Speaking as a periodically soaked/parched and frozen/boiled brit, I think that the effect of polar only SRM on the jet stream would need to be thoroughly investigated before anyone seriously proposed it.
A On Sep 3, 2013 9:17 PM, "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bill—That is a good question to look closely at. I would suggest, > without having done the studies, so doing so speculatively, that in that > the complex pattern of geography, land-sea, etc. currently lead to energy > being added now to the atmosphere in an uneven way, and so I am not > convinced having some moderate unevenness would be a problem, etc. Yes, in > detail, the weather would be affected, but the question is whether the > statistics of the weather (i.e., the climate) is altered. But, indeed, > research is needed on this. > > Mike > > > > > On 9/3/13 2:51 PM, "William H. Calvin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Re the more detailed model: Both high haze and MCB have a problem, that of > uneven application and its probable consequences. > > Big perturbations in seasonal delivery of moisture to a region result in > drought and/or deluge. Indeed, one states' drought may be another state's > deluge, simply because of a detour in the precip pipeline. What can cause a > detour? > > The current example comes from the land warming twice as fast as the ocean > surface, the excess high pressure systems over land forcing a rearrangement > in flow patterns. *Uneven *external forcing is another way, cooling one > region to create denser air while not doing the same to its neighbors. > Winds rearrange. > > Thus my concern about uneven application of shadows. But shadows have > penumbrias that vary with the length of the shadow. In our eyes, shadows > caused by debris floating around can be seen only if the obstruction is > close to the retina. If the debris is halfway back to the lens, its shadow > will be too fuzzy to register. > > Thus I see *uniform *sunlight reduction as necessary to avoid additional > drought and deluge, and see the most likely way of achieving uniformity to > involve sunscreens that are far above the atmosphere. > > Of course, success in reducing solar input would do nothing for reducing > ocean acidification since dimming will not get rid of the growing excess of > CO2. Air capture of CO2 is the only thing I know that could back us out of > the danger zone for extreme weather and acidification. > > Cheers, > -Bill > > On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:49:54 AM UTC-7, Mike MacCracken wrote: > > A new paper by myself, Ho-Jeong Shin, Ken Caldeira, and George Ban-Weiss > that provides a conceptual look at the notion of polar SRM is available > for > free download at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/ > > The results suggest that a much more detailed model evaluation of this > possible approach to limiting the amplified climate change in high > latitudes > is merited. > > Mike MacCracken > > > -- > 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. > 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
