Regarding:
"Furthermore, existing observing systems for stratospheric aerosols
are
difficult to use. The SAGE satellites are no longer working. There
is
a spare SAGE III on the shelf at NASA, but there are no plans to
launch
it. Calipso lidar can make episodic measurements along very narrow
tr
: Andrew Lockley
To: dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr
Cc: John Gorman ; xbenf...@aol.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
You'd have to calculate this across the whole globe, surely? I
ndrew Lockley
To: dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr
Cc: John Gorman ; xbenf...@aol.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:53 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
You'd have to calculate this across the whole globe, surely? If the wh
only
>> apply to about 0.2% of the incident sunlight on the Arctic at midsummer.
>>
>> This is because the atmosphere is thin in comparison with the radius of the
>> earth.
>>
>> This applies of course to all aerosols SO2 or SiO2. My main argument for
>> sug
gt;
> Denis Bonnelle.
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : John Gorman [mailto:gorm...@waitrose.com]
> Envoyé : mardi 12 mai 2009 11:25
> À : xbenf...@aol.com; Bonnelle Denis; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Objet : Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengi
yé : mardi 12 mai 2009 11:25
À : xbenf...@aol.com; Bonnelle Denis; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Objet : Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Although I was initially worried by Denis's point that arctic aerosols will
capture some rays that would otherwise just pass tange
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ;
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:33 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
All:
Bonnelle Denis is right that a detailed study of aerosol reflections
needs doing. Someone may wish to use research time on it, but without
any fu
Debate, analysis, and modeling of the status quo and thought experiments should be continuous. The more the better.
-Original Message- From: Andrew Lockley Sent: May 11, 2009 6:29 PM To: John Nissen Cc: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering John
ring. Note that it would be continued
>> failure for several years that could cause over a million deaths.
>>
>> Now, what is the next severest risk from aerosols, anyone? Or a worse
>> risk?
>> Ozone depletion?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
rom: "John Nissen"
> To: "Alvia Gaskill" ; ;
>
> Cc: ; "Andrew Lockley"
> ; ;
> ; ;
> ;
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
>
>
> > Very good discussion.
>
Since nobody knows, estimates are pointless without better data,
simulations etc
Gregory
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lockley
To: John Nissen
Cc: geoengineering
Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 3:29 pm
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
John,
No you may not
-- From: "John Nissen"
> To: "Alvia Gaskill" ; ; <
> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
> Cc: ; "Andrew Lockley" <
> andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; ; <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; ; <
> sam.car...@gmail.com>;
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:3
risk?
Ozone depletion?
Cheers,
John
- Original Message -
From: "John Nissen"
To: "Alvia Gaskill" ; ;
Cc: ; "Andrew Lockley"
; ;
; ;
;
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
&
wonder how much Lowell Wood and collaborators are doing on this,
> but Lowell is mum.
>
> Gregory Benford
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Gorman
> To: Bonnelle Denis ;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 1:59 am
> Subject: [geo] Re:
uch Lowell Wood and collaborators are doing on this,
but Lowell is mum.
Gregory Benford
-Original Message-
From: John Gorman
To: Bonnelle Denis ;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 1:59 am
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
I have t
.lock...@gmail.com <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> ;
> John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk> ;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2009 9:42 AM
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Ba
rm...@waitrose.com ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; John
> Nissen;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2009 9:42 AM
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> (please forgive me if the following g
: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:42 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Dear all,
(please forgive me if the following geometrical arguments have already been
discussed).
The positive feedback (albedo, methane, etc.) rationale for focusing about
the Arctic
googlegroups.com
; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk ; sam.car...@gmail.com ; p...@cam.ac.uk
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:01 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Can't we modify the aerosol size, and deployment patterns, to make sure they
fall out quickly and
May 10, 2009 7:51 PM
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; agask...@nc.rr.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu;
kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com;
brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk; sam.c
ar...@gmail.com; p...@cam.ac.uk
Subject: [geo] Re: Ba
.@ed.ac.uk; rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk;
sam.car...@gmail.com; p...@cam.ac.uk
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
All:
These comments about aerosol movement from an Arctic event are
Comments:
>>2) Stratospheric sulphur aerosols look fairly promising, and we can
cheaply deploy them with balloons. They might wreck the hydrological
cycle in general, and the monsoon in particular. Other aerosols are
worth a look.
Balloons are not optimal. Airplanes work fine at Arctic neede
ience gets better
- Original Message -
From: "Eugene I. Gordon"
To:
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:56 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering -
eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge
> How does one produce a game plan that ayone would p
sci.rutgers.edu;
kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu; xbenf...@aol.com;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk;
sam.car...@gmail.com; p...@cam.ac.uk
Sent: Sun, 10 May 2009 4:21 pm
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
I've been trying to find o
.@ed.ac.uk ; rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu ;
kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu ; xbenf...@aol.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk ; sam.car...@gmail.com ; p...@cam.ac.uk
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoenginee
around the
North Atlantic seaboard would not take kindly to a chillier climate.
Hmmm.
Cheers
Peter
- Original Message -
From: "John Nissen"
To: "Alvia Gaskill" ; ;
Cc: ; "Andrew Lockley"
; ;
; ;
;
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:37 AM
Subject: [geo]
n't know because
> > these studies haven't been done. Thus the risk questions posed by John
> > Nissen represent work that needs to be done.
>
> > - Original Message -
> > *From:* Andrew Lockley
> > *To:* John Nissen
> > *Cc:* Alvia Gaskill ; s.sal.
