Dear John,
We are designing an MCB GeoMIP experiment so we can see how robust the
results are from the climate models that have already done these
experiments, but all differently. In theory, there would be both
benefits and risks, and these must be quantified. From my list, you can
cross our ozone depletion, no more blue skies and effects on remote
sensing and astronomy, as well as other stratosphere-specific issues.
But I think it is premature to claims that MCB would be safe and
effective. And detailed indoor computer modeling experiments will be
needed to provide an environmental impact statement for outdoor
experiments. Indeed, a lot more research is needed.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
On 6/3/13 4:56 AM, John Latham wrote:
To-: [[email protected]];[[email protected]]
From:- [[email protected]]
Hello Alan & Colleagues,
Yes, as & when convenient it would be interesting, Alan, to learn from you
which of your 26 objections to stratospheric seeding apply to Marine Cloud
Brightening (MCB): and, of course whether there are additional ones pertaining to
MCB, which do not apply to the sulphur idea.
Consideration of MCB has not been evident in the recent plethora of blog
submissions, so I would like to provide a list of its associated positive and
negative qualities which - in my view, on balance – provide a convincing case
for being one of the SRM techniques to be selected for research support.
1.Computations from several top-class models agree in concluding that MCB – if
it works – could maintain the Earth’s average surface temperature and the
sea-ice coverage at both poles at roughly the current values, at least up to
the CO2-doubling point.
2.Development of a system for spraying adequate quantities of sea-water aerosol
is not yet fully achieved, but recent developments indicate a high likelihood
of success.
3.Ship-tracks provide hard evidence of the capacity of aerosol to brighten
clouds, but it does not follow that it can be achieved on the spatial scale
required.
4. GCM computations indicate in one case that MCB deployment would produce
unacceptable rainfall reduction in Amazonia, whereas in two other studies that
is not so. Further work shows that the Amazonian rainfall loss can be
eliminated by not seeding in a particular region. Provisionally, it seems
possible that adverse rainfall effects can be avoided by judicious choice of
seeding locations.
5.We have designed a three-phase field-test of MCB, based heavily on the
larger, highly successful International VOCALS study, in which several members
of our team played leading roles. Its scale would be about 100 km by 100 km,
which seems too small to influence climate. Such a test would not be conducted
without appropriate authorization. Please see reference below.
6. In principle, MCB is capable of being usefully applied on spatial scales
much less than global. A paper on the utilization of MCB to weaken hurricanes
was published in 2012 (see below). Another, on the protection of coral reefs
has just been accepted. In both cases the idea is to reduce ocean surface water
temperatures in appropriate oceanic areas.
Best Wishes, John.
10. John Latham, Keith Bower, Tom Choularton, Hugh Coe, Paul Connolly, Gary
Cooper,Tim Craft, Jack Foster, Alan Gadian, Lee Galbraith, Hector Iacovides, David
Johnston, Brian Launder, Brian Leslie, John Meyer, Armand Neukermans, Bob Ormond,
Ben Parkes, Philip Rasch, John Rush, Stephen Salter, Tom Stevenson, Hailong Wang,
Qin Wang & Rob Wood, 2012, Marine Cloud Brightening, Phil.Trans.Roy. Soc. A .
2012, 370, 4217-4262. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0086
12.John Latham, Ben Parkes, Alan Gadian,Stephen Salter, 2012.
Weakening of Hurricanes via Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB),
Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.402
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 Alan Robock [[email protected]]
Sent: 01 June 2013 18:03
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [geo] NASA Ames meeting
Dear Stephen,
My list of 26 problems is in slide 157 of
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/RobockGeoEngineering72ForDistribution.ppt
I have been mainly focused on stratospheric aerosols. My latest
publication on this is a response to Seitz's bubbles proposal at
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Bubble2.pdf Some of the issues
also apply to marine cloud brightening (MCB).
Our GeoMIP project is making progress on understanding the climate
response to stratospheric aerosols. We are beginning additional
experiments related to MCB, and they will be described in a paper that
will be submitted later this month to a special issue on GeoMIP to be
published in JGR. I'll send it out as soon as it is submitted.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
On 6/1/13 9:52 AM, Stephen Salter wrote:
Dear Alan
Can you tell me which of your 26 objections apply to marine cloud
brightening?
I am sure that many of the people who want research on but not
deployment of geoengineering systems are greatly reassured that you
are there to spot the nasty problems. Keep up your valuable work.
I too was at the Ames meeting and confirm your recollection.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
[email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 01/06/2013 17:33, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear All,
I also was at the NASA Ames meeting. It was my first geoengineering
meeting, and it was there that I was struck with the very
enthusiastic endorsement of geoengineering as a solution to global
warming by people who did not seem to be aware of the potential
negative impacts. But Lane and Kheshgi were not among those who were
blindly advocating geoengineering, as I remember it. I agree with
Clive that the reason we are even considering this Plan B is that
Exxon and other fossil fuel companies have had a dedicated campaign
to deny anthropogenic global warming, and that AEI has been part of
this campaign, and that if they were to now advocate mitigation we
would not be nearly as interested in geoengineering. But it was not
such a black and white discussion at the Ames meeting – it was more
of a general discussion of geoengineering and a learning opportunity
for many.
It was at the Ames meeting that I wrote down my 20 reasons why
geoengineering may be a bad idea, as I listened to two days of
presentations. (My research program since then has been to
investigate those reasons. I have now crossed out three of them, but
added nine new ones, so the total is now 26.)
Alan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
