A month or two back someone suggested that H2 would have as bad an effect on the ozone layer as CFCs and that this was a reason for rejecting the H2 based transport energy idea.
Is this true? If so we want as little free H2 released as possible even if it would have other positive effects. John Gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:28 AM Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere Good point, Oliver, Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further hydrogen and oxygen may cause additional water vapor, in turn causing additional radiative forcing. However, water vapor persists for relatively short periods, much shorter than methane. Most vapor will quickly turn into precipitation, which may also be beneficial for the soil at many places. Furthermore, additional cloud coverage may make that more sunlight is reflected back into space, mainly due to the albedo difference between clouds and seawater. Overall, the impact may therefore be beneficial, especially if this results in increased oxidation of methane. Of course, the aim of such a project would not be to create vapor, the aim would be to increase hydroxyl levels, so we should look at adding hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, rather than water vapor. Much research and testing has already been done and further research can build on this. There should be more research in all this, with testing of the overall impact of such a project, rather than to rely only on observations of reactions that take place in isolated conditions during lab testing. As discussed, we should have plans ready in case methane becomes catastrophic, e.g. due to large increases of methane from permafrost and clathrates, while hydroxyl levels are dropping. Such a plan should aim to take into account all the impacts, as well as work out costs, feasibility and other points I raised before. In short, it should be researched as a geoengineering project. If this takes years of research and testing, then the more reason to start with it now, as we may find that we have little time left to do this, if it suddenly becomes immanent that our worst fears have eventuated. Cheers Sam Carana On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. -- 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.
