The size of the termination shock is likely to be comparable to the graph when temperatures were suppressed from 1940-1970 when sulphur emissions were rising. The acid rains were starting to destroy forests (the Black Forest in Germany) and the acidity of Sweden's and Finland's lakes were rising rapidly. UK had western winds that pushed most of sulphur into Sweden and some of it to the Baltic countries and Finland. Nickel and Murmansk industries in the Arctic caused widespread dead zones in the Kola Peninsula, in Russia that lies north-east of Finland. The quantity increases of sulphur may have occurred, but it would push the warming 30 years ahead of schedule if we follow figures from 1940-1970. Events that could lead to a sudden switch off of energy system using sulphur fuels could be a nuclear war or event like sudden Greenland ice sheet land containment failure leading to Heindrich Ice Berg Calving Event and the North Atlantic Ocean to be filled by broken ice bergs and the onset of the Last Dryas. However, both nuclear winter and the Last Dryas would mitigate the warming effect by strong negative feedbacks in either scenario. A sudden sea level jump by few metres would also tear off ice shelves by bending them loose around Antarctica. This replicates the cooling of Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. Droughts would be unbearable in both cases as the oceans would be very cold while the global dimming effect would be lost over the continent. The Atlantic regions would be affected by cold and drought, and much of eastern parts of Eurasia would suffer loss of monsoon and very low precipitation. Large ice bergs resulted in above kind of event are so-called ice islands and these can take 15 years to melt away. During this period the ocean remains perennially cold and may be Finland could re-introduce its reindeer and musk ox stocks across the mainland Europe to supply meat. As a positive point the Central Europe could enjoy a period of beautiful Arctic flowers such as Dryases that like the cold weather and decorate our Arctic summer each year. Regards, Albert Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:59:10 +0000 Subject: RE: [geo] tropospheric aerosol use From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Another point to note is that tropospheric sulfur geoengineering is already being done, albeit inadvertently, by power plants, ships and factories. If we stop this, we will have a termination shock, as was reported numerically on this list recently wrt the US (possibly by Kens group). A further termination shock will arise from secondary effects on marine clouds. This was reported at IUGG, but observationally rather than numerically. I've not seen the paper. We are therefore just about to commence a poorly researched geoengineering programme to heat up the planet a bit! A On Mar 17, 2012 3:53 AM, "John Latham" <[email protected]> wrote: Hello All, Budyko’s points – re tropospheric vvs stratospheric aerosol - reiterated by Govindasamy Bala (below), in response to Nathan Currier’s question (also below) are clearly valid vis-à-vis cooling via scattering of solar radiation and concomitant global cooling. However, it does not follow that the effectiveness of stratospheric seeding is greater than that of the Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) geo-eng technique, which involves the (tropospheric) seeding of marine stratocumulus clouds with sea-water aerosol, in order to increase their droplet number concentration, and therefore their albedo (with concomitant global cooling). Latham et al (2008) presented arguments indicating that the ratio of the rate of planetary radiative loss to required operational power is very large (in the range 10**5 to 10**7 according to the type of vessel used for the continuous spraying required). They pointed out that the main reason why this ratio is so high for MCB is that Nature provides the energy required for the increase of surface area of newly activated cloud droplets by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude as they ascend to cloud top and reflect sunlight. All Best, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Govindasamy Bala [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:52 AM To: [email protected] Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] tropospheric aerosol use "Climate changes" by Budyko, on page 244, discusses why tropospheric aerosols are not as effective as stratospheric aerosols for climate modification. 1) life time is only a couple of weeks 2) Particle size becomes too big quickly and hence not effective for scattering 3) Presence of clouds make them less effective 4) absorption by aerosols of near IR shortwave could partially cancel the cooling by scattering. Bala On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Nathan Currier <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Does anyone know of any published papers exploring the use of tropospheric aerosol use? cheers, Nathan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- Best wishes, ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. G. Bala Associate Professor Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Indian Institute of Science Bangalore - 560 012 India Tel: +91 80 2293 3428 +91 80 2293 2075 Fax: +91 80 2360 0865 +91 80 2293 3425 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> bala.gov<http://bala.gov>@gmail.com<http://gmail.com> Web:http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/gbala.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
