperate enough to want to use it, he added. Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide _ the chief human-caused greenhouse gas _ out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said. - Original Message - From: Kelly Wanser kelly.wan...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: [geo] John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table http://www.startribune.com/nation/42671837.html Obama science adviser: Global warming so dire, we may need to tinker with Earth's atmosphere Associated Press WASHINGTON - The president's new science adviser said that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing drastic options to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort. As he put it: It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table. - Kelly Wanser br -- 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 geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Cloud Seeding - State-manufactured snowfall closes 12 highways
Hello Dave et al, The role of silver iodide AgI in precipitation formation is to initiate the freezing of supercooled water cloud droplets at temperatures (below 0C) too warm for freezing of such small particles to occur naturally. It works well because the molecular bond-length in AgI is very close to that in ice, as Bernard Vonnegut (originator of this seeding technique) first noticed. The tiny ice particles grow rapidly in the supersaturated cloud, acquiring classical hexagonal shapes. These ice crystals collide and aggregate to form snowflakes, which eventually settle to ground. I cannot see where moisture retention comes into the equation. Silver iodide does not act as a nucleus for water drop formation (only for ice). Cheers, John. *** Quoting Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.org: Whoops. (but consider the mitigation due to a day or so of no driving) :) CHINA: State-manufactured snowfall closes 12 highways (02/20/2009) Chinese officials were forced to close 12 highways in the drought-plagued Hebei province around Beijing after artificially enhanced clouds dropped heavy snowfall, the state-run news agency said. The clouds were seeded by 313 cigarette-sized capsules of silver iodide shot into the sky, a procedure to increase the clouds' ability to retain moisture. On the bright side, officials expect the snowstorm to help bring an end to Beijing's longest drought in 38 years, according to weather bureau records. The snow has brought moisture to the soil, which may help end the drought, Guo Yingchun, a senior engineer in the provincial meteorological observatory, was quoted as saying. In all, 12 outbound highways were shut down, including one linking the capital with Shenyang, capital of the northeastern Liaoning province (Nick Macfie, Reuters http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE51I10X20090219 , Feb. 19). -- 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 geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Ice-9: Cloud Seeding - State-manufactured snowfall closes 12 highways
Hello again Dave, As I'm sure you know, Bernie Kurt were brothers. Through the former (a very close friend) I met the latter a few times. Both generous great people! Cheers,John. * Quoting Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.org: not to be confused with Kurt Vonnegut's ice-nine From: John Latham [mailto:john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:25 PM To: Hawkins, Dave Cc: geoengineering Subject: Cloud Seeding - State-manufactured snowfall closes 12 highways Hello Dave et al, The role of silver iodide AgI in precipitation formation is to initiate the freezing of supercooled water cloud droplets at temperatures (below 0C) too warm for freezing of such small particles to occur naturally. It works well because the molecular bond-length in AgI is very close to that in ice, as Bernard Vonnegut (originator of this seeding technique) first noticed. The tiny ice particles grow rapidly in the supersaturated cloud, acquiring classical hexagonal shapes. These ice crystals collide and aggregate to form snowflakes, which eventually settle to ground. I cannot see where moisture retention comes into the equation. Silver iodide does not act as a nucleus for water drop formation (only for ice). Cheers, John. *** Quoting Hawkins, Dave dhawk...@nrdc.org: Whoops. (but consider the mitigation due to a day or so of no driving) :) CHINA: State-manufactured snowfall closes 12 highways (02/20/2009) Chinese officials were forced to close 12 highways in the drought-plagued Hebei province around Beijing after artificially enhanced clouds dropped heavy snowfall, the state-run news agency said. The clouds were seeded by 313 cigarette-sized capsules of silver iodide shot into the sky, a procedure to increase the clouds' ability to retain moisture. On the bright side, officials expect the snowstorm to help bring an end to Beijing's longest drought in 38 years, according to weather bureau records. The snow has brought moisture to the soil, which may help end the drought, Guo Yingchun, a senior engineer in the provincial meteorological observatory, was quoted as saying. In all, 12 outbound highways were shut down, including one linking the capital with Shenyang, capital of the northeastern Liaoning province (Nick Macfie, Reuters http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE51I10X20090219 , Feb. 19). -- John Latham lat...@ucar.edu john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel. 303-444-2429 (H) 303-497-8182 (W) -- 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 geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Badgering Geoengineering - cloud seeding