; *From:* Andrew Lockley
> *To:* John Nissen
> *Cc:* Alvia Gaskill ; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk ;
> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu ; kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu ; xbenf...@aol.com;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk ;
> sam.car...@gmail.com ; p...@cam.ac.uk
> *S
lost - current global GDP (aka GWP)
is about $60 trillion I believe.
Cheers,
John
- Original Message - From: "Alvia Gaskill"
To: ;
Cc: ; "Andrew Lockley"
; ; ;
; ;
;
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Bala
e lifting occurs, the air cools due to expansion, which in turn produces
>> condensation.
>>
>> In winter, the land cools off quickly, but the ocean retains heat longer.
>> The cold air over the land creates a high pressure area which produces a
>> breeze from land to ocean.[11]
urday, May 09, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
> Stephen makes a good point that leads to a more general one. If there are
> precipitation reductions associated with sunlight blocking schemes,
> consideration should also be given to mitig
...@dge.stanford.edu; Andrew Lockley; xbenf...@aol.com;
j...@cloudworld.co.uk; geoengineering@googlegroups.com;
brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk; sam.car...@gmail.com; p...@cam.ac.uk
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Stephen makes a good point that leads to a more general
-
From: "Stephen Salter"
To:
Cc: ; "Andrew Lockley"
; ; ;
; ;
;
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 6:43 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
> Hi All
>
> The attached paper by Zickfeld et al shows, in figure 2, what might
> happen t
Dear Stephen,
I would not put much faith in this highly idealized model, unless it
could be shown to actually simulate past monsoon variations. It is a
nice intellectual exercise, but ignores many of the important processes
of the climate system.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, M
Dear Ken,
I agree. We need several models to do the same experiment so we can see
how robust the ModelE results are. That is why we have proposed to the
IPCC modeling groups to all do the same experiments so we can compare
results. Nevertheless, observations after large volcanic eruptions,
;
> Cc: brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk; Sam Carana ;
> Ken Caldeira ; Peter Wadhams
>
> Sent: Fri, 8 May 2009 3:09 pm
> Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
>
> Hi again,
>
> I am getting a lot of support for concentrating on
> using stratospheric
er rainfall against the Arctic dangers.
Gregory Benford
-Original Message-
From: John Nissen
To: John Nissen ; geoengineering
Cc: brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk; Sam Carana ;
Ken Caldeira ; Peter Wadhams
Sent: Fri, 8 May 2009 3:09 pm
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of ge
Hi again,
I am getting a lot of support for concentrating on using stratospheric aerosols
to save the Arctic sea ice, as a most urgent application for geoengineering.
To me, perhaps the biggest specific danger is Alan Robock's first, so I'd like
to start the discussion on this:
S1. Could have
Hi all,
I'm restricting this analysis to geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols to
save the Arctic sea ice. I've not received any additions to the list of pros
and cons I posted on 29th April.
Some points have been discussed, mostly on 29th April also:
S11. Cannot stop quickly
William
that geoengineering
has been done instead of emissions reduction but noone here is sugesting
that.
John Gorman
- Original Message -
From: "jim thomas"
To:
Cc: ; "geoengineering"
;
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:10 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros a
27;;
brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Dear Alvia,
You can guess whatever you want, but I know of no examples of such low
stratospheric loading that had a detectable climatic effect. And I have no
idea what you mean by lowermost or lower str
" -
> http://volcanoes.suite101.com/article.cfm/satellites_see_kasatochi_eruption#ixzz0E5Ho14Kf&A
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alan Robock"
> To: "Eugene I. Gordon"
> Cc: ; ; "'geoengineering'"
>
Jim Thomas
Switching on and off happens all the time already. The rate at which
the dimethyl sulphide needed to make cloud condensation nuclei is
produced by phytoplankton depends on the area of sea with the right
temperature and daylight and is turned on and off with the seasons. The
area o
http://volcanoes.suite101.com/article.cfm/satellites_see_kasatochi_eruption#ixzz0E5Ho14Kf&A
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Robock"
To: "Eugene I. Gordon"
Cc: ; ; "'geoengineering'"
;
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:56 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Bala
Shame on you. Were they white rabbits?
"I was certainly very bad to introduce rabbits to Australia. But horses
> to America?"
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Salter"
To:
Cc: "geoengineering" ;
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:07 PM
Subject:
Bill
I don't see how you can consider SRM reversible. The modelling I've
seen (eg paper by Matthews and Caldeira) suggests that halting aerosol
injections will lead not just to a rapid jump in temperature but
indeed a jump to a higher global temperature than if geo-engineering
had not been attempt
Hi All
A comment about John's item G2 'that we make such a hash of everything
in the past that we are bound to make a hash of geo-engineering'.
Everyone likes to believe this but the reality is that we magnify the
hashes and ignore the many successes.
I was certainly very bad to introduce ra
Hi Bill,
I agree that the ability to halt deployment is an important advantage for
stratospheric aerosol (compared to, say, space discs). But I think S11 covers
the risk of it not being removable quickly enough. For example if there was
some event, such as a large volcanic eruption, threateni
minate the list
> without danger.
>
> _
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:53 AM
> To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> Cc: geoengineering; brian.laun...@mancheste
s.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:53 AM
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
Cc: geoengineering; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk
Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Dear John:
I did not see a principal adva
Dear John:
I did not see a principal advantage of SRM listed. That is that it is
reversible, at least for sulfates in the stratosphere and for cloud
whitening.
Cheers,
Bill
On Apr 29, 2009, at 10:34 AM, John Nissen wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Alan Robock has said:
>
> "Whether we should use geoeng
51 matches
Mail list logo
