There are several additional presentations besides the ones you mentioned. For the last week, I have stopped receiving emails from the group and my messages also no longer post, so you will probably need to post this one for me if you want anyone else to see it. There may be other papers, but I don't have time to look.
The paper by the Russians sounds like the one presented at AGU last December, but I would have to check. Regardless, it is incorrect in its conclusions that aerosols created between 50 and 70 N would be more uniformaly distributed than from the tropics. The 50-70 N region is where the maximum aerosol deposition occurs. Since they didn't specify altitude, I can't say whether this is based on stratospheric or tropospheric aerosol creation. The Kenzelmann paper is also a mess. http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-13073.pdf The conclusions are that only 60% of the aerosol survives stratospheric injection of precursor. A 10Mt injection of S would, in their model form the equivalent aerosol from a 6Mt injection, with larger droplets falling out of the stratosphere rapidly. It is true that 10Mt of S were injected by Pinatubo and after a year, 6Mt equivalent remained, so if the man-made injections were identical to Pinatubo, this might be expected. It might also be a coincidence and the other 4Mt from Pinatubo may not have crossed the tropical tropopause. However, I would have to see how and where their injections took place. In the absence of significant water vapor allowing more rapid formation of H2SO4 as was the case with Pinatubo, it is likely that the precursor will be much more widely distributed before any aerosol is formed and thus, their heterogeneous nucleation scenario is much less likely. Varying the precursor injection points might also help somewhat. Their ozone destruction scenario is also built upon the large aerosol droplet sedimentation case and if this didn't occur, the ozone destruction would be much less. They also seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that 10Mt of sulfur will be required immediately to offset a doubling of CO2. I would have to see the timetable as to when the 10Mt is needed in their modeling. Most likely, active chlorine will be nearly gone by then. Ironically, they admit their modeling that showed upper tropospheric increases in water vapor from large aerosol droplet absorption of upwelling IR which led to the ozone depletion didn't mesh with what happened with Pinatubo. Based on this, they conclude that models can't properly predict the outcome of aerosol geoengineering. They fail to realize that injection of 10Mt of S over a period of a year is very different from what happened with Pinatubo, where all the aerosol precursor was injected over a few days. The Goes paper http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-5694.pdf also appears to be a rerrun from AGU. It "goes" like this. If geoengineering with aerosols was stopped, the temperature would go back up and therefore, geoengineering as a substitute for emissions reduction is a bad idea. Someone was paid to write this. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
