Hey,
Would n't it help to have aeroplanes to drop dimethyl sulphide from higher altitude if these could be scattered wide enough when the sea surface is not releasing enough aerosols? How much stuff needs to be uplifted, taking it miles up and dropping it then down might distribute it to replace the temporary lack of the natural sources of marine aerosols. I think it is entirely possible to create massive contrails with dimethyl sulphide nanoparticles, why then try to uplift heavy water molecules if it is just lack of the nuclei (for the supersaturated water vapour start condensing up there). Is the problem lack of water or lack of nuclei for the supersaturated vapour to condense? Rgs, Albert > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:47:43 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback - ja > > > Alvia > > Let me emphasize John's point about keeping her steady as she goes. > > I think that any dimethyl sulphide in sea water will get through the > spray system and go up along with the salt residues to do its stuff with > clouds. The size range should be ideal for transport by turbulence so > that a higher fraction will be lofted than the water from breaking > waves, much of which falls back rapidly. But given that figure 5 of the > wave sink paper shows that such a large fraction of the oceans is empty > of phytoplankton, will there by any dimethyl sulphide to spray? > > This engineer needs help from marine biologists. > > 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 > > > > John Latham wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > I think this is an interesting and seemingly authoritative > > observational study, with some so far limited modelling support.It > > will be valuable to ascertain whether the findings - at the moment > > limited to low clouds over the NE Pacific - are reproduced globally, > > and confirmed in other models.. > > > > If we assume that they are, it is pertinent to ask what the > > implications are vis-a-vis solar radiation management geoengineering > > schemes. If, as with our cloud albedo enhancement scheme, the idea is > > - as far as possible - to stabilise the Earth's average surface > > temperature, probably at current values, by varying the cooling in > > concert with the warming, the cloud cover / temperature positive > > feedback relationship would not come in to play. If, for any reason, > > we wished to produce an overall smallish cooling - for example to > > cool ocean waters in order to try to reduce the energy of hurricanes > > that subsequently form in those regions - the positive feedback should > > reinforce the geo-engineered cooling. > > > > So Steve should not sigh too deeply. > > > > All Best, John. > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > From reading the paper, it seems that the reason for less clouds > > with higher > > > SST due to CO2 forcing is due in part to a much quieter ocean, i.e., > > less > > > wind and less waves. The way that CCN from DMS from marine bacteria and > > > salt particles get into the atmosphere is in part due to breaking of > > waves. > > > If you heat the water gently, without disturbing it, you may get > > more water > > > vapor into the atmosphere, but without the accompanying CCN. Better put > > > some big assed propellers on those cloud boats, Salter as your > > mission may > > > have just been expanded. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Tom Wigley" <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Cc: "Climate Intervention" <[email protected]>; > > > "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:07 AM > > > Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback > > > > > > > > >> > > >> The real issue is the total magnitude of feedbacks, as > > >> characterized by (e.g.) the equilibrium global-mean warming > > >> for 2xCO2 (DT2x). > > >> > > >> The breakdown of the feedbacks is not directly relevant to > > >> this -- although it is of interest in model validation. > > >> > > >> This paper tells us nothing about DT2x or its uncertainty. > > >> My comment -- so what. > > >> > > >> Tom. > > >> > > >> +++++++++++++++++ > > >> > > >> Stephen Salter wrote: > > >>> Hi All > > >>> > > >>> Science July 24 from > > >>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5939/460.pdf has a > > >>> something about a positive feedback between sea temperature and cloud > > >>> cover. I had thought that warmer seas would increase evaporation > > and so > > >>> cloud cover but drying them out seems to win. > > >>> > > >>> Sigh. > > >>> > > >>> Stephen > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > John Latham > > > > [email protected] & [email protected] > > > > Tel. 303-444-2429 (H) & 303-497-8182 (W) > > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and emoticons. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
