Fw: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
I have wondered why this message has not appeared on the geoengineering ste and now discover I inadvertantly sent it only to Manu Better late than never Peter - Original Message - From: Peter Read To: Manu Sharma Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming Manu I assure that I too am concerned about unintended side effects, in my case unintended side effects of vigorous CDM. that achieves pre-industrial CO2 levels by mid century. For details please visit a.. Read,P. and Parshotam, 2007. Holistic Greenhouse Gas Management Strategy (with Reviewers' Comments and authors' rejoinders). Institute of Policy Studies Working Paper 07/1, Victoria University of Wellington. Wellington New Zealand. http://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/205 b.. Read, P. 2008. Biosphere Carbon Stock Management Climatic Change 87/3-4, 305-320. http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/fulltext.pdf Two aspects arise as regards unintended effects Firstly CDM cannot work fast enough to prevent a doubling of the threat of catastrophic collapse of Greenland's ice cap, due to cumulative basal lubrication (Reducing CO2 levels: so many ways, so few taken my forthcoming (maybe forthcome?) editorial essay in Climatic Change). For the earliest proposal (I believe) of the cumulative nature of that threat visit Read, P., 2007. http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/Events/previous-events/ipcc-conference-1/ipcc_conf_2007/Peter-Read-Berlin%20IPCC%20statement.pdf/view Also at http://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/219. So, given that CDM would have just about done its run (save for very high cost artificial trees) something more is needed which, means SRM, particularly in Polar regions where climatic catastrophes seem to be most imminent. Whether in the stratosphere by Crutzen's SO2 aerosols or the troposphere by Latham and Salter's micro-droplets, or at sea surface levels by (new boy on the block) white plastic islands that insulate snowfall from warm ocean and allow thick ice to develop during the Arctic winter and not melt away in the following summer (visit http://ice911.org/Ice911%20Update%20072109.pdf ) is a matter of cost and risk analysis of unintended side effects from each. A side effect of rapid cooling is that the land would cool faster than the ocean due to thermal inertia of the latter, raising the prospect of reducing the ocean-to-land thermal gradient below what is needed to sustain monsoon behaviour. Two SRM approaches seem to be relevant - raise the albedo of ocean clouds as proposed by Salter or lower the albedo of the land regions where the monsoon is wanted. Such lowering would seem to be a beneficial side effect the widespread programme of tree plantations on barren or abandoned land (possibly with desert irrigation as proposed by Ornstein et al recently in Climatic Change) that forms a key component of the Biosphere carbon stock management scheme that achives the rapid lowering of CO2 levels mentioned above. Additionally, raising cool ocean deep water using wave power as recently suggested by (Salter, S.H., 2009. A 20 GW Thermal 300-metre3/sec Wave-energised, Surgemode Nutrient-pump for Removing Atmospheric Carbon dioxide, Increasing Fish Stocks and Suppressing Hurricanes. Proceedings, EWTEC 2009 conference, September (to appear). could serve to maintain the needed thermal gradient. Apart from providing the basis for mid-ocean fish farming to provide protein for the world's future 9 billion mouths (or more if fundamentalist religion has its way) these tropical ocean cooling technologies could also help dave the corals. So what we want the climate modellers to do is to model the combination of SRM (with regional deployment of SRM) and carbon stock management (including emissions reductions and CDR) that minimises the risks involved in getting away from the perilous position we have got to since 1750. In this we are not greatly helped by well intended NGO's that seem more intent on social engineering than climate engineering (for a useful analysis visit http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26040345-5014047,00.html Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked -- www.spiked-online.com). Neither by a negotiating process that is fixated with a zero sum burden sharing dogfight over commitments that won't be met made by politicians who won't be around when the reckoning comes. Nor quite frankly by advocates of hugely costly options that just give sport to the media. Nor by a Royal Society report that leaves afforestation on one side and gratuitously quotes (without attribution ) a notoriously unscientific NGO in relation to biochar technology. When I published a book 15 years ago pointing out that CO2 levels could quite easily be managed by what I now call carbon stock management, economist Wilfred Beckerman concluded a review with the remark the chances of such a logical
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
