Various sulfur compounds are hygroscopic, so the vapor need not be saturated in order to start condensing.
On Jul 27, 1:13 pm, Veli Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.pdfhas 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
