Hi Ken
I searched the archive and web and note this is
the first time anyone used the phrase:
"Pinatubo option".
Are you happy for this to become a fixed
phrase for deliberate injection of stratospheric
aerosols? It sounds good - like a movie title.
And it might be a good benchmark vid:
"This is what we have to start doing in Copenhagen,
to avoid having to resort to the Pinatubo option."
Ray
On Apr 21, 12:03 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote:
> For future sulfur emissions,
> seehttp://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/5-20.htm
>
> For past sulfur emissions, see the attached paper.
>
> Current sulfur emissions are on the order of 50 Tg/yr and for this half
> century is likely to be in the range of 50 to 100 Tg/yr.
>
> The EGU abstract
> (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf) foresees
> emissions rates of 5 to 10 Tg/yr for the first half of the century, which is
> roughly the 10% range of current emissions, with this percentage scaling up
> if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase and tropospheric
> sulfur emissions decline.
>
> So, this is not negligible, but it is unlikely to be a game changer either.
>
> It is my view that there would need to be some mighty compelling reasons to
> deploy a stratospheric aerosol system, if not only because people who
> experience bad weather in subseuqent years might be incented to sue (or even
> attack militarily) parties engaged in aerosol release.
>
> So, if we in an emergency situation acid rain, ozone loss, etc would be
> among the costs taken into account before making a decision, but these costs
> may not be decisive.
>
> I still think Mt Pinatubo is the poster child for stratospheric aerosols
> approaches: We know it can cool the Earth, we know it can do this quickly,
> and we know it does not immediately cause a global catastrophe. Were we
> faced with a real climate emergency, there could be a lot of pressure to
> exercise the Pinatubo option. I do not see that the abstract by Eliseev et
> al markedly changes this picture.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
> ___________________________________________________
> 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
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > **
> > *Some items from the EGU programme*
> > **
> > *Cryosphere - how much longer?*
>
> > This should be an interesting session:
> >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/142
>
> > Also on cryosphere is the session chaired by Peter Wadhams:
> >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/196
>
> > And some potentially interesting presentations here:
> >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/702
> > and here:
> >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/706
>
> > *Geoengineering, session CL27*
>
> > There seems to have been a disappointing response for this session.
> > However the session does include a poster presentation from Russians on
> > SRM using stratospheric sulphur aerosols:
> >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf
> > I'd be interested in Ken Caldeira's comments on this.
>
> > *Carbon stock management*
>
> > In "carbon-constrained future", I see no mention of geoengineering:
> >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/143
> > For example, there is this presentation:
>
> > ----
>
> > Can we control climate change risks and what does it cost?
>
> > B. Metz
>
> > Fellow, European Climate Foundation and former co-chair IPCC Working Group
> > on Mitigation
>
> > For controlling climate change risks to manageable levels global emissions
> > of greenhouse gases have to start
>
> > declining by 2015-2020 and need to be reduced to more than 50% below 1990
> > levels by 2050.
>
> > An overview will be given of the options that exist to achieve these very
> > challenging objectives. The economic
>
> > reduction potential of these options will be given as well as their costs.
>
> > Finally, the policies needed to realize the reduction potential will be
> > discussed.
> > *----*
> > **
> > There seems little sense of emergency, despite the looming cryosphere
> > dangers. Disappointing.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > John
>
>
>
> Stern_Chemosphere_2005.pdf
> 562KViewDownload
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