Hello All, Re cloud seeding experiments off Chile. I'm sorry, I missed and have now lost the reference to the note that Alvia mentions. The true story is that in October-December a massive and beautifully executed multi-national field experiment called VOCALS was conducted off Chile. It was supported by the NSF, the NERC (UK) and other such governmental agencies. The overall Director of the project was Rob Wood, University of Washington, Seattle. The major goal was to refine enhance our understanding of the microphysical, dynamical radiative properties and behaviour of marine stratocumulus clouds, which cover about a quarter of the oceanic surface, and are very important climatologically. Advertent cloud seeding was specifically excluded from this study, although the fact that there are coastal smelters in operation producing aerosol particles which affect the properties of adjacent clouds into which they are entrained added another useful variable to the study. The VOCALS experiment was exclusively a fundamental investigation of these important clouds. I had a small degree of involvement - in the planning of the (considerable) UK component of VOCALS, led by Hugh Coe. However, some of my active geo-engineering collaborators, particularly Tom Choularton and Alan Gadian, will include in the range of questions that they and colleagues will engage in (via analysis of VOCALS data) over the next few years, some that pertain to our geo-eng cloud albedo enhancement. So this study should prove helpful to us as we try to improve our assessment of our scheme. The limited-area field experiments that Stephen mentions have not been conducted, and will not be unless our future work yields results so positive that we have a strong case for testing out our scheme on real clouds. (And even then, we have to acquire some ever-elusive largesse!) Information on VOCALS is available at:- * http://www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/vocals[1] I hope this note clarifies the situation. All Best, John. *** Quoting Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com: http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com:80/2009/01/geoengineering-ethically-unsound-says.html Dan Whaley forced the badger out of his burrow to engage in a rather wide ranging discussion of points made or not made in the original posting. Worthwhile reading. I note however, that no one has taken issue with the statement made that John Latham and others are doing experiments with cloud seeding off the coast of Chile. Are such experiments in progress, planned or was this just the badger getting something else wrong in a post that was long on opinions and short on facts? I recall Stephen Salter proposing a month or longer sea voyage to study impacts on cloud brightness similar to one just completed on marine stratocumulus clouds, but was unaware it had gone further than the concept stage. - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 7:50 AM Subject: [geo] Badgering Geoengineering http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/01/geoengineering-ethically-unsound-says.html geoengineering 'ethically unsound' says geoengineer Last month I went to a Cafe Scientifique talk by Dr Alan Gadian. He's part of a team with Mike Smith at the University of Leeds and John Latham who are experimenting with cloud-seeding. Their idea is that if you whoosh up great quantities of sea water into the air then the salt crystals will encourage clouds that reflect solar energy, thereby reducing the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gases. The big problem with this and other climate geoengineering projects is that they allow an escape route for the carbon emitters. Desperate to do anything other than reduce our energy consumption and attendant emissions, they fired off the decoys of climate denial, followed by carbon offsets and biofuels. Anything to distract us, to give us the hope that there'll be some swift, simple magic bullet. NOT REDUCING CO2 The geoengineering schemes that reflect the sun have a very serious problem. They mean that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will keep rapidly increasing. This will have serious impacts on plantlife but seemingly more serious is the impact on the oceans. It will cause them to acidify, killing the coral reefs and making many species unable to properly form shells. This isn't taking out one or two species, this is hacking out a huge length of the food chain. The knock-on effects scarcely bear thinking about. Dr Gadian said that the scheme, should it work, would require £1.5bn worth of whooshy boats. All things going well they'll make the desired sort of clouds, although the might make
[geo] Re: REGARDING DETERIORATION OF GEOENGINEERING GOOGLEGROUP
Hello Ken, Googlegroup has been immensely valuable ever since its inception, which was entirely due to you. I totally understand your current frustration. But it'd be a major loss if it ceased, and without you it would be sorely diminished. So please adopt Option 1. Hopefully, after an appropriate number of slashes it'll become clearer to some group members what the acceptable ambit is: and they will respond positively. All Best, John. *** Quoting Ken Caldeira kcalde...@stanford.edu: Folks, The original goal of this googlegroup was to transmit information that would be useful to professionals and informed citizens concerned with issues relating to intentional intervention in the climate system. The quality of posts on this group has, in my opinion, deteriorated to the point that it is no longer able to fulfill this primary purpose adequately. I think there are two basic options: 1. I can moderate this group more ruthlessly and reject any message that does not actually transmit new relevant information or raise a question that has not already been discussed at length. ( In this case, I will make many enemies as I reject messages from well-intentioned people. ) I will not have time to give each submitter of a rejected posting my reasons for rejecting the posting. 2. I can abandon this group to people with much more time on their hands. So, for me, the question is down to tightening the reigns, or letting them go. Comments? Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Power of Words: science technology of climate cooling ???
