Hi, David -
I fully agree with that, and actually used that same MIT paper in something
I wrote up for the group AMEG recently. In fact, if you look at table 3.3
in this -
http://www.findthatfile.com/search-19564999-hPDF/download-documents-4876_powerplant_airemission_en.pdf.htm
you'll also see that of the top 10 highest SO2-producing
power plants in the US - and these are the only US plants that put out
over 100,000 mt SO2/yr each (and their inputs get smaller pretty quickly as
the sizes decrease) - 7 of the 10 are just in Penn & OH alone.
On the "dot map" of US SO2 emissions in the attached, these two states are
almost invisible, being swallowed up by a big dot for all the SO2 there.
I don't have a figure for the average loading of the two states, but it
could be roughly ascertained pretty easily by EPA's SO2 trends map.
Anyhow, just a study of the SO2 in these two states, Penn and Ohio, would
be the most helpful, and in fact possibly even more useful *because* it's
in the troposphere, I feel. But it needs to be done very soon, as the new
CAIR program rules are apparently going to reduce all of this a good deal
more in the next 3-4 yrs, I believe.
All best,
Nathan
On Monday, April 30, 2012 2:44:33 PM UTC-4, David Hawkins wrote:
>
> The largest insight I draw from this paper is the reminder that there are
> fairly large-scale activities going on right now that might provide useful
> information regarding SRM if we had systems set up to monitor resulting
> changes.
>
> This paper documents one of them – the large reversal of sulfate loadings
> in the eastern half of the US, mostly occurring since the 1990 Clean Air
> Act was passed. And those reductions will continue. Rules promulgated by
> EPA in the
>
> last six months will required millions of tons more of SO2 and NOx
> reductions over the next 3-5 years.
>
> It would be nice to do a rapid assessment of what additional
> instrumentation might produce even more useful information, relevant to the
> many unanswered questions about SRM. To be sure, most of these reductions
> are
>
> occurring in the troposphere and so may not be directly applicable to SRM
> in the stratosphere. Still, I imagine there could be useful information to
> be gathered. It might be much easier to get governments to devote some
>
> money to such an enhanced measurement effort than to try to stand up some
> new “geoengineering program.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mike MacCracken
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2012 8:38 PM
> *To:* Geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Regional SRM experiment
>
>
>
> Hi David—Very interesting, and just why it might be possible to do
> something to limit warming in an area like the Arctic, which, as was
> documented over and over again at the Montreal IPY meeting last week, is
> changing very fast.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
> ********
>
>
> On 4/28/12 10:06 AM, "David Hawkins" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> *Climatic effects of 1950–2050 changes in US anthropogenic aerosols –
> Part 2: Climate response
> *http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/3349/2012/acp-12-3349-2012.pdf
>
>
> Reduction in air pollution from coal fired power stations due to
> environmental regulations since the 1980s has increased regional global
> warming in the Central and Eastern United States. Climate scientists from
> the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) found that
> particulate pollution, particularly from coal fired power stations, caused
> a global warming hole, or a large cold patch reducing temperatures by up to
> 1 degree C in the region, particularly lowering maximum temperatures in
> Summer and Autumn.
>
>
>
> Since I have spent a good deal of the past several decades advocating for
> rapid deployment of particle reducing techniques, I guess I can be tagged
> as an inadvertent geoengineer.
> :>)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/PRIGiFXTufkJ.
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.