Hi Gene, No. It's not just a game. The international focus is solely on emissions reduction because this is what the IPCC has requested. All the scientific advisers are saying the priority has to be on this. However the Royal Society report has just managed to break through the taboo on geoengineering by downplaying its importance, and saying it needs to be researched as an insurance policy in case emissions reductions prove not to be sufficient. But we know they won't be! How would one answer this first question: 1. Can emissions reductions of 80% by 2050 by themselves save the Arctic sea ice, if the trend towards summer disappearance by 2030 continues? And then, accepting the need for geoengineering research, how would one answer the following questions: 2. If we don't have experience of SRM geoengineering from experimental trials, can we be certain to be able to stop the sea ice disappearing? 3. Once the sea ice disappears in summer, can we be certain that methane discharge and Greenland ice sheet disintegration can be stopped? 4. If methane discharge and Greenland ice sheet disintegration cannot be stopped, can we be certain that civilisation can survive the ultimate consequences of global warming (perhaps well over 6 degrees) and sea level rise (tens of metres if you include West Antarctic ice sheet)? If the answer to these questions is "no", then we should be doing geoengineering trials like crazy, and trying to find ways to avoid the side-effects that Alan Robock and others are so worried about, if they really exist. We do have a "chemotherapy treatment" (with stratospheric aerosols) which can probably save the Arctic sea ice, if we don't leave it too late. Any delay in trialling this treatment is putting all our lives at risk, as we see Arctic temperatures soar and we see the effects of global warming spread to all parts of our world - like a cancer. Cheers, John P.S. To put your 25 degrees in perspective, mean global temperature (five year average) is currently around 14.5 degrees C, see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm But perhaps your 25 degrees is not so pessimistic: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.100-13-more-things-eocene-hothouse.html Eugene I. Gordon wrote: I am too dense to understand the point being made. The international focus is solely on emission reductions because that is the game. They dont want to hear about geoengineering because that potentially screws up their game. This is not a group of idealistic people trying to do the right thing. This is a group of selfish people protecting their own interests, which include grant funding, investments, investments of other that are paying them off, the old boys club scratching one anothers sit zone, etc. Geoengineering simply provides the itch. The earth is getting hotter for its own reasons and it wont stop until it gets to 25 C even if the increase is not perfectly monotonic. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are only speeding it up. Dont compromise on the need for geoengineering. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:11 PM To: pre...@attglobal.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Manu Sharma; Phil Thornhill; climatechangepolit...@yahoogroups.com; sarlo9; Andrew Revkin Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming Thanks Peter, I note your throwaway comment: "by the way, emissions reductions alone cannot do the job" (e.g. of avoiding polar meltdown). So why is the international focus solely on emissions reduction, when it won't solve the most urgent problems? Let's think back from the future. I am reminded of the following parable we ignored to our cost, from way back in 2009: A young actress has a terrible smoking habit and her health is declining. The doctor says that all will be well if only she could reduce smoking 80% by 2050, but she says she'd find that really difficult. Instead she smokes even more furiously, as if to enjoy it all the more while she can. Meanwhile the nurse has noticed a tumour, but the doctor says that it's bound to be benign. Tests show otherwise. The actress has cancer. The doctor is afraid to tell her that she has cancer, let alone that the cancer could be fatal and she might not have long to live. A colleague suggests chemotherapy, but the doctor dislikes the idea - he has a gut feeling against it. But the doctor is now in a spot. If he suggests chemotherapy to the patient, she will realise that she has cancer and might panic. Anyhow, he has assured her that reducing her smoking 80% by 2050 will do the trick. He convinces himself of at least twenty reasons for not treating her, among them as follows: If she knew that chemotherapy could prolong her life, she might not give up smoking. Indeed he argues to himself that this is a "moral ha
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
