Should we reserve "catastrophe" for a domino sequence in which retreating Arctic sea ice precipitates irreversible positive feedback warming that sees the sea ice gone in, say, about a decade, which causes further warming that melts tundra to a depth where soil/peat is permanently unfrozen and that rapidly releases underlying methane in large quantities that see further warming that results in sufficient basal lubrication for major portions of Greenland's ice cover to slide into the oceans raising sea levels (maybe with a contribution from accelerating Antarctic glaciers) by a few meters by mid-century. Very unlikely maybe, but we don't know enough to be sure it can't happen so maybe a good idea to do something about the sea ice before too late. Then we can use "disaster" for killing a few millions here or there, maybe in an effort to prevent "catastrophe". Like the ozone hole which I believe has already killed a million or so [can't remember where I saw that, maybe someone can confirm or deny] a disaster that is not a catastrophe Peter ---- Original Message ----- From: "Alvia Gaskill" <agask...@nc.rr.com> To: "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> Cc: <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:41 AM Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
> > You initially used the word "catastrophic" to describe the impact on food > and water supplies for India and China. Tom Wigley noted that in his > comments: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Wigley" <wig...@ucar.edu> > To: <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> > Cc: "Alvia Gaskill" <agask...@nc.rr.com>; "geoengineering" > <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 AM > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New geoengineering article submitted > > >> Dear Alan, >> >> I too would advise against the use of the word "catastrophic". >> >> I do not think we know enough about the impacts of any change in >> the monsoon (changes in interannual variability may be more >> important than changes in the mean) to use any definitive adjective. >> >> This is clearly an area where more research is needed. Peter Webster >> has done relevant work. >> >> Tom. > > > Here is the revised text from your paper: > "Both tropical and Arctic SO2 injection would disrupt the Asian and > African > summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of > people." > > Catastrophic without any qualifiers certainly implies lots of dead people. > You also used a loading of 5Mt of S for the tropical aerosol modeling, a > level pretty close to what would be needed to offset a doubling of CO2. > As > to your comment about "peer reviewed" scientific papers, note that I was > one > of the reviewers for your paper. > http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR7.pdf > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/7942e72bc0ae303c# > > "Acknowledgments. This work is supported by NSF grant ATM-0730452. We > thank > Phil > > 335 Rasch, Ben Kravitz, Alvia Gaskill, and Tom Wigley for valuable > comments. > Model > > 336 development and computer time at GISS are supported by NASA climate > modeling grants." > > I don't know which is worse, your memory or your attitude. > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> > To: "Alvia Gaskill" <agask...@nc.rr.com> > Cc: <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:07 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming > > >> Dear Alvia, >> >> If you are going to comment on my work, I wish you would read it first. >> >> I never did a calculation to offset a doubling of CO2. >> >> I never said everyone would starve to death. >> >> By the way, if there are 2 billion people in India and China together, >> and >> people are not just affected by weather changes in their own local >> neighborhoods. >> >> If you want to make serious comments on peer-reivewed scientific >> literature, please submit a comment or another paper to the journal, and >> have your writings peer reviewed, too. >> >> 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: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Alvia Gaskill wrote: >> >>> >>> Tom is correct about the models and the analogy with tropospheric >>> aerosols. >>> Robock looked at a very limited number of conditions applied to the >>> extreme >>> to offset a doubling of CO2 and the natural events where monsoons were >>> impacted were also extreme cases. I know that the modelers say they >>> have >>> to >>> use the extreme conditions to see above the noise, but CO2 hasn't >>> doubled >>> yet, no aerosols have been employed and no monsoons have been impacted. >>> Discussing options is not the same as exercising them and in no way is a >>> form of denial. >>> >>> In an earlier posting, Sharma said that 2 billion would be affected. >>> That >>> figure is a little mysterious and seems to have come from Robock's >>> original >>> paper where he initially said these people would all starve to death and >>> was >>> convinced to back off from it. If you total the entire population of >>> Eastern China and the parts of India and