John, No you may not assume any such thing. Far, far too low on both % and numbers for a max possible risk. A
2009/5/11 John Nissen <[email protected]> > Hi all, > > In the absense of any figures from you for monsoon failure risk, may I > suggest a maximum probability of 1% of severe failure, causing the deaths of > maximum 1 million people. If such a disaster occurred, the geoengineering > would probably have to be stopped, even if the disaster was not 100% > attributable to the geoengineering. So continued failure would not occur - > at least not as result of geoengineering. 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, > > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nissen" <[email protected]> > To: "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < > [email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; "Andrew Lockley" < > [email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < > [email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < > [email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:37 PM > > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering > > > Very good discussion. >> >> I'm trying to get a balance of pros (benefits B1-B7) and cons (specific >> fears S1-S21). What I'd like out of our discussion is some kind of risk >> assessment for the possible downside of a weaker monsoon, as this is >> considered the biggest risk in the regional effects (S1). And we could >> make this reasonably pessimistic, to be on the safe side - i.e. be cautious >> with the application of geoengineering. On the other hand, we might be able >> to reduce this risk, e.g. by neutralising sulphate aerosol; if there's a >> good chance of this working, then we can factor that into the calculation. >> Or the risk might be offset by a benefit in that region, e.g. improved >> summer water supply from Himalayan glaciers? >> >> So, what kind of impact would a weaker monsoon (ISM) have on India? What >> is the probability of stratospheric aerosols deployed in the Arctic would >> produce a weaker monsoon? Can this risk be significantly countered? Can it >> be significantly offset? >> >> Note that the risk on benefit side might be measured in terms of a risk, >> without geoengineering, of millions or even billions of lives being lost >> (especially if massive methane release adds several degrees of global >> warming, B4). Alternatively we could measure in GDP lost - current global >> GDP (aka GWP) is about $60 trillion I believe. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Andrew Lockley" < >> [email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < >> [email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < >> [email protected]>; <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, 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 mitigating these, analogous to the >>> medications given to patients with Type II diabetes to combat the side >>> effects of the primary drug. >>> >>> This is an oversimplification, but the way summer monsoons work is that >>> in the summer the land gets warmer than the ocean faster, creating a low >>> pressure area and this causes on shore flow as air moves from high to low >>> presssure. For some reason, Laki caused this to be muted. There were no >>> aerosols from Laki over India and it has been suggested there was a >>> teleconnected response (see the paper Stephen attached) although in paleo >>> climate the authors say the effects were direct, but don't give specifics. >>> In the case of Pinatubo, both the land and sea were cooled by the aerosol >>> and the land simply didn't heat up fast enough to generate the on shore >>> flow. >>> >>> If the Arctic only aerosol geoengineering does cause a reduction in the >>> ISM (Indian Summer Monsoon as there are other monsoons that affect India, >>> but this is the most important one), use of the cloud whitening to restore >>> at least some of the temperature differential should be considered. >>> Likewise, in a global aerosol scheme, with a global aerosol spread similar >>> to that of Pinatubo, the cloud whitening could also be used to create a >>> temperature differential, but at some point it becomes a race to the bottom, >>> with the land temperature simply too cool to initiate the low pressure area. >>> In this case, reducing the depth of the aerosol layer over the land may be >>> the most effective way to restore the dynamics. >>> >>> I previously suggested using ammonia released from either planes or >>> balloons to react with the sulfate aerosol and drop them out as ammonium >>> sulfate. This idea as well as Stephen's could be applied to other locations >>> such as the Amazon, Eastern China and Africa where models indicate >>> unacceptable reductions in precipitation are a result of either aerosol >>> geoengineering or global warming. Of course, the ammonia wouldn't be of any >>> value in a global warming/no aerosol scenario. >>> >>> I said in one the earliest papers I wrote on geoengineering that >>> eventually we were going to have to learn how to manipulate the climate to >>> our advantage. That includes both gross scale and fine tuning. >>> >>> In a related issue, last year I posted a link from a group in the UK that >>> was carrying out some 130 different models of aerosol geoengineering. It >>> was a volunteer effort among universities. If they have done even a >>> fraction of the modeling, this work should be taken into account in >>> designing new studies such as Rutgers is proposing. Anyone have an update? >>> >>> You may recall also that we spent some time last year discussing the >>> significance of the "little brown blotches" in absolute terms and now Ken >>> also raises the issue of their resolution. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon >>> >>> Monsoons are caused by the larger amplitude of the seasonal cycle of land >>> temperature compared to that of nearby oceans. This differential warming >>> happens because heat in the ocean is mixed vertically through a "mixed >>> layer" that may be fifty meters deep, through the action of wind and >>> buoyancy-generated turbulence, whereas the land surface conducts heat >>> slowly, with the seasonal signal penetrating perhaps a meter or so. >>> Additionally, the specific heat capacity of liquid water is significantly >>> higher than that of most materials that make up land. Together, these >>> factors mean that the heat capacity of the layer participating in the >>> seasonal cycle is much larger over the oceans than over land, with the >>> consequence that the air over the land warms faster and reaches a higher >>> temperature than the air over the ocean.[11] Heating of the air over the >>> land reduces the air's density, creating an area of low pressure. This >>> produces a wind blowing toward the land, bringing moist near-surface air >>> from over the ocean. Rainfall is caused by the moist ocean air being lifted >>> upwards by mountains, surface heating, convergence at the surface, >>> divergence aloft, or from storm-produced outflows at the surface. However >>> the 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] Monsoons are similar to sea and land breezes, >>> a term usually referring to the localized, diurnal (daily) cycle of >>> circulation near coastlines, but they are much larger in scale, stronger and >>> seasonal.[12] >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Andrew Lockley" < >>> [email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < >>> [email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < >>> [email protected]>; <[email protected]> >>> 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 to the Indian Monsoon if we do nothing. Cooling the sea relative >>>> to the land should move things in the opposite direction. >>>> >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design >>>> School of Engineering and Electronics >>>> University of Edinburgh >>>> Mayfield Road >>>> Edinburgh EH9 3JL >>>> Scotland >>>> tel +44 131 650 5704 >>>> fax +44 131 650 5702 >>>> Mobile 07795 203 195 >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alan Robock wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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, >>>>> including 1783 Laki and 1991 Pinatubo, show exactly the same precip >>>>> reductions as our calculations. >>>>> >>>>> Even if precip in the summer monsoon region goes down, how important is >>>>> it for food production? It will be countered by increased CO2 and >>>>> increased diffuse solar radiation, both of which should make plants >>>>> grow >>>>> more. We need people studying impacts of climate change on agriculture >>>>> to take our scenarios and analyze them. >>>>> >>>>> Alan >>>>> >>>>> Alan Robock, Professor II >>>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >>>>> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 >>>>> x6222 >>>>> Rutgers University Fax: >>>>> +1-732-932-8644 >>>>> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ken Caldeira wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A few questions re claims about monsoons: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. How well is the monsoon represented in the model's base state? Is >>>>>> this a model whose predictions about the monsoon are to be trusted? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Since the believability of climate model results for any small >>>>>> region based on one model simulation is low, for some reasonably >>>>>> defined global metrics (e.g., rms error in temperature and precip, >>>>>> averaged over land surface, cf. Caldeira and Wood 2008) is the amount >>>>>> of mean climate change reduced by reasonable aerosol forcing? (I >>>>>> conjecture yes.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan is interpreting as significant his little brown blotches in the >>>>>> right side of Fig 7 in a model with 4 x 5 degree resolution (see >>>>>> attachment). >>>>>> >>>>>> How does the GISS ModelE do in the monsoon region? If you look at Fig >>>>>> 9 of Jiandong et al (attached), at least in cloud radiative forcing, >>>>>> GISS ModelE is one of the worst IPCC AR4 models in the monsoon region. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, while Alan may ultimately be proven right, it is a little >>>>>> premature to be implying that we know based on Alan's simulations how >>>>>> these aerosol schemes will affect the Indian monsoon. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you look at Caldeira and Wood (2008), we find that idealized Arctic >>>>>> solar reduction plus CO2, on average precipitation is increased >>>>>> relative to the 1xCO2 world. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ___________________________________________________ >>>>>> Ken Caldeira >>>>>> >>>>>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >>>>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab >>>>>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