You initially used the word catastrophic to describe the impact on food and water supplies for India and China. Tom Wigley noted that in his comments: - Original Message - From: Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu Cc: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New geoengineering article submitted Dear Alan, I too would advise against the use of the word catastrophic. I do not think we know enough about the impacts of any change in the monsoon (changes in interannual variability may be more important than changes in the mean) to use any definitive adjective. This is clearly an area where more research is needed. Peter Webster has done relevant work. Tom. Here is the revised text from your paper: Both tropical and Arctic SO2 injection would disrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people. Catastrophic without any qualifiers certainly implies lots of dead people. You also used a loading of 5Mt of S for the tropical aerosol modeling, a level pretty close to what would be needed to offset a doubling of CO2. As to your comment about peer reviewed scientific papers, note that I was one of the reviewers for your paper. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR7.pdf http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/7942e72bc0ae303c# Acknowledgments. This work is supported by NSF grant ATM-0730452. We thank Phil 335 Rasch, Ben Kravitz, Alvia Gaskill, and Tom Wigley for valuable comments. Model 336 development and computer time at GISS are supported by NASA climate modeling grants. I don't know which is worse, your memory or your attitude. - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming Dear Alvia, If you are going to comment on my work, I wish you would read it first. I never did a calculation to offset a doubling of CO2. I never said everyone would starve to death. By the way, if there are 2 billion people in India and China together, and people are not just affected by weather changes in their own local neighborhoods. If you want to make serious comments on peer-reivewed scientific literature, please submit a comment or another paper to the journal, and have your writings peer reviewed, too. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II 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.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Alvia Gaskill wrote: Tom is correct about the models and the analogy with tropospheric aerosols. Robock looked at a very limited number of conditions applied to the extreme to offset a doubling of CO2 and the natural events where monsoons were impacted were also extreme cases. I know that the modelers say they have to use the extreme conditions to see above the noise, but CO2 hasn't doubled yet, no aerosols have been employed and no monsoons have been impacted. Discussing options is not the same as exercising them and in no way is a form of denial. In an earlier posting, Sharma said that 2 billion would be affected. That figure is a little mysterious and seems to have come from Robock's original paper where he initially said these people would all starve to death and was convinced to back off from it. If you total the entire population of Eastern China and the parts of India and Africa that might be affected by a REDUCTION in the monsoons (there is more than one monsoon, even for India, another common misconception by lay people and the media and some scientists), I doubt if the total comes close to 2 billion. Reducing the monsoon is not the same as no rainfall at all, another horror story without a basis. In the early discussions on Robock's modeling (see group archives), I found evidence that 50% annual swings in monsoonal precipitation are not unusual for India and the Indian meterological service, trained by the detail obsessed British are well aware of historical variations. This year's lower than average probably fits right in with the historical results. Remember the flooding a few years ago with the Indian Army having to rescue people? As to how to address what might be a real problem, a prolonged reduction in rainfall (large parts of India receive less than 30 inches per year, so that 9-10 from the monsoons in the summer
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
Dear Alvia, But I changed my mind and never published that. How can you criticize me for something I no longer believe or say? Alan Alan Robock, Professor II 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.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Alvia Gaskill wrote: You initially used the word catastrophic to describe the impact on food and water supplies for India and China. Tom Wigley noted that in his comments: - Original Message - From: Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu Cc: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New geoengineering article submitted Dear Alan, I too would advise against the use of the word catastrophic. I do not think we know enough about the impacts of any change in the monsoon (changes in interannual variability may be more important than changes in the mean) to use any definitive adjective. This is clearly an area where more research is needed. Peter Webster has done relevant work. Tom. Here is the revised text from your paper: Both tropical and Arctic SO2 injection would disrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people. Catastrophic without any qualifiers certainly implies lots of dead people. You also used a loading of 5Mt of S for the tropical aerosol modeling, a level pretty close to what would be needed to offset a doubling of CO2. As to your comment about peer reviewed scientific papers, note that I was one of the reviewers for your paper. