A very informative comparison, thanks. The two main issues with bright water are the strong localized impacts on marine micro environment / food chain and also the simple problem that it may just not work!
Assessing the former cannot be properly achieved until the latter is established, as the dwell time of bubbles has a critical effect on local optical density A On 14 Apr 2011 02:52, <[email protected]> wrote: > > List (w ccs) > > Dr. Seitz (not a member of the Geoenineering list) has sent me the following (my added numbering should be #'sB 9-B11), with the category 1c incremented by 3 - so as to be from C12 through C 16. > > > 9. "No direct effect on ozone layer" > > > 10. "Local water cooling ( e.g. over reefs experiencing coral bleaching) could reduce ecological stress from climatic warming" > > 11. "Possibility of using white wakes to offset radiative forcing from CO2 emissions in marine transportation". > > He also sent this " Local arctic albedo boosting could arrest ice loss feedback" , which I feel was duplicative of Dr. Ronock's (and my) #2. Maybe I misunderstand. > > Thus the possible small table would become (until further modified): > > > > Summary (Revision 1) > > > For Stratospheric: Benefits - 8; Risks - 20 > > For “Bright Water” Benefits -16; Risks - 9 > > Thanks - to Russell. Other comments? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: "andrew lockley" <[email protected]> > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Russell Seitz" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:44:48 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Fw: Scientists should communicate: the methane time bomb > > > > > > > Dr. Lockley and ccs > > I generally agree with your comments and offer the following as something directly related to arctic/antarctic/methane/time bomb issues - the topic of this thread.. > > The following is only a personal follow-up to conversations on this list about a week ago re Dr. Seitz's "Bright Water" article.. This exercise was performed (solely by myself) so our discussion on doing something about arctic methane release doesn't end prematurely. ..I have had no conversations re this Table with Dr. Seitz (who is cc'd). > > The following is my tentative "Bright Water" version of the Table given by Dr. Robock earlier (citation given and reproduced in full a week ago). My explanatory comments are(hopefully all) in bold in square brackets, shown as deletions, or in separate identified subsections. . Numbering has been added to aid in further dialog and for easier attribution in the final summary comparison..But mostly this follows Dr. Robock's original. All - please consider this a rushed, first draft. > > > > Table 1 Benefits and risks of stratospheric "B right water" geoengineering > > > > > Benefits > > a. From Dr. Robock's list > > 1. Cool planet [ limited, at least at first, to targeted polar regions] > > 2. Reduce or reverse sea ice melting [Primary motivation] > > 3. Reduce or reverse land ice sheet melting Likely marginal benefit, but maintains symmetry. > > 4. Unexpected benefits [Maintains symmetry] > > > > > b. Adding items that might be listed by proponents > > 5. Can advance technology for reducing evaporative water loss from reservoirs and aquaducts > > 6. Risks are highly localized and likely measurable > > 7. Can implement rapidly, so might give time to avoid tipping point due to methane release > > 8. Low cost. > > > > > c. Reversing some listed by Dr. Robock as risks for the stratospheric approach) > > 9. Can stop effects quickly > > 10. Known hand on the thermostat > > 11. Does not degrade terrestrial optical astronomy > > 12. Does not affect stargazing > > 13. Does not affect satellite remote sensing > > > > > d. The following are non-benefits or marginal benefits for "Bright Water", but not necessarily large scale or probable, as originally listed by Dr. Robock. > > > Reduce or reverse sea level rise > > Increase plant productivity > > Increase terrestrial CO 2 sink > > Beautiful red and yellow sunsets > > > > > Risks (Retaining order from Dr. Robock) > > > > > a. Original list (some seem duplicative) > > Drought in Africa and Asia > > 1. Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation > > Ozone depletion > > Whiter skies > > Less solar energy generation > > Degrade passive solar heating of buildings > > 2.Environmental impact of implementation > > Rapid warming if stopped > > Cannot stop effects quickly > > 3 .Human error > > 4. Unexpected consequences > > Whose hand on the thermostat? > > Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy > > Affect stargazing > > Affect satellite remote sensing > > > > > The following seem to be less certain as risks, retained for symmetry > > 5. Commercial control > > 6. Military use of technology > > 7. Conflicts with current treaties > > 8. Moral hazard—the prospect of it working would reduce drive for mitigation > > 9. Moral authority—do we have the right to do this? > > > > > > > > Summary > > For Stratospheric: Benefits - 8; Risks - 20 > > For “Bright Water” Benefits -13; Risks - 9 > > > > > Tentative Conclusion by RWL – “Bright Water” is worth exploring further for both polar regions. > > > <snip> > -- 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.
