I had written this yesterday, but accidentally sent it just to David Keith 
and not the group..... 


Thanks much. First, in terms of your 3. below, that was from Dave, and not 
me, so he could take that up further, perhaps.....

In terms of 2., I'm not sure what Dave meant there either, but I could 
imagine wanting to look
into relations between current aerosol localized radiative forcing in Ohio, 
say, the current ground level 
SO2 readings there, and then current health statistics there, too, to see, 
for example, whether the 1 million figure
you cite - which is of course concerning to everyone who cares about the 
common good - is necessarily relevant, 
given the amount of SO2 that would be needed to get a useful localized -RF 
effect if emitted at some level of the troposphere
(obviously not in Ohio, however! - quite the contrary, this would be 
intended for largely unpopulated strategic regions).

In terms of 2. -  which I think is really the most interesting part of this 
- it seems to me that, 
while it might not in the end work all that well, the idea of a 
super-pinpointed project to cool the region
with most of the methane hotspots around the Siberian shelf, if their 
emissions should increase a lot, 
is something that should really be explored. Even if a large emergency 
non-CO2 program for emissions 
reductions of BC/CH4 were undertaken to grapple with a situation like that 
(i.e. a great expansion of the 
program the US state Dept recently started, or the GMF, etc), it would 
probably take at least a few years 
to start showing much effect, so something to locally effect the region in 
the meantime could be hugely helpful, 
if Gt-scale releases started to take place. Most of the methane hotspots 
are currently focused within a ~50,000 
sq mile area of the shelf around Tiksi.  

It seems to me that sensible reasons behind this line of thinking include: 
that tropospheric injections could be 
pinpointed to a specific region much more than stratospheric injections 
ever could; because the region is small and the 
total injections would consequently be so small (probably less than 1 large 
US coal plant to achieve ~-5F for the region) , 
the side effects of doing this might in the end turn out to be far less, 
rather than greater, than using the stratosphere (i.e., 
no global scale perturbation of hydrological cycles, etc.); it demands 
little new technological development, and would have 
fewer possible surprises, since we have 200 years of experience doing it 
already; as Mike MacCracken has noted, such a 
program could take advantage of the shorter aerosol lifetime at lower 
altitudes, to adjust and stop emissions rapidly where any 
harm was being caused; it would not be an expensive program, possibly 
costing as little as $15 million per year; its governance 
would not be a large multinational issue, since it would be entirely on 
Russian territorial waters or soil (and the SO2 pollution that 
has been wafting into neighbors like Norway from Russian companies like 
Norisk Nickel has been far, far greater than this could 
ever be); it should potentially be a legal entity to have it as a 
corporation (a non-profit) sited in Russia, and the state fees imposed 
through Russian air quality regulations for the SO2 in those quantities 
would total perhaps only some $50,000/yr. 

The idea, in my thinking, would be to minimize the "geoengineering 
footprint" and to depend upon emissions reductions as much as 
possible, and while I think it might be counterintuitive that using the 
troposphere could help with this, I actually think it might, if one 
considers certain locales as having great global strategic importance, like 
the ESAS and its carbon stores. 


All best,

Nathan

-- 
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/-/sNJXVbpj2NgJ.
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.

Reply via email to