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR7.pdf http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/7942e72bc0ae303c# Acknowledgments. This work is supported by NSF grant ATM-0730452. We thank Phil 335 Rasch, Ben Kravitz, Alvia Gaskill, and Tom Wigley for valuable comments. Model 336 development and computer time at GISS are supported by NASA climate modeling grants. I don't know which is worse, your memory or your attitude. - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming Dear Alvia, If you are going to comment on my work, I wish you would read it first. I never did a calculation to offset a doubling of CO2. I never said everyone would starve to death. By the way, if there are 2 billion people in India and China together, and people are not just affected by weather changes in their own local neighborhoods. If you want to make serious comments on peer-reivewed scientific literature, please submit a comment or another paper to the journal, and have your writings peer reviewed, too. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II 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.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Alvia Gaskill wrote: Tom is correct about the models and the analogy with tropospheric aerosols. Robock looked at a very limited number of conditions applied to the extreme to offset a doubling of CO2 and the natural events where monsoons were impacted were also extreme cases. I know that the modelers say they have to use the extreme conditions to see above the noise, but CO2 hasn't doubled yet, no aerosols have been employed and no monsoons have been impacted. Discussing options is not the same as exercising them and in no way is a form of denial. In an earlier posting, Sharma said that 2 billion would be affected. That figure is a little mysterious and seems to have come from Robock's original paper where he initially said these people would all starve to death and was convinced to back off from it. If you total the entire population of Eastern China and the parts of India and Africa that might be affected by a REDUCTION in the monsoons (there is more than one monsoon, even for India, another common misconception by lay people and the media and some scientists), I doubt if the total comes close to 2 billion. Reducing the monsoon is not the same as no rainfall at all, another horror story without a basis. In the early discussions
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
Should we reserve catastrophe for a domino sequence in which retreating Arctic sea ice precipitates irreversible positive feedback warming that sees the sea ice gone in, say, about a decade, which causes further warming that melts tundra to a depth where soil/peat is permanently unfrozen and that rapidly releases underlying methane in large quantities that see further warming that results in sufficient basal lubrication for major portions of Greenland's ice cover to slide into the oceans raising sea levels (maybe with a contribution from accelerating Antarctic glaciers) by a few meters by mid-century. Very unlikely maybe, but we don't know enough to be sure it can't happen so maybe a good idea to do something about the sea ice before too late. Then we can use disaster for killing a few millions here or there, maybe in an effort to prevent catastrophe. Like the ozone hole which I believe has already killed a million or so [can't remember where I saw that, maybe someone can confirm or deny] a disaster that is not a catastrophe Peter Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com To: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:41 AM Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming You initially used the word catastrophic to describe the impact on food and water supplies for India and China. Tom Wigley noted that in his comments: - Original Message - From: Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu Cc: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New geoengineering article submitted Dear Alan, I too would advise against the use of the word catastrophic. I do not think we know enough about the impacts of any change in the monsoon (changes in interannual variability may be more important than changes in the mean) to use any definitive adjective. This is clearly an area where more research is needed. Peter Webster has done relevant work. Tom. Here is the revised text from your paper: Both tropical and Arctic SO2 injection would disrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people. Catastrophic without any qualifiers certainly implies lots of dead people. You also used a loading of 5Mt of S for the tropical aerosol modeling, a level pretty close to what would be needed to offset a doubling of CO2. As to your comment about peer reviewed scientific papers, note that I was one of the reviewers for your paper. