Dear Sam and Andrew, Some problems may come up with further increasing H2. H2 is an indirect GHG.
H2 is a significant OH sink globally. Most of the H2 is consumed in soil. In soil the following reaction takes place, CO2+4H2 ? CH4+2H2O. Furthermore, the oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere of produces about half of the H2 in the atmosphere. A good summary can be found in http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf Sincerely, Oliver Wingenter Sam Carana wrote: > Andrew, > > Since hydroxyls essentially combine O and H, it may be possible to > increase the amount of hydroxyls in the atmosphere by adding both O > and H, although I'm unsure whether this will automatically result in > more hydroxyls. > > I remember that I wrote you, back in March, that hydrogen could be > produced and released into the atmosphere to - under the influence of > UV light - in an effort to produce extra hydroxyl radicals, in order > to speed up methane oxidation. If this is feasible, we should prepare > for this as a separate geoengineering project, in order to be ready to > dramatically increase the production of hydrogen, preferably by means > of electrolysis powered by wind turbines, or by means of pyrolysis of > biomass. > > You replied that such additional hydrogen could cause ozone depletion. > The above process of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water could > at the same time produce oxygen that could be used to in turn produce > ozone. > > You said you were working on a methane paper, Andrew, is this > avialable online, or are you still working on it? > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In order to address the problems of ozone loss and methane excursions, we >> need IMO to directly alter atmospheric chemistry. Making ozone isn't >> terribly difficult. You can buy off-the-shelf machines which do is quite >> happily. If you sling them under a balloon, then they should work quite >> merrily to boost ozone levels. Power would be a issue, but some options >> include microwave beams, lasers, solar panels and satellite-style >> micro-nuclear plants. >> I know less about hydroxyl radicals. I'm assuming that some similar flying >> Heath-Robinson contraptions could be used to fix them up too. Does anyone >> know what technologies exist, what the power, servicing, lifetime and other >> issues are? >> Our approach to pollution is strange. On the ground, we're quite happy to >> catch it, treat it and scrub it up. We seem, however, to make little effort >> to repair the damage in the wider environment, even when doing so doesn't >> appear to be impossibly difficult. Why sit back, hand-wringing, instead of >> building some engineering solutions? >> A >> >> 2009/11/15 Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> >> >>> Andrew: >>> >>> >>> >>> Based on prior behavior I guess we might get 50 years of few or no >>> sunspots. Hence we might have 50 years before it gets really hot. In the >>> meantime my guess is that the Canadians and Russians will fight any attempt >>> at Arctic geoengineering to cool or get rid of CH4. Methane conversion to >>> CO2 is one molecule for one molecule; and CH4 is a more effective greenhouse >>> gas so I don’t see methane conversion to CO2 as a big deal. The main >>> converters are OH and O2H radicals formed from O3 and H2O. So means of >>> enhancing radical formation would be desirable. Another way would be to >>> introduce H2. All of these conversion processes are at the expense of the >>> ozone layer. >>> >>> >>> >>> -gene >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:41 AM >>> To: geoengineering >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering >>> >>> >>> >>> At present the likely methane excursion is far from clear. Further, it is >>> also unclear how quickly the total excursion will occur. The excursion rate >>> is highly significant due to the short life of methane in the atmosphere. >>> The methane ends up as CO2, in itself a major issue. However, the CO2's >>> likely effect is nothing compared to the devastating temperature spike which >>> may result from a sudden methane excursion. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the >>> problem is far from conclusive. We need much more research into: >>> >>> 1) The methane reservoir in clathrates and permafrost >>> >>> 2) The size of potential methane sources currently frozen as organic >>> detritus >>> >>> 3) The likely changes to the GWP of methane in future atmospheres, as the >>> levels of hydroxyl radicals etc. shift over time and as a direct result of >>> methane excursion. Recent research on this asks more questions than it >>> answers. >>> >>> >>> >>> My personal feeling is that the range of likely outcomes is from a >>> significant amplification of AGW, right up to a 'Great Dying' sized >>> mass-extinction event when we come within a sneeze of sterilising the entire >>> planet. I'd be tempted to bet on the latter, but I wouldn't be around to >>> collect the winnings, so I'll keep my wallet in my pocket. >>> >>> >>> >>> My suggestions is that geoengineers look at ways to clean up the methane >>> from the atmosphere, and then lock down the resulting carbon. My guess is >>> we've got about 50 years to do this, but virtually no time at all if the >>> methane can't be dealt with once it's in the atmosphere. Therefore, I'd >>> support John out of precautionary principle-based reasoning. >>> >>> >>> >>> A >>> >>> 2009/11/15 jim woolridge <[email protected]> >>> >>> Nice one, John; the train of argument is clear (of limpid clarity, in >>> fact!) The problem is that the people and institutions addressed are >>> in the business of politics, the art of the possible, rather than in >>> the business of logical evaluation. They hear what you are saying and >>> must see the validity of it. But politically what is true and what is >>> doable do not always coincide, as we all know from as many examples as >>> one cares to ennumerate. >>> >>> We have to keep hammering away at the arguments, to the point at which >>> they are generally understood and accepted, and also keep on >>> politicking in the sure and certain hope that eventually the >>> acceptance of the arguments and the cowardice/caution/horse sense/ >>> opportunistic careerism of the politicos will achieve the right kind >>> of intersection. In the next year or so (& wouldn't it be a great >>> help to have the environmental NGOs on board.) >>> >>> On Nov 12, 10:51 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> It is incredible. It is so obvious. >>>> >>>> 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the >>>> concentration above its pre-industrial level; and >>>> >>>> 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the >>>> concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective lifetime >>>> of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years. >>>> >>>> Therefore: >>>> 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and will >>>> not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. >>>> >>>> Therefore: >>>> 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the warming >>>> due to the albedo effect. >>>> >>>> Therefore: >>>> 5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing quantities >>>> of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many degrees to >>>> global warming; and >>>> >>>> 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable, >>>> potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres. >>>> >>>> Therefore: >>>> 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly >>>> enough to save the Arctic sea ice; and >>>> >>>> 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation >>>> management (SRM) geoengineering. >>>> >>>> 9. SRM is not a last resort, it is needed now to cool the Arctic. >>>> >>>> It is incredible that people do not seem to follow this train of logic - >>>> it is so obvious. >>>> >>>> Yet when I challenged a panel of geoengineering experts to refute this >>>> argument, the response was that geoengineering (even just to cool the >>>> Arctic) was too dangerous - not that the argument was false! [1] >>>> >>>> So we continue to hear politicians and their advisers claiming that >>>> emissions reduction alone can be sufficient to keep the planet safe. [2] >>>> >>>> And we continue to hear geoengineering experts saying that >>>> geoengineering should only be used as a last resort. [3] >>>> >>>> How can this mindset be changed quickly, to avoid leaving geoengineering >>>> too late? >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> P.S. Apologies to those who have heard this all before and accept the >>>> logic as self-evident. >>>> >>>> [1] This challenge was put to the panel at the launch of the Royal >>>> Society geoengineering report, on September 1st, with response from the >>>> team leader and panel chairman, Professor John Shepherd. >>>> >>>> [2] For example at the geoengineering hearing at the House of Commons, >>>> November 2008. >>>> >>>> [3] For example at the congressional hearing on geoengineering, November >>>> 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=. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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=. >>> >> -- >> >> 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. >> >> > > -- > > 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. > > -- 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.
