Dear Gregory: I applaud your list, but I have one suggestion. You haven't answered the question: Why is saving Arctic Summer Sea Ice so important? Our hunch is that it is important because of positive albedo and hydrate feedback and because of ecological damage, but I have not seen the hard analysis showing the importance of avoiding these effects. I may just be ignorant, but I think your points would be stronger if you can cite the imperative for action because of undesirable impacts that can be quantified. Also SRM seems to be he only strategy that can be applied (on a geographically and temporally limited scale) in time. If this is true and the impacts of doing nothing can be shown to be severe, then the Arctic should be the first focus of an urgent international R&D program leading to carefully considered action. This is John Nissen's argument. Since according to the USGS the Arctic is potentially a very important future source of natural gas and oil, the argument to do SRM must be very strongly based. The benefit to cost raio needs to be large to stimulate the support of governments. With best regards, Bill Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment University of Tennessee 311 Conference Center Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX Home 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771
> From: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:02:05 -0500 > To: <[email protected]>, Google Group <[email protected]> > Subject: [geo] Arctic Agenda > > 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. > -- 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.