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR7.pdf http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/7942e72bc0ae303c# Acknowledgments. This work is supported by NSF grant ATM-0730452. We thank Phil 335 Rasch, Ben Kravitz, Alvia Gaskill, and Tom Wigley for valuable comments. Model 336 development and computer time at GISS are supported by NASA climate modeling grants. I don't know which is worse, your memory or your attitude. - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming Dear Alvia, If you are going to comment on my work, I wish you would read it first. I never did a calculation to offset a doubling of CO2. I never said everyone would starve to death. By the way, if there are 2 billion people in India and China together, and people are not just affected by weather changes in their own local neighborhoods. If you want to make serious comments on peer-reivewed scientific literature, please submit a comment or another paper to the journal, and have your writings peer reviewed, too. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II 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.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Alvia Gaskill wrote: Tom is correct about the models and the analogy with tropospheric aerosols. Robock looked at a very limited number of conditions applied to the extreme to offset a doubling of CO2 and the natural events where monsoons were impacted were also extreme cases. I know that the modelers say they have to use the extreme conditions to see above the noise, but CO2 hasn't doubled yet, no aerosols have been employed and no monsoons have been impacted. Discussing options is not the same as exercising them and in no way is a form of denial. In an earlier posting, Sharma said
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
While Alan Robock is right re the best analog, this does not mean it is a good analog (because of timescale differences). This is an unresolved issue -- and some of the studies that have begun to address this issue are of very limited value because the GCMs used are very poor at simulating the present-day monsoon. An a priori requirement for using a GCM in this context is that it gives a good simulation of the present-day monsoon. I do not know of any studies that have checked this -- if I'm wrong, please let me know. Tropospheric aerosols are not a good or useful analog. The response to tropospheric aerosols depends on the emissions pattern. (There are many other reasons why trop aerosols are a useless analog.) Tom. ++ Manu Sharma wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM Perhaps the best analog to SRM is the phenomenon of global dimming and its links [1] with the Ethiopia famine of mid 80's that was caused due to shifting rainfall and killed a million people. It seems to me that this list is in denial of possible adverse impacts of SRM on rainfall patterns. Manu 1. Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002: Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstractissn=1520-0442volume=015issue=15page=2103 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: on monsoons and warming
On the contrary Manu We are trying to understand the relationship between a variety of SRM and CDR technologies to see if we can find a way to cool the earth (to avert threats of polar meltdown that will inundate many highly fertile delta regions) without threatening critical regional patterns such as tropical monsoons. Any thoughts ? (by the way, emissions reductions alone cannot do the job). Peter - Original Message - From: Manu Sharma To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:06 PM Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM Perhaps the best analog to SRM is the phenomenon of global dimming and its links [1] with the Ethiopia famine of mid 80's that was caused due to shifting rainfall and killed a million people. It seems to me that this list is in denial of possible adverse impacts of SRM on rainfall patterns. Manu 1. Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002: Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.83/2352 - Release Date: 09/07/09 18:03:00 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: on monsoons and warming
Thanks Peter,
I note your throwaway comment: "by the way, emissions reductions alone
cannot do the job" (e.g. of avoiding polar meltdown). So why is the
international focus solely on emissions reduction, when it won't solve
the most urgent problems? Let's think back from the future. I am
reminded of the following parable we ignored to our cost, from way back
in 2009:
A young actress has a terrible smoking habit and her health
is declining. The doctor says that all will be well if only she could
reduce smoking 80% by 2050, but she says she'd find that really
difficult. Instead she smokes even more
furiously, as if
to enjoy it all the more while she can.
Meanwhile the nurse has noticed a tumour, but the doctor
says that it's bound to be benign. Tests show otherwise. The actress
has cancer. The doctor is afraid to tell her that she has cancer, let
alone that the cancer could be fatal and she might not have long to
live.
A colleague suggests chemotherapy, but the doctor dislikes
the idea - he has a gut feeling against it. But the doctor is now in a
spot. If he suggests chemotherapy to the patient, she will realise
that
she has cancer and might panic. Anyhow, he has assured her that
reducing her
smoking 80% by 2050 will do the trick. He convinces himself of at
least
twenty reasons for not treating her, among them as follows:
If she knew that chemotherapy could
prolong her life, she might not give up smoking. Indeed
he argues to himself that this is a "moral hazard".
