Hi, all -
Thanks for the responses. I think that something that could be very helpful for AMEG to assess the possible options – although I hate to ask too much of Mike, I think he’s the only person of relevant expertise who is currently engaging with the group and who could help with this – would be to get some rough idea of just how much sulfur per unit of RF in this region and altitude we are talking about, for a coverage of some 50,000 square miles. If there were some rough concept of how much to expect at ground level, too, then that would be able to give everyone some idea the basic parameters – the amount of the local cooling, the amount of local sulfur pollution, and its total quantity and thus potential to play into larger regional/global impacts. My guess is, since we are talking about just .025% of planetary surface, it is something of really negligible impact globally, and possibly only a minor one even locally, really. In this way, it would be fundamentally different from the kinds of things you have read about, Tenney, which are, I’d guess, papers about reducing radiative forcing for the whole planet through use of sulfur injections. Just so you know, I’ve generally been against sulfur SRM except as used as a balance against lost sulfur elsewhere (i.e., the ‘termination effect’ from coal emissions). But I must periodically remind myself that “the poison is the dose”, and this is so pinpointed a project that it’s globally-speaking perhaps a little like those homeopathic arsenic drops of no concern whatsoever. Also, it’s good to remember that SO2 is not really a “poison” from the planet’s point of view, but a naturally occurring substance – 1% of it in the air comes from natural sources, I think, and the only US state unable to make US SO2 standards recently has been Hawaii from its natural volcanic emissions. I doubt this plan would equal that 1%, although I am just shooting from the hip in saying that at this point. Clearly, though, if you had Latham’s idea up and running already, and both it and sulfur injections were equally effective, there would be no question but that MCB would be highly preferable. The problem is that this is certainly not the case. I think you might be making a large mistake, in fact, if you really are concerned with preparedness for an emergency-type situation within the next couple of years, yet discount the use of sulfur, which I believe is probably the only thing of which there is absolute certainty that it will work as of this time. Certainty is a very important thing in preparedness, so, if it were my decision, I’d say put 70% of your efforts into developing sulfur plans, 30% into MCB, then adjust that as things develop, putting more into MCB if things start looking solid in field tests. MCB should work, but it seems to be a complex area to me, too. For example, I mentioned CLAW in something at the Google group the other day: I can remember once briefly looking into whether anyone had studied the possible impacts of MCB on CLAW (essentially, the biological component of the *natural *production of CCNs, from coccolithophores, etc.) – and could find nothing. Perhaps I just didn’t see it, but that’s the kind of thing that doesn’t make me feel 100% confident, because if, for example, it finally turned out that there were some substraction that had to be accounted for, to make up for lost DMS-created CCNs, from Latham’s CCNs, that could vastly change the final gains from his modeled technique. Again, I have no idea – it could be an addition and not a subtraction, for example – and maybe Stephen could say in two minutes whether there is any legitimate concern in that regard, but I am just trying to give an example of why it appears to me a very complex area – CLAW has been argued about for decades now, and nothing has been settled. With justification, your concerns here are surely in part PR concerns, which of course are important. But if there really is an emergency, my guess is that it becomes a “teachable moment.” During the Fukushima disaster, not everyone learned the same thing: on the one hand Germany voted against nuclear power, but in the US press I suddenly noticed many articles teaching people a little about radiation, why they had nothing to fear personally in California from the accident, etc, etc. The idea of using sulfur in the troposphere is likely to have some people screaming, perhaps, but responses might also not be so purely negative as you think, in the context of an actual disaster. Reality and truth have their way of making themselves felt through the PR-world. Thus, at AMEG, you really should concentrate exclusively on the real thing, and not on the public image of it, at this point. Later, “selling” your product would, I suppose, be an necessary part of the whole process. If the hope is to use some technique *preventively*, and you are willing to give it a few years, and simply hope that nothing will go drastically wrong in the meantime, then