Hello John, Ken et al., I've always liked climate restoration because - though we'll never achieve it precisely - it's what we're seeking, and is much less likely to scare the pants off the public than the imperious geo-engineering. But when we're trying to be as exact as possible my choice is global temperature stabilisation. It is, in principle, possible to hold the Earth's average temperature (however it's defined) constant: whereas we can't restore the climate to exactly as it was - at least with current ideas technology. I think both these terms have their place: to be determined by circumstances. Cheers,John. * Quoting John Nissen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Ken, Finding the right terminology is important in persuading people that what you are doing is sensible. Cooling and refrigeration could bring fears of overdoing the geoengineering, e.g. accidentally triggering an Ice Age (as some journalists worry!). I prefer the term climate stabilisation. We may need to cool the Arctic well below its current temperature in order for the sea ice to reform, but for non-polar regions (i.e. most of the rest of the world), our initial aim should be to halt global warming - no more, no less. Basically the idea is to stop things getting worse. But an even better term might be climate restoration, as we'd like to stop droughts rather than prolong them, restore the Arctic to a former condition, reverse the spread of deserts, etc. Thus, if possible, we could produce regional effects on climate for the benefit of those regions that have been already adversely affected by global warming. BTW, this is where marine cloud brightening could prove invaluable. Politically, I think restoration has the better connotations and sounds more valuable. And it leaves open the door to negotiate how far the restoration and to what original state/date (e.g. 80% towards pre-industrial). Cheers, John - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:10 AM Subject: [geo] the science and technology of climate cooling ??? I'd like to toss two other names into the ring for direct interventions into the climate system designed to cool Earth's climate: 1. Climate refrigerators produce climate refrigeration Literally, to refrigerate means in its original sense is to cool again. With threatened loss of Arctic systems, cooling again is likely to be the goal. 2. Climate cooler or climate cooling -- Colloquially, a cooler is a refrigerator . With the Arctic losses, we may look to the science and technology of climate cooling to reverse some of the effects of global warming. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Power of Words: science technology of climate cooling ???
Good point, Mike!John. Quoting Mike MacCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED]: For those activities aimed at reducing the intensity of some major impacts (e.g., limiting Arctic warming, limiting ocean warming in regions of hurricane intensification, limiting ocean acidification), I think a more appropriate term might well be impact intervention--save geoengineering, climate restoration, and global temperature stabilisation for the efforts (e.g., by global sulfate injection, mirrors in space, etc.) to limit global climate change. Mike MacCracken On 11/25/08 10:26 AM, John Latham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello John, Ken et al., I've always liked climate restoration because - though we'll never achieve it precisely - it's what we're seeking, and is much less likely to scare the pants off the public than the imperious geo-engineering. But when we're trying to be as exact as possible my choice is global temperature stabilisation. It is, in principle, possible to hold the Earth's average temperature (however it's defined) constant: whereas we can't restore the climate to exactly as it was - at least with current ideas technology. I think both these terms have their place: to be determined by circumstances. Cheers,John. * Quoting John Nissen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Ken, Finding the right terminology is important in persuading people that what you are doing is sensible. Cooling and refrigeration could bring fears of overdoing the geoengineering, e.g. accidentally triggering an Ice Age (as some journalists worry!). I prefer the term climate stabilisation. We may need to cool the Arctic well below its current temperature in order for the sea ice to reform, but for non-polar regions (i.e. most of the rest of the world), our initial aim should be to halt global warming - no more, no less. Basically the idea is to stop things getting worse. But an even better term might be climate restoration, as we'd like to stop droughts rather than prolong them, restore the Arctic to a former condition, reverse the spread of deserts, etc. Thus, if possible, we could produce regional effects on climate for the benefit of those regions that have been already adversely affected by global warming. BTW, this is where marine cloud brightening could prove invaluable. Politically, I think restoration has the better connotations and sounds more valuable. And it leaves open the door to