All the discussion here is making sense. Clearly the initial goal is to first reduce solar radiation energy and/or greenhouse layer radiation energy incident on the surface in the Arctic region and to reduce the melting of ice and to evaluate potential negative consequences. It is not to cool the planet initially, just the surface in the Arctic. Indeed, if not for the Artic and the melting the rest of the planet is currently doing fine. However, when sunspots return at some future time and the rest of the planet is warming, what is learned in the Arctic may be applicable.
The use of the term runaway is a bit misleading. The radiation back from the greenhouse layer is graybody radiation and it has a limit when it becomes a black body and then adding more greenhouse gas has no impact and produces no additional heating of the surface. The greenhouse layer heating ultimately saturates when it becomes a black body, independent of additional increases in the concentration of the greenhouse gases, hence no runaway. Anybody have any good ideas for safely cooling the greenhouse layer gases so as to reduce the greenhouse layer graybody radiation flux to the Earth's surface? -gene -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Carana Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:01 AM To: Geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? Sure, François, but let's acknowledge that doing nothing is also taking a decision. Doing nothing, with the argument that this was better because something might not go as planned, that's not really an option. People are doing things without fully knowing what will happen, i.e. we're emitting greenhouse gases at such a scale and to such an extent that feedback effects are taking place that could result in a runaway greenhouse effect even if we did magically decide to stop emission altogether. If we're to start somewhere (and I advocate that we do), then we might as well start close to the arctic, and if we'll be starting now (as I advocate), we can start gradually, thus getting a better understanding as we go (small-scale). Of course, any such attempts will be regarded as a trial, and of course, if something unexpectedly did go wrong, there will need to be plans for adjustments or even to abandon further efforts. That speaks for itself. But we should get things started now in order to be able to monitor things. If there are any reasons to believe that something could go wrong, please post a message with details. But the longer we wait with this, the greater the chance that immediate and more dramatic large-scale actions will need to be taken without much insight in what will eventuate. Cheers! Sam Carana On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:32 AM, f.m.maugis <[email protected]> wrote: > Sam, > > I do not agree completely with you. The question of temperature > increase or decrease is not so simple. It seems to me that the > important action is to try to decrease the temperature somewhere on > the planet. Then, we see what happen. It is very possible that > decreasing 2 or 3 degrees in Africa can affect Siberia with 7 degrees. > For the moment nobody knows. Trials have to be done. > > Sincerely > > François MAUGIS > http://assee.free.fr > ====================================================================== > ====== > ============= > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Sam Carana > Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 15:49 À : Geoengineering Objet : [geo] > Re: the limits of geoengineering? > > > > Andrew, > > Looking at global historic data of warming, one might at first glance > conclude that only a relatively small amount of global warming did > cause the arctic melting we're witnessing now. So, the conclusion > would then be that we similarly needed to reflect just a small amount > of sunshine back into space to have the reverse effect. > > However, what complicates things is that global warming is amplified > in specific areas, notably around the North Pole. East Siberia was at > times 7°C warmer than normal during the summer of 2007 and the East > Siberian permafrost region alone contains 500 billion tonnes of > carbon. So, we would need to achieve much more cooling there to avoid > further melting. In other words, it's going to be hard to come up with > exact amounts of water vapor or aerosols that needed to be released to > achieve the same amount of cooling worldwide. > > And of course, we don't need to achieve the same amount of cooling > everywhere. What is most urgent is the arctic melting of sea-ice and > permafrost. Therefore, I suggest to make a start by getting ships as > proposed by Stephen Salter to cruise as close to the arctic as possible. > > Such a proposal should be discussed and considered at the Major > Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, set in Washington this month, > followed by a summit in Italy in July. Obama has invited the leaders > of 16 major economies, as well as the secretary general of the United > Nations, to participate in this forum. > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/28/obama_sets_internationa > l_clim > a.html > > This Forum seems to focus only on energy. We should present the forum > with a similar Open Letter that we recently presented to Dr Pachauri, > head of the IPCC, in which we suggested that a comprehensive approach > to global warming should consist of three parts: > > Part A: Emissions reduction > Part B: Carbon stock management > Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management > > I hope to convince further members of this group to become signatories > to such an Open Letter to this Forum. > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Andrew Lockley > <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'm not so concerned about the absolute physical limits of the >> process (as in max temperature or forcing reached). What concerns me >> is the ability to avoid dangerous climate change by using geoeng to >> arrest or reverse dangerous effects. >> I'd be really interested to see calculations that show whether geoeng >> can or cannot 're-freeze' the Arctic. If it cannot, then maybe John >> Nissen is right and we have a very short time to act. If it can >> re-freeze it, then the risks of 'full scale' SRM geoeng probably >> outweigh the benefits by a substantial margin at this stage, and for >> some time to come. (Much further research is needed into geoeng and >> also ice dynamics and carbon cycle feedbacks). >> I think that this is one of the most fundamental things we have to >> demonstrate when considering the case for geoeng. Is there anyone on >> this list who'd be willing to bring forward a paper or informal >> research on the interaction between ice-albedo feedback and SRM geoeng. >> A >> >> 2009/4/1 Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> >>> >>> As you probably know greenhouse gas is a positive feedback on global >>> surface temperature but saturates when it becomes a black body. As >>> the concentration of greenhouse gas goes up the layer become blacker >>> and blacker (in the IR that is) As it becomes blacker the amount of >>> radiation sent back to the Earth's surface saturates. IT IS NOT A >>> REFLECTOR NOR IS THE LAYER GOING TO GET HOTTER AND RADIATE MORE >>> ENERGY BACK AS THE EARTH WARMS UP. So there is a concentration of >>> CO2, methane, water vapor etc. above which the greenhouse layer >>> sends back a maximum amount of energy independent of the >>> concentration. The positive feedback saturates. Does anyone know >>> what that level is and what fraction of the radiation from the >>> surface is currently returned? In any case there is no tipping point >>> and there may be a limit to how high the surface temperature can go >>> (of course there is a limit, it is about 24 C). Geoengineering other >>> than CO2 removal controls the forcing function (the sun intensity at the Earth's surface). > There is a lot of loose talk about tipping points that needs to be > eliminated. >>> ________________________________ >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:49 PM >>> To: geoengineering >>> Subject: [geo] the limits of geoengineering? >>> >>> There's been quite a few suggestions on this list that we need to >>> use geoengineering whilst we still can. >>> I'm not convinced by this argument, and I'd like to investigate how >>> long the 'window of opportunity' for geoeng is. >>> Lenton and Vaughan found that Aerosols could counter a doubling of >>> natural CO2, and space sunshade (if possible) could go much further >>> This seems to suggest that we have quite a while to act. Even in >>> the even of the start of a methane pulse which gives a doubling of >>> co2 equivalent, we can still ramp up geoengineering intervention >>> quickly if needed. I suggest that we'd have at least 5yrs or so >>> warning, even of a really sudden methane pulse from permafrost. >>> However, the big risk, as I see it, is that ice-albedo feedback will >>> be too strong in the arctic to overcome with geoeng. I know that >>> re-freezing will occur in winter, but the thickness of the ice may >>> not be sufficient to last all year, even with geoeng. If this >>> happens, we may be unable to stop the methane pulse from permafrost > occuring (if it indeed does). >>> I don't have the skills needed to do the complicated sums, nor do I >>> have access to clever computers that can do them for me. Could >>> someone therefore suggest how long we've got before the 'window of > geoengineering opportunity' >>> closes - if it indeed does? >>> A >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