Africa that might be affected >>> by >>> a >>> REDUCTION in the monsoons (there is more than one monsoon, even for >>> India, >>> another common misconception by lay people and the media and some >>> scientists), I doubt if the total comes close to 2 billion. >>> >>> Reducing the monsoon is not the same as no rainfall at all, another >>> horror >>> story without a basis. In the early discussions on Robock's modeling >>> (see >>> group archives), I found evidence that 50% annual swings in monsoonal >>> precipitation are not unusual for India and the Indian meterological >>> service, trained by the detail obsessed British are well aware of >>> historical >>> variations. This year's lower than average probably fits right in with >>> the >>> historical results. Remember the flooding a few years ago with the >>> Indian >>> Army having to rescue people? >>> >>> As to how to address what might be a real problem, a prolonged reduction >>> in >>> rainfall (large parts of India receive less than 30 inches per year, so >>> that >>> 9-10 from the monsoons in the summer are really important) at the wrong >>> times of the year could be a problem. Robock's modeling showed little >>> impact during the non monsoonal months, so it is during the summer that >>> we >>> would need to be concerned. >>> >>> I have offered up adding ammonia to the sulfate aerosol cloud over the >>> land >>> areas affected by the monsoons to remove the aerosol and let the solar >>> radiation return to non aerosol levels. This would restore the >>> temperature >>> differential to the land and ocean so that the driving force behind the >>> monsoonal flows is maintained: land warmer in summer causes on shore >>> flow >>> of >>> moist air and monsoonal rains. >>> >>> Another possibility is to employ the cloud brightening technology over >>> the >>> adjacent ocean areas while also using the stratospheric aerosols. This >>> would make the ocean colder than the land, even as the land is colder >>> than >>> normal due to the stratospheric aerosols. Why would you do this and not >>> just use the cloud brightening technology? Because if the cloud >>> brightening >>> technology turns out to be much less efficient than predicted, it may be >>> too >>> difficult to use on a global scale. The same argument if the aerosols >>> require much larger loadings than from a volcanic eruption or some >>> idealized >>> case. >>> >>> It seems that among the Greens, Dark Greens, Cutterites, Rommulans (my >>> new >>> name for Joe Romm acolytes), media and just plain idiots that any >>> possible >>> negative impact of any geoengineering technology is good enough for them >>> to >>> close the book. A more thorough and reasoned examination of the >>> potential >>> impacts is required. I note that Robock only recently came around to >>> the >>> idea of having other people conduct modeling of possible outcomes. As >>> far >>> as he was concerned, it was case closed. Of course, then he wouldn't >>> need >>> to go hunting for any more research funds, so there's a financial >>> incentive >>> too to continue. >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Tom Wigley" <wig...@ucar.edu> >>> To: <orangeh...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:42 AM >>> Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming >>> >>> >>>> >>>> While Alan Robock is right re "the best analog", this does not >>>> mean it is a good analog (because of timescale differences). >>>> This is an unresolved issue -- and some of the studies that have >>>> begun to address this issue are of very limited value because >>>> the GCMs used are very poor at simulating the present-day monsoon. >>>> An a priori requirement for using a GCM in this context is that >>>> it gives a good simulation of the present-day monsoon. I do not >>>> know of any studies that have checked this -- if I'm wrong, please >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> Tropospheric aerosols are not a good or useful analog. The >>>> response to tropospheric aerosols depends on the emissions >>>> pattern. (There are many other reasons why trop aerosols are >>>> a useless analog.) >>>> >>>> Tom. >>>> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> Manu Sharma wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >>>>> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not >>>>> equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the best analog to SRM is the phenomenon of global dimming and >>>>> its links [1] with the Ethiopia famine of mid 80's that was caused due >>>>> to shifting rainfall and killed a million people. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that this list is in denial of possible adverse impacts >>>>> of SRM on rainfall patterns. >>>>> >>>>> Manu >>>>> >>>>> 1. Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002: Tropical Rainfall Trends and the >>>>> Indirect >>>>> Aerosol Effect >>>>> <http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=015&issue=15&page=2103> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.88/2357 - Release Date: 09/09/09 17:50:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