maybe 60% - 40% MCB to SO2 work, since MCB would clearly meet much less resistance for starting a program when there isn’t any evident emergency. But I think that if you really take seriously many of the things that your group has on its website – suggesting realistic dangers of things going severely wrong pretty soon – then you should be committed to having something that will work with absolute certainty, regardless of whether it might be very unpopular with some people, and I would guess that at a short time frame there is actually only one option for that, and that’s tropospheric sulfur. Lastly, there are all kinds of other people working on other facets of the climate problem, different geoengineering ideas, etc – and the more you take the longer time-frame view, the more you overlap with what others are doing. I know of no other group that is really talking about serious preparedness for an emergency right now, which I agree is becoming increasingly important, and it’s in that context that I think what Tenney and Peter said constitutes a miscalculation and possibly a lessening of its uniqueness and value. But I'll happily celebrate, too, when MCB sprayers are successfully spraying away....... All best, Nathan On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:37 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I agree that, with the widely-held view among public and politicians that > climate change is a long-term problem, the idea of deliberately putting > sulphur in the atmosphere seems a bit mad. But, thanks to the graph of > PIOMAS data, almost anybody who can understand graphs (and the Met Office > seem only to understand models) can see that the sea ice volume is > crashing, and there'll be practically none left in September, either this > year or one year very soon, and probably by 2015. That is, unless we do > something pretty drastic to save the sea ice. Looking at the graph, that > means that we have to push the trend line out to the right and then up, > before it gets too close to zero - a kind of forced U turn. Those who > expecting such a U-turn to happen naturally are said, by a wit on one of > the blogs, to be waiting for a Unicorn! > > So we have pull out all the stops to try and keep the sea ice. Beggars > can't be choosers. Any technique which can have a quick effect for helping > to cool the Arctic (or avoid warming) must be considered - even as a > temporary stop-gap measure. > > Cheers, > > John > > --- > > > On 21/03/2012 20:58, P. Wadhams wrote: > >> I'm not saying that sulphur is especially harmful or that cloud whitening >> is harmless, just that this is the perception. The public, and thus >> politicians, will not tolerate, I am sure, a technique which deliberately >> adds a pollutant to the atmosphere. It just will not be accepted. This is >> not necessarily rational. After all, the Fukushima disaster, in which >> nobody died, has been the reason for Germany to give up its nuclear power >> programme, thus increasing its fossil fuel usage, thus increasing the >> numbers dead from coal mining accidents, air pollution, climate change >> impacts etc. People fear nuclear power even though it is very safe and does >> not emit carbon. We could bring down carbon emissions quite quickly if >> everyone went seriously nuclear, but that will never happen. We have to go >> with the possible, and that includes taking account of human irrationality, >> Best wishes Peter >> >> >> On Mar 21 2012, Mike MacCracken wrote: >> >> Peter and Tenney-- >>> >>> I think your proposed proscription of sulfur is too harsh a restriction. >>> As far as people are concerned, the problems have come with high >>> concentrations and lots of other toxins mixed with them from fossil fuel >>> power plants. As far as ecological impacts are concerned, aside from there >>> being agricultural areas that are sulfur deficient and farmers add sulfur, >>> the problems arise in certain types of situations (like accumulated >>> deposition onto the snow fields of Scandinavia and then rapid melting; >>> downwind of major industrialized areas; etc). In any case, as well, we will >>> continue to have volcanic injections so sulfur won't be going away. >>> >>> On low sulfur fuel, that is mandated to happen over next several years, >>> mainly because of problematic emissions and concentrations in port areas. >>> This is likely, however, to have much larger scale implications as the >>> diesel fuel is cleaned up. >>> >>> CCN approach and cloud whitening is great to try, but is mainly >>> effective in clean areas where there is marine stratus and and a bit hard >>> to do in other areas where that is not the case. >>> >>> Thinking that one is going to find an approach that has no side effects >>> of any kind is, in my view, wishing for the impossible. It is, as I posed >>> in an earlier email, like insisting on a cure for HIV/AIDS rather than >>> accepting drugs that are able to hold off worsening of the disease