My concern (on the salt spray experiment and Yuri Izrael¹s smoke screen demos in Russia) is that it they are not tests of ³climate engineering² but of local intervention.
As I wrote earlier this weekend, there is no doubt that clouds can be brightened (by ships tracks, etc.), but is this a climate test? Do you know that in 1947 Kathleen Blodget at General Electric told Irving Langmuir that intervening in a cloud was something much different than ³controlling the weather?² Seems to have fallen on Langmuir¹s deaf ears. This on Izrael, et al. is from my book, Fixing the Sky, pp. 255-56. > Late in 2009, Izrael and his colleagues reported on what they called a > geoengineering field experiment in Russia to study solar radiation passing > through aerosol layers. Citing Crutzen¹s 2006 editorial, they made the dubious > and self-referential claim that ³injection of reflecting aerosol submicron > particles into the stratosphere can be an optimal option to compensate > warming² (emphasis added). The experimenters then proceeded to experiment, > not in the stratosphere but near the ground. In several tests, a military > helicopter burning ³metal-chloride pyrotechnic² flares and a military truck > spraying an ³overheated vapor-gas mixture of individual fractions of petroleum > products² generated thick toxic clouds of smoke. The petroleum device was not > unlike Irving Langmuir and Vincent Schaefer¹s smoke screen generator of World > War II. Ground-based solar radiation measurements then showed what everyone > already knows‹a thick cloud obscures the Sun: ³Possible changes in the > irradiance are estimated in this case rather approximately. The irradiance > reduction in this case was about 28%.² Note the experimenters¹ use of the > terms ³possible² and ³approximately²; a reduction of sunlight of 28 percent, > sustained globally, would devastate life on Earth. Another experimental trial > also yielded inconclusive results. Cloudy weather with sky clearing made it > difficult for the researchers to detect a ³possible change in the solar > radiation caused by the artificial aerosol sample passing over the instrument > complex against the background of natural changes.² Nevertheless, for this > team, inconclusive small-scale experiments > near the ground were seemingly a sufficient proof of concept: ³Based on the > experimental results obtained in our work, it is shown how it is principally > possible to control solar radiation passing through artificially created > aerosol formations in the atmosphere with different optical thickness.² We can > only hope these Russian experimenters are not in charge of managing solar > radiation for > the globe. > > Reference: > Izrael, Yu., V. M. Zakharov, N. N. Petrov, A. G. Ryaboshapko, V. N. Ivanov, A. > V. Savchenko, Yu. V. Andreev, Yu. A. Puzov, B. G. Danelyan, and V. P. > Kulyapin. ³Field Experiment on Studying Solar Radiation Passing Through > Aerosol Layers.² Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 34 (2009): 265273. On 9/26/10 9:12 PM, "Dan Whaley" <[email protected]> wrote: > I do think that limited experiments w/ seeding clouds using salt spray (can > you think of something more benign and transient?) are unlikely to be harmful, > and that discouraging them is sending the wrong message as well. I actually > think the same about strat aerosols too. > > What is our concern? That the experiments won't "work"? Or that they will? -- 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.
