Dear Gregory,
You left off all the negative aspects. I think the Asilomar Conference
is to discuss governance issues, and clearly all issues have to be on
the table, not just one-sided advocacy. Arguments should be based on
science and not just assertions. As to your points:
1. Just because the Arctic is warming more does not mean it is the most
endangered. Sea level rises everywhere. Drought and flooding affects
other areas. Disease spread and refugee migration are occurring in the
subtropics. Just cooling the Arctic will not solve the problem of
impacts of global warming.
I am confused by 3 and 4. On the one hand, you say the U.S. can do it
alone. On the other hand, you say that the Arctic Council needs to be
involved. In my opinion, without agreement by the entire world, not
just Arctic nations, we will move into serious political problems. The
fact that no treaties govern the stratosphere (which actually is not
true - remember the Montreal Protocol and its amendments) is a problem,
not a good thing.
5. This is just your assertion, with no science to back it up. Our
published results show that this is not the case. We are completing
spring and summer injection only cases, but have not completed the
analysis yet. Furthermore, no technology has ever been created, let
alone demonstrated, that can create an aerosol cloud in the stratosphere.
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: [email protected]
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
On 2/11/2010 12:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
All:
Preparing for the Asilomar conference, I summed up major points
favoring doing aerosol cooling of the Arctic.
Can others suggest further points? Feel free to dispute their
importance, too.
Gregory Benford
STEPS TOWARD SAVING OUR ARCTIC
GREGORY BENFORD
Department of Physics & Astronomy
University of California, Irvine
This paper proposes experiments to halt Arctic warming. The
advantages of first attacking climate change in the Arctic by
reflecting sunlight are several:
1. The Arctic is the most endangered region, warming faster than
other areas.
2. The Arctic stratosphere is the lowest, beginning at about 38,000
feet (11.5 km). This places it within range of the most suitable
aircraft for spreading aerosols, the in-flight refuelers. The tropical
stratosphere is largely beyond range of these aircraft, so experiments
there will demand fighter-class aircraft. The US has a large lead in
such technologies, and economies of scale.
3. The Arctic Council forms a natural group for managing such
experiments. The US has many allies on the Council, and Russian
objections can be met there. Eventual cooling targets that allow
northwest passage in the summer can be negotiated as well, away from
larger international bodies.
4. Experiments can proceed from US territory. We have the best space
technologies for diagnostics in the region. No treaties now govern the
stratosphere.
5. Arctic experiments done in summer will have minimal effects on
lower latitudes, despite some diffusion and convection of aerosols.
Rainfall effects in monsoons, etc, will be minimal. Costs of Arctic
experiments (~$300 million) are far lower than tropical experiments
(~$ several billion).
--
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.