Chemotherapy could have dreadful
side-effects, such as her beautiful hair falling out. Indeed
the cure could be worse than the disease. Particularly worrying are
the unknown unknowns of the treatment.
Chemotherapy would not cure all her
health problems.
If any of these got worse, the
chemotherapy might be blamed.
If the chemotherapy were suddenly
withdrawn, she would probably die anyway.
The chemotherapy might prove very
expensive (although his colleague has assured him it is quite
affordable).
He would have to get permission from
her family members dotted around the world, and that might be
impossible.
He decides to wait until the cancer is so bad that she
cannot help but notice it. Meanwhile he tells her that she should cut
down on smoking immediately. She pledges
to reduce her smoking 10% by 2010, but everybody knows she has a
stock-pile of
fags under the bed...
The cancer spreads rapidly to all parts of her body and she eventually
realizes
she must have cancer. But it is too late
for chemotherapy and she dies a long and painful death.
Now of course, we realise what we should have been doing, way back in
2009 (and earlier would have been better).
Cheers from Chiswick-under-sea
John
Peter Read wrote:
On the contrary Manu
We are trying to understand the
relationship between a variety of SRM and CDR technologies to see if we
can find a way to cool the earth (to avert threats of polar meltdown
that will inundate many highly fertile delta regions) without
threatening critical regional patterns such as tropical monsoons. Any
thoughts ? (by the way, emissions reductions alone cannot do the job).
Peter
-
Original Message -
From:
Manu Sharma
To:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent:
Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:06 PM
Subject:
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Alan
Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
wrote:
However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not
equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM
Perhaps the best analog to SRM is the phenomenon of global
dimming and its links [1] with theEthiopia famine of mid 80's that was
caused due to shifting rainfall and killed a million people.
It seems to me that this list is in denial of possible adverse
impacts of SRM on rainfall patterns.
Manu
1.Rotstayn and
Lohmann, 2002:Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.83/2352 - Release Date:
09/07/09 18:03:00
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: on monsoons and warming
I am too dense to understand the point being made. The international focus is solely on emission reductions because that is the game. They don't want to hear about geoengineering because that potentially screws up their game. This is not a group of idealistic people trying to do the right thing. This is a group of selfish people protecting their own interests, which include grant funding, investments, investments of other that are paying them off, the old boys club scratching one another's sit zone, etc. Geoengineering simply provides the itch. The earth is getting hotter for its own reasons and it won't stop until it gets to 25 C even if the increase is not perfectly monotonic. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are only speeding it up. Don't compromise on the need for geoengineering. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:11 PM To: pre...@attglobal.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Manu Sharma; Phil Thornhill; climatechangepolit...@yahoogroups.com; sarlo9; Andrew Revkin Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming Thanks Peter, I note your throwaway comment: by the way, emissions reductions alone cannot do the job (e.g. of avoiding polar meltdown). So why is the international focus solely on emissions reduction, when it won't solve the most urgent problems? Let's think back from the future. I am reminded of the following parable we ignored to our cost, from way back in 2009: A young actress has a terrible smoking habit and her health is declining. The doctor says that all will be well if only she could reduce smoking 80% by 2050, but she says she'd find that really difficult. Instead she smokes even more furiously, as if to enjoy it all the more while she can. Meanwhile the nurse has noticed a tumour, but the doctor says that it's bound to be benign. Tests show otherwise. The actress has cancer. The doctor is afraid to tell her that she has cancer, let alone that the cancer could be fatal and she might not have long to live. A colleague suggests chemotherapy, but the doctor dislikes the idea - he has a gut feeling against it. But the doctor is now in a spot. If he suggests chemotherapy to the patient, she will realise that she has cancer and might panic. Anyhow, he has assured her that reducing her smoking 80% by 2050 will do the trick. He convinces himself of at least twenty reasons for not treating her, among them as follows: * If she knew that chemotherapy could prolong her life, she might not give up smoking. Indeed he argues to himself that this is a moral hazard. * Chemotherapy could have dreadful side-effects, such as her beautiful hair falling out. Indeed the cure could be worse than the disease. Particularly worrying are the unknown unknowns of the treatment. * Chemotherapy would not cure all her health problems. * If any of these got worse, the chemotherapy might be blamed. * If the chemotherapy were suddenly withdrawn, she would probably die anyway. * The chemotherapy might prove very