while >>> one searches for better approaches. >>> >>> Mike MacCracken >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/21/12 1:59 PM, "P. Wadhams" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I agree. We have a very feasible technique in cloud whitening >>>> using water vapour which I think should be researched flat out and then, if >>>> it's feasible, put into action. It will not arouse opposition on the >>>> grounds of adding yet another poison to the atmosphere, whereas sulphur >>>> will end up as a absolute no-no for that same reason. Ditto I think we >>>> should keep quiet about low-sulphur fuel. It would look extremely bad if we >>>> were seen to be advocating a new form of pollution, Best wishes Peter >>>> >>>> or On Mar 21 2012, Tenney Naumer wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we have to be extremely vigilant in *not* associating AMEG >>>>> with any type of geoengineering that uses sulfur -- all the research that >>>>> I >>>>> know of since the idea was first broached leads one to the conclusion that >>>>> it is not a good idea to put sulfur into the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> Tenney Naumer "Climate Change: The Next >>>>> Generation<http://**climatechangepsychology.**blogspot.com<http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com> >>>>> > >>>>> " >>>>> Tel.: (618) 967-6453 (cell) >>>>> skype: tenneynaumer >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Mike MacCracken >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Nathan--Just a note that the sulfate layer is mainly based on what >>>>>> happens above the boundary layer (so lifetime is of order a week) and the >>>>>> NAAQS levels of SO2, etc. are at the surface, so not directly comparable. >>>>>> Once surface SO2 emissions were reduced by switching away from coal for >>>>>> home heating, etc. in the first third of the 20th century or so (at least >>>>>> in the US), the thrust of air pollution control for SO2 for the middle >>>>>> third of the century became to loft it so it blew away from the source >>>>>> (unintentionally creating the sulfate loading), and only later became >>>>>> focused on simply reducing SO2 emissions. So, one has to be careful of >>>>>> the >>>>>> linkages you make. >>>>>> >>>>>> I certainly agree the calculations need to be made. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/12 10:30 PM, "Nathan Currier" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Since none of those with the skills to do these calculations much >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> professionally seem to be jumping in quickly to take over the reigns, >>>>>>> I'll try not to embarrass myself in giving initial crude answers to >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> own question from the other day, which follow: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I find that in a recent paper from MIT (Leibensperger, 2011), the >>>>>>> localized RF from sulfate aerosol¹s direct effect for the eastern US >>>>>>> is estimated as -.3W/m2. Then, if we estimate for Twomey/Albrecht >>>>>>> indirects, we can say roughly something like -.5W/m2 for the current >>>>>>> eastern US sulfate forcing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are the sulfur levels giving this RF? The basic NAAQS - annual >>>>>>> average primary standard - is still unchanged from the 1970s. (http:// >>>>>>> www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/**), at 30ppb (about 80 >>>>>>> micrograms/m3). But in actuality, average regional levels now only range >>>>>>> from 1-6ppb across the US. There was apparently talk lately of >>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>> a new 5- minute standard for asthmatics, but it was not done, and I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> we can all agree that a geoengineering approach could be designed to >>>>>>> avoid >>>>>>> spikes pretty well, so the annual average of course, in our case, it >>>>>>> would really be a three or four month average is alone what matters >>>>>>> here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, let¹s examine some actual current annual average local levels a >>>>>>> bit. >>>>>>> http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/**sulfur.html<http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I live now in New York City. The most complete reading here is from a >>>>>>> midtown Manhattan monitor station, where as recently as 2003 SO2 >>>>>>> seems >>>>>>> to have been around 14ppb, but the data ends in 2007, by which time >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> had dropped to ~11ppb. I used to live rather close, it would seem, to >>>>>>> that particular monitoring station back in the early 1990s, when the >>>>>>> levels it read were closer to 20ppb, but let¹s take something nearer >>>>>>> the lower figure and be conservative. Either way, this area entails >>>>>>> some of the highest readings in the eastern US for SO2 pollution that >>>>>>> I found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look at the interactive map's levels around the rest of the eastern >>>>>>> US >>>>>>> - they are really surprisingly low now almost everywhere. I was >>>>>>> shocked when I looked at it (no wonder warming is ahead of the >>>>>>> models! >>>>>>> At least it suggests the termination effect won¹t be too bad here in >>>>>>> the US - we¹ve already gone through much of it!). Within that 1-6ppb >>>>>>> range, let¹s say it¹s an average of 3ppb? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, then, is it not accurate to say that we should be able to go up >>>>>>> to 3x or even 4x that -.5W/m2 without making any air that is worse >>>>>>> than Manhattan's has been very recently? That is, if we aimed for >>>>>>> ~12ppb level. Is this really so bad, so evil? I didn¹t realize I was >>>>>>> torturing myself by living here! I walk my dog almost daily in the >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> old growth section of the city (Inwood Hill Park), where there is >>>>>>> plentiful lichen, moss, etc. Birds of all varieties seem healthy and >>>>>>> in robust populations. A new species of leopard frog was just >>>>>>> discovered here, as you might have read the other day. It is not >>>>>>> pristine, but I found a crayfish walking around by a stream in >>>>>>> Central >>>>>>> Park. I have even had asthmatic friends who love living here, except >>>>>>> in the heat of summer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this air I am breathing every day really so noxious and dangerous >>>>>>> that you would not want to consider using it, in an almost completely >>>>>>> unpopulated area moreover, even if thereby you could help stave off a >>>>>>> potential arctic disaster? Really? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Next, what are the levels of SO2 currently in Siberia? There is one >>>>>>> former gulag site where there is today smelting and other industry >>>>>>> that emits massive SO2, but that is far from the ESAS and otherwise >>>>>>> the level seems to be very low. One recent paper I found (Lee et al, >>>>>>> 2011), that aims to constrain SO2 global emission estimates by >>>>>>> looking >>>>>>> at ozone and other satellite data (OMI and SCIAMACHY), makes it >>>>>>> appear >>>>>>> in a map as though the area in question is extremely low, although it >>>>>>> is not at all detailed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus, my supposition is that we could possibly get some 2W/m2, >>>>>>> possibly half the local net forcing, without creating any air worse >>>>>>> than New York City¹s has been just in this past decade. Please >>>>>>> correct me if that seems to be mistaken. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current modeled estimates for ESAS talik extent suggest about >>>>>>> 3-5% >>>>>>> of total area. Thus, to give an adequate buffer around this, to >>>>>>> effectively cool incoming waters, etc, covering 10% of ESAS area = >>>>>>> ~50,000 sq. miles. Now, maybe some of those with better expertise can >>>>>>> figure the dispersal rates, column depth, etc, etc and estimate how >>>>>>> just how much sulfur this would entail, that is, to emit enough S to >>>>>>> cover ~50,000 sq. miles with about 12ppb SO2 for about four months >>>>>>> per >>>>>>> year, how much sulfur is that? Thanks much in advance for your >>>>>>> answer, >>>>>>> I appreciate it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lastly, in terms of the addition of methane effects, I find that it >>>>>>> would at best add only about .1W/m2, and possibly almost nothing >>>>>>> measurable. Using a very rough methane RF (including all indirect >>>>>>> effects, i.e., from Shindell et al, 2009) of 1000ppb=~1W/m2, then >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> an anomaly there ranging from +100-200ppb, and a possible maximum 40% >>>>>>> reduction emission rate from local wetlands if the anomaly were >>>>>>> completely caused by wetland emissions, which I very strongly doubt >>>>>>> then still at best one would only get -.1W/m2. So that factor would >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> very unlikely to be significant. Obviously, MCB could/should then be >>>>>>> added to or combined with the above. Latham hasn¹t responded, so >>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>> someone else could give a rough estimate of what the options might be >>>>>>> to use them together and what those effects might be? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am, I confess, somewhat frustrated by some of the experts here >>>>>>> excepting Mike not in their expertise, which I always find >>>>>>> impressive, but in their seeming inability, or perhaps unwillingness, >>>>>>> to use such expertise more flexibly. John Nissen¹s exchange with >>>>>>> Latham a few days ago, with John¹s poignant questions, I found almost >>>>>>> painful to read, frankly (of course, I can appreciate that MCB deals >>>>>>> with much the same complexities as CLAW, which after 800 papers is >>>>>>> still mired in controversy but maybe that only connotes that >>>>>>> another >>>>>>> 5 years of modeling still won¹t alone resolve John's questions, but >>>>>>> doing Lovelock¹s version of what some have branded ³improvisatory >>>>>>> experimentation,² i.e., simply getting out into the field and making >>>>>>> small prototypes and playing around variously with different >>>>>>> parameters until you start to get what you are looking for, could be >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> better and quicker way to go?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As to the fundamental question of risk in dealing with tropospheric >>>>>>> SO2, I think it¹s probably safe to say that there is likely zero >>>>>>> global-scale risk whatsoever to the proposed plan. The risks of a >>>>>>> large-scale excursion of methane, if one took place, on the other >>>>>>> hand, are without question extraordinary. I think that¹s the kind of >>>>>>> circumstance where you decide it¹s best to act with relatively >>>>>>> imperfect knowledge. None of us know what the probability of a large >>>>>>> CH4 emission really is. And none will ever know what "might have >>>>>>> been", whether we act or don¹t act, had we taken the ³other path.² >>>>>>> That's what decision is all about. Nor do I imagine that anyone can >>>>>>> really say whether what I am proposing would actually be effective, >>>>>>> but as I just suggested for John's designs, one could always alter >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> parameters easily in real time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that in a larger context of fighting climate change >>>>>>> altogether, what I'm suggesting also represents one possible ³step 1² >>>>>>> or ³2² towards the lowest-possible-risk pathway forward, which is >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> everyone should be striving for, it seems to me. That is, the >>>>>>> combination of a very large and rapid non-CO2 (CH4/BC) emissions >>>>>>> program (please keep in mind, members of AMEG, that the recent >>>>>>> Shindell paper had the good news that, if Asia is less important for >>>>>>> Arctic BC forcing than some thought, it also means that a rather >>>>>>> small >>>>>>> number of northern European and Scandinavian countries can be quite >>>>>>> important in reducing that arctic BC forcing and therefore AMEG >>>>>>> could and should ALSO be engaged in urgently requesting the UK >>>>>>> government to be the spearhead for such a program, including more >>>>>>> advanced diesel filters, etc) and at the same time, alongside it, >>>>>>> some kind of small-scale, pinpointed geoengineering program like the >>>>>>> one I am suggesting here, should, if done together, be able to push >>>>>>> back strongly against the dissolution of the arctic as we know it for >>>>>>> a while. Obviously that's hardly the end of the story, just steps 1 >>>>>>> and 2, the first chapter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, along with steep declines in carbon emissions, the kind of SRM >>>>>>> geoengineering that some here consider ³serious² (both Revkin and >>>>>>> Keith used that word in recent days seemingly to distinguish what >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> have in mind from what I am proposing), best pegged exclusively to >>>>>>> lost aerosol loading (thus, no setting of any global ³thermostat² as >>>>>>> in Keith¹s conundrum), which would then itself be pegged in its >>>>>>> termination to subsequent CDR, through biochar, reforestation and >>>>>>> other technologies like Keith¹s artificial tress, etc. All that >>>>>>> together creates, I think, the minimum-risk path ahead, five >>>>>>> interlinked steps that might indeed have to be step-ordered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On what Fuller called a ŒCritical Path¹, if you don¹t follow the >>>>>>> first >>>>>>> steps first, you can forget about getting to the end of the process. >>>>>>> If the patient stops breathing in the ambulance on the way to the >>>>>>> emergency room for a quadruple bypass, you can kiss your elaborate >>>>>>> surgery plans goodbye if you won¹t be able to get them breathing >>>>>>> again >>>>>>> first. A big methane excursion could be like that patient stopping >>>>>>> breathing, essentially ending all hope of moving to a political >>>>>>> solution on emissions, and the dangers of that seems to be growing >>>>>>> considerably. Again, no significant risks in this "step 1" treatment >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> propose, obvious huge risks in sitting by and watching the thing that >>>>>>> is feared. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> all best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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]. 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.
