Sending again as this failed to go to to the group 12 hours ago due to an error on my part Cheers Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Read" <[email protected]> To: "John Gorman" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Alan Gadain" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "John Nissen" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Pros and Cons of SRM geoengineering more widely
> > John > > I am all in favour of researching and (as the situation worsens) deploying > the more apparently benign SRM technologies to cool parts of the earth > while > giving time to deal with the excess CO2 problem (and while learning how to > handle harmful side-effects, if any, e.g. by localized SRM deployment). > However, they do nothing for ocean acidification and entail on-going costs > if 'bounce back' is to be avoided. Also, if CO2 levels were lowered, the > land would cool faster than the oceans with a likely need for continued > regional SRM to cool the ocean surface sufficiently to sustain the ocean > to > land temperature gradient needed for the advection that delivers the > monsoons > > Fortunately, though organizationally daunting, getting CO2 back to > pre-industrial levels is a technologically simple matter that involves > vast > transfers of wealth to impoverished low latitude countries where land is > plentiful and the climate most suitable for fixing carbon from the > atmosphere. Visit > http://seat.massey.ac.nz/personal/p.read/peterspapers.asp, > in particular Read,P. and Parshotam, 2007. "Holistic Greenhouse Gas > Management Strategy (with Reviewers' Comments and authors' rejoinders)". > Also at http://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/205 . Vast > transfers through investing in the land use improvements that can > renewably > meet demands for carbon fuel, instead of investing in extracting fossil > fuels from increasingly hazardous and environmentally precious places. > > However, instead of demanding that industrialized countries implement such > CO2 management (thereby effectively mitigating climatic threats that will > hit developing countries first, and thereby also advancing the Millenium > Development Goals) the G77 negotiators focus on extracting commitments > from > industrialized country politicians who won't be around when the time > comes, > to emissions reductions that can't deliver effective mitigation of the > threats, even in the unlikely event the commitments were fulfilled (what > of > the Kyoto commitment to "demonstrable progress" by 2005 ?). > > It's all madness > Cheers > Peter > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Gorman" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]>; "Michael Box" > <[email protected]>; "Jeff Ridley" <[email protected]>; "John > Nissen" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:51 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Pros and Cons of SRM geoengineering more widely > > >> >> In my rather unprepared question/statement at the House of Commons >> seminar, >> I hope I said how strongly some of us agree with your "alarmism". The >> possible or probable future without geoengineering is alarming!! It >> reminds >> me of the quote from the old Englishman Rudyard Kippling -"If you can >> keep >> your head when all about you are loosing theirs, could it be that you >> havn't >> understood the situation?" >> >> I also agree that a combination of cloud whitening and aerosols, both >> being >> carefully placed should be able to control temperature while we sort out >> some methods of getting CO2 levels back to preindustrial. Difficult but >> we >> have got to do it. A whole new science. >> >> John Gorman >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alan Gadian" <[email protected]> >> To: "John Nissen" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]>; "Michael Box" >> <[email protected]>; "Jeff Ridley" <[email protected]>; >> "Stephen >> Salter" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:12 PM >> Subject: [geo] Re: Pros and Cons of SRM geoengineering more widely >> >> >>> >>> Re: House of Commons Session in Geoengineering (15/7/09) >>> John, >>> >>> A quick note. I hope I was saying that, if you believe the >>> models which seem OK for temperatures, the sulphur scheme >>> would cool the poles, and the rest of the planet more. >>> Both Rasch's results and those of Lund (bristol) showed this. >>> However, the cooling associated with the cloud whitening scheme, >>> is especially pronounced at the pole (as shown by Rasch and our HaDGAM >>> results) and therefore could help preserve the permafrost. >>> >>> I am afraid I have little faith in the precipitation from climate >>> models, especially in the tropics. Parts of India have predictive errors >>> of over 2m per year for current simulations. With doubling CO2 >>> there will be precipitation shifts, definitely. Cloud whitening is >>> likely >>> to have them too, but hopefully will counterbalance the increasing CO2 >>> shifts. >>> >>> I think it is important not to jump in too soon, but examine with models >>> and small experiments the viability of schemes. I appreciate that >>> some (well Steven Rayner) at the meeting called me a "climate porn >>> merchant" ... and many other "jibes" , and I was also called a >>> "scaremongerer", but I feel it would be of advantage to take as many >>> people forward as possible, and explore all the facets of each approach. >>> >>> NERC and EPSRC are preparing initiatives, and I do agree it is >>> urgent. There may ( or may not) be ozone depletion problems with >>> significant use of sulphates, so we must take care. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, John Nissen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Recently the geoengineering group discussed the pros and cons of solar >>>> radiation management (aka SRM geoengineering) using stratospheric >>>> aerosols in the Arctic [1]. >>>> >>>> A possible downside of more widespread deployment of stratospheric >>>> aerosols has come to light; it is from decreased rainfall on Amazon >>>> [2]. Some of us were already concerned by possible slight weakening of >>>> monsoons. >>>> >>>> This decreased rainfall is liable to be aggravated by the growing El >>>> Nino. (The last strong one was in 1998.) >>>> >>>> Yet some experts (e.g. Jeff Ridley) are saying that deployment in the >>>> Arctic will not be sufficient to save the sea ice. (And if the sea ice >>>> goes, the methane could come out of permafrost, Greenland ice sheet >>>> disintegrate, etc.) >>>> >>>> And Alan Gadain, from the University of Leeds was warning me, last week >>>> [3], that Arctic deployment wouldn't work, yet on the other hand an >>>> effect of more general deployment would be to cool the Arctic. >>>> >>>> Who is right, and what should we do? >>>> >>>> Could there be a way to protect Amazon and elsewhere from reduced >>>> rainfall, while deploying stratospheric aerosols at a range of >>>> latitudes >>>> to produce both widespread cooling effect and specific cooling in the >>>> Arctic? >>>> >>>> We could use marine cloud brightening rather than stratospheric >>>> aerosols, because the risk of undesirable side effects is smaller and >>>> because the technique can be applied locally, but do we have the luxury >>>> of time to develop the technique? The Arctic sea ice is liable to >>>> disappear more rapidly than anyone expected - we just cannot predict >>>> with any certainty. Likewise the Amazon rainforest could perish if >>>> there were consecutive years of drought - which we cannot predict. >>>> >>>> Isn't there an overwhelming case for some kind of experimental trial of >>>> stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic, preferably starting next spring, >>>> before El Nino effects set in? There is so much at stake, wouldn't it >>>> be stupid to delay? >>>> >>>> And shouldn't some significant funding be put into marine cloud >>>> brightening? >>>> >>>> Cheers from Chiswick, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> [1] "Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering" thread: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/b045b6428fc89a93/95b940c3c3352e35?#95b940c3c3352e35 >>>> >>>> [2] Aerosol effects investigated by Met Office: >>>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090604.html >>>> >>>> [3] Geoengineering seminar at the House of Commons, 15th July 2009. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