expensive (although his colleague has assured him it is quite affordable). * He would have to get permission from her family members dotted around the world, and that might be impossible. He decides to wait until the cancer is so bad that she cannot help but notice it. Meanwhile he tells her that she should cut down on smoking immediately. She pledges to reduce her smoking 10% by 2010, but everybody knows she has a stock-pile of fags under the bed... The cancer spreads rapidly to all parts of her body and she eventually realizes she must have cancer. But it is too late for chemotherapy and she dies a long and painful death. Now of course, we realise what we should have been doing, way back in 2009 (and earlier would have been better). Cheers from Chiswick-under-sea John Peter Read wrote: On the contrary Manu We are trying to understand the relationship between a variety of SRM and CDR technologies to see if we can find a way to cool the earth (to avert threats of polar meltdown that will inundate many highly fertile delta regions) without threatening critical regional patterns such as tropical monsoons. Any thoughts ? (by the way, emissions reductions alone cannot do the job). Peter - Original Message - From: Manu Sharma mailto:orangeh...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:06 PM Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM Perhaps the best analog to SRM is the phenomenon of global dimming and its links [1] with the Ethiopia famine of mid 80's that was caused due to shifting rainfall and killed a million people. It seems to me
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
Dear Alvia, If you are going to comment on my work, I wish you would read it first. I never did a calculation to offset a doubling of CO2. I never said everyone would starve to death. By the way, if there are 2 billion people in India and China together, and people are not just affected by weather changes in their own local neighborhoods. If you want to make serious comments on peer-reivewed scientific literature, please submit a comment or another paper to the journal, and have your writings peer reviewed, too. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II 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.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Alvia Gaskill wrote: Tom is correct about the models and the analogy with tropospheric aerosols. Robock looked at a very limited number of conditions applied to the extreme to offset a doubling of CO2 and the natural events where monsoons were impacted were also extreme cases. I know that the modelers say they have to use the extreme conditions to see above the noise, but CO2 hasn't doubled yet, no aerosols have been employed and no monsoons have been impacted. Discussing options is not the same as exercising them and in no way is a form of denial. In an earlier posting, Sharma said that 2 billion would be affected. That figure is a little mysterious and seems to have come from Robock's original paper where he initially said these people would all starve to death and was convinced to back off from it. If you total the entire population of Eastern China and the parts of India and Africa that might be affected by a REDUCTION in the monsoons (there is more than one monsoon, even for India, another common misconception by lay people and the media and some scientists), I doubt if the total comes close to 2 billion. Reducing the monsoon is not the same as no rainfall at all, another horror story without a basis. In the early discussions on Robock's modeling (see group archives), I found evidence that 50% annual swings in monsoonal precipitation are not unusual for India and the Indian meterological service, trained by the detail obsessed British are well aware of historical variations. This year's lower than average probably fits right in with the historical results. Remember the flooding a few years ago with the Indian Army having to rescue people? As to how to address what might be a real problem, a prolonged reduction in rainfall (large parts of India receive less than 30 inches per year, so that 9-10 from the monsoons in the summer are really important) at the wrong times of the year could be a problem. Robock's modeling showed little impact during the non monsoonal months, so it is during the summer that we would need to be concerned. I have offered up adding ammonia to the sulfate aerosol cloud over the land areas affected by the monsoons to remove the aerosol and let the solar radiation return to non aerosol levels. This would restore the temperature differential to the land and ocean so that the driving force behind the monsoonal flows is maintained: land warmer in summer causes on shore flow of moist air and monsoonal rains. Another possibility is to employ the cloud brightening technology over the adjacent ocean areas while also using the stratospheric aerosols. This would make the ocean colder than the land, even as the land is colder than normal due to the stratospheric aerosols. Why would you do this and not just use the cloud brightening technology? Because if the cloud brightening technology turns out to be much less efficient than predicted, it may be too difficult to use on a global scale. The same argument if the aerosols require much larger loadings than from a volcanic eruption or some idealized case. It seems that among the Greens, Dark Greens, Cutterites, Rommulans (my new name for Joe Romm acolytes), media and just plain idiots that any possible negative impact of any geoengineering technology is good enough for them to close the book. A more thorough and reasoned examination of the potential impacts is required. I note that Robock only recently came around to the idea of having other people conduct modeling of possible outcomes. As far as he was concerned, it was case closed. Of course, then he wouldn't need to go hunting for any more research funds, so there's a financial incentive too to continue. - Original Message - From: Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu To: orangeh...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:42 AM Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming While Alan Robock is right re
