John, This is really flimsy thinking. It springs from a WAG (wild-ass-guess) type analysis of risk--"i.e. If it's not a lot, then it must be a little". For a humorous take on this, watch Jon Stewart's daily show last week on the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). I think it's about 19 minutes in. There is a debate about whether there is a 50% risk of a "black hole" swallowing the earth vs a zero percent chance.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/70872/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-apr-30-2009#s-p1-so-i0 <http://www.hulu.com/watch/70872/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-apr-30-2> More importantly though, it's also really perilous thinking. The press will pick this up as something akin to: "scientists planning experiment that might kill 1 million people." etc etc. Unless you have some rigorous modeling behind your position, I'd suggest refraining from these kind of hypothetical guesstimates. D On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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<http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