negotiate how far the restoration and to what original state/date (e.g. 80% towards pre-industrial). Cheers, John - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:10 AM Subject: [geo] the science and technology of climate cooling ??? I'd like to toss two other names into the ring for direct interventions into the climate system designed to cool Earth's climate: 1. Climate refrigerators produce climate refrigeration Literally, to refrigerate means in its original sense is to cool again. With threatened loss of Arctic systems, cooling again is likely to be the goal. 2. Climate cooler or climate cooling -- Colloquially, a cooler is a refrigerator . With the Arctic losses, we may look to the science and technology of climate cooling to reverse some of the effects of global warming. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Parliament next monday (typos corrected)
Ken, Please keep walking the tightrope, despite the crosswinds. It's crucially important that you do. Cheers, John. Quoting Ken Caldeira [EMAIL PROTECTED]: John, In attempting to move ahead politically, it is neither necessary nor desirable that we speak with a unified voice. I believe that I have had some limited impact in pushing forward a publicly-funded climate engineering research and development program. (That fact that no such program exists helps define what is meant by limited.) Insofar as I have been effective, I believe that calling for sober, impartial assessment in the open, peer-reviewed literature -- advocating research and development, while withholding advocacy for deployment until we understand more -- has contributed to this effectiveness. I think it would be counterproductive for me to advocate now for early deployment, in large part because I do not think we really know how well climate engineering will work. I am not just adopting a rhetorical posture when I say that I believe climate engineering may have the potential to reduce overall risk, but we do not yet know if it would really diminish overall risk (taking into consideration complex social and political systems as well as the complexities of Earth's climate and chemical systems). It is somewhat amusing to me that I am now being criticized from both sides: criticized for advocating climate engineering research and development, and criticized for not advocating it strongly enough. To answer John Gorman's question: I do not seriously believe that we will avoid serious consequences without geoengineering. It is just that I am not sure that we will avoid serious consequences with geoengineering, either. Nevertheless, I think the potential for risk reduction is great and that is why we need to do the underlying science and technology development. Best, Ken PS. I repeat a story (including embedded errors) that went out over the UPI wire. I leave the reader to decide if I am being too milquetoast: World needs CO2 emergency backup plan LONDON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- U.S. climate scientist Ken Caldeirahttp://www.upi.com/topic/Ken_Caldeira/of the Carnegie Institution has told the British Parliament the world needs a carbon dioxide emergency backup plan. In submitted testimony, Caldeira said while steep cuts in carbon emissions are essential to stabilizing global climate, there also needs to be a backup plan should emissions cuts be insufficient to stave off catastrophic warming. Prudence demands we consider what we might do in the face of unacceptable climate damage, which could occur despite our best efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, Caldeira said. He said climate engineering, or geoengineering, refers to controversial proposals to deliberately modify the Earth's environment to counteract greenhouse warming. One plan would cool the planet by injecting dust into the upper atmosphere to scatter incoming sunlight. Other possibilities include enhancing cloud cover over the oceans. Science is needed to address critical questions, among them: How effective would various climate engineering proposals be at achieving their climate goals? What unintended outcomes might result? How might these unintended outcomes affect both human and natural systems? Caldeira asked. Engineering is needed both to build deployable systems and to keep the science focused on what's technically feasible. His testimony was heard Tuesday in the House of Commons. [NOTE: It was Monday (10 Nov) before a Parliamentary Innovation, Universities, Science Skills Select Committee.] On 11/12/08, John Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To John Nissen and Colin Forrest. As three amateurs who put a great deal of time into preparing submissions, I think we should jointly express our disappointment and phrase a question that we would like him to put to each of the witnesses in the way that he did last monday. Maybe Do you sincerely believe we will avoid serious consequences without geoengineering? if so please explain. John N is good at phrasing ! john g -- === Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology Carnegie Institution 260 Panama Street Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/ *** Please don't read this line of text unless you really need to *** -- === Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology Carnegie Institution 260 Panama Street Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/ *** Please don't read this line of text unless you really need to *** --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To