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
Dear Andy, However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM: Trenberth, K. E. Dai, A. 2007 Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L15702. (doi:10.1029/2007GL030524) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030524.shtml Oman, Luke, Alan Robock, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, and Thorvaldur Thordarson, 2006: High-latitude eruptions cast shadow over the African monsoon and the flow of the Nile. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027665. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/OmanLakiNile2006GL027665.pdf and they validate our geoengineering calculations: Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2008: Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16101, doi:10.1029/2008JD010050. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/2008JD010050small.pdf But this is just one model, so we are trying to organize standard experiments by the IPCC AR5 models, with all of them doing the same study, so we can see if the results are robust. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II 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.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Andrew Revkin wrote: The work I've tracked on monsoon remains equivocal on overall rainfall. Interesting 2006 study showed no change in total precip last 50 years, but more coming in heavy downpours (familiar refrain). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/asia/01briefs-indiafloods.html http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5804/1442 So that probably means that any impact from sulfates etc would also be hard to gauge at this point. Certainly there's other work showing that small-particle pollution (low altitude) can impede rainfall (both in Amazon and Asia). Stay tuned... : ) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: on monsoons and warming
Haven't we got this the wrong way round? Shouldn't we be trying to invent ways of applying SRM without problematic side effects? And shouldn't the first application be to halt the retreat of Arctic sea ice? Necessity is the mother of invention. John Alan Robock wrote: Dear Andy, However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM: Trenberth, K. E. Dai, A. 2007 Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L15702. (doi:10.1029/2007GL030524) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030524.shtml Oman, Luke, Alan Robock, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, and Thorvaldur Thordarson, 2006: High-latitude eruptions cast shadow over the African monsoon and the flow of the Nile. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18711, doi:10.1029/2006GL027665. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/OmanLakiNile2006GL027665.pdf and they validate our geoengineering calculations: Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2008: Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16101, doi:10.1029/2008JD010050. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/2008JD010050small.pdf But this is just one model, so we are trying to organize standard experiments by the IPCC AR5 models, with all of them doing the same study, so we can see if the results are robust. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II 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.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Andrew Revkin wrote: The work I've tracked on monsoon remains equivocal on overall rainfall. Interesting 2006 study showed no change in total precip last 50 years, but more coming in heavy downpours (familiar refrain). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/asia/01briefs-indiafloods.html http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5804/1442 So that probably means that any impact from sulfates etc would also be hard to gauge at this point. Certainly there's other work showing that small-particle pollution (low altitude) can impede rainfall (both in Amazon and Asia). Stay tuned... : ) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: on monsoons and warming
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduwrote: However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM Perhaps the best analog to SRM is the phenomenon of global dimming and its links [1] with the Ethiopia famine of mid 80's that was caused due to shifting rainfall and killed a million people. It seems to me that this list is in denial of possible adverse impacts of SRM on rainfall patterns. Manu 1. Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002: Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effecthttp://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstractissn=1520-0442volume=015issue=15page=2103 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