[geo] Re: Father of Sulfate Aerosols Idea Says Its Not His Baby
Hello All, Thanks again to Alvia for unearthing another thought-provoking article. The following will (I hope) already be known to most readers of this blog, but in case there are interested others I'd like to correct some of the statements made in the article regarding our cloud-albedo-enhancement geoengineering idea:- 1. The idea is not recent. It was first proposed almost 20 years ago: Latham, J. 1990 Control of global warming? Nature 347, 339-340, since which time 5 other peer-reviewed papers have been written on it, most recently two in the special geo-engineering issue of Phil Trans. Roy. Soc., 2008. Ancient would be a more accurate word than recent, unfortunately. 2. The idea is not theoretical only. One of our Phil Trans papers cites 3 experimental/observational papers (not by us), all published in 2008, two involving global satellite measurements, one atmospheric airborne studies, all providing significant quantitative support for the scheme. 3. Bombarding is possibly an excessively violent term to describe the slow drift of sub-micrometre seawater particles into the bases of maritime stratocumulus clouds; which is what we propose. Cheers, John.[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Quoting Alvia Gaskill [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=41867cat_id=9 Extraordinary ideas for extraordinary circumstances By Elias Hazou A NOBEL Prize-winning scientist has drawn up an emergency plan to save the world from global warming, by altering the chemical makeup of Earth’s upper atmosphere. Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Noble Prize in 1995 for his work on the destruction of the ozone layer, believes that political attempts to limit man-made greenhouse gases are so pitiful that a radical alternative is needed. The Netherlands-born professor was on the island this week for a workshop on “Climate change: causes and impacts” organised by the Cyprus Institute, a research foundation. In a polemical scientific essay published two years ago, Crutzen suggested an “escape route” if global warming begins to run out of control. He has proposed a method of artificially cooling the global climate by releasing particles of sulphur in the upper atmosphere, which would reflect sunlight and heat [Doesn't reflect IR. AG] back into space. A fleet of high-altitude balloons could be used to scatter the sulphur high overhead, or it could even be fired into the atmosphere using heavy artillery shells or rockets [Too costly and/or infeasible. AG], said Professor Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany. “It’s the last resort. Unless CO2 emissions are cut - and the outlook is very grim - I’m afraid we shall have resort to this experiment,” Crutzen told the Sunday Mail in an interview. For the experiment to work, a million tons of sulphur would have to be injected every year into the stratosphere, 16 km above the earth. [Not high enough. AG] “Right now, chimneys spew out 10 times more sulphur into the lower atmosphere every year,” Crutzen said, addressing concerns about the side effects. His plan is modelled partly on the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991, when thousands of tons of sulphur were ejected into the atmosphere causing global temperatures to fall. Pinatubo generated sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere which cooled the Earth by 0.5C on average in the following year. The sulphate particles did this by acting like tiny mirrors, preventing a portion of incoming sunlight from reaching the ground. Although climate cooling by sulphate aerosols also occurs in the troposphere, Crutzen says the great advantage of placing reflective particles in the stratosphere is their long residence time of about one to two years, compared to a week in the troposphere. The chemical would also need to have a short half-life, say 10 years [What chemical is that, something other than sulfuric acid? Must have been referring to his other idea to develop a chemical that wouldn't have adverse impacts on ozone. AG.] The professor admits the idea is extreme, but says extraordinary measures are necessary in extraordinary circumstances. “I hope we never have to do this experiment. But for CO2 levels to get back to normal, current emissions would need to drop by about 60 to 80 per cent. I don’t see that happening.” [Then we have to do it, right? AG] CO2 emissions, released by the burning of fossil fuels in power stations, factories, homes and vehicles, are growing at almost three per cent a year. [Thanks to Bush and his buddies, to soon be reduced for a while. AG] The United Nations Panel on Climate Change estimates that world temperatures may rise by between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius (3.2-7.2 degrees
