As I have been looking at the sea ice thickeness measurements all through summer, it seems that the rate of sea ice pulverisation has gone up with more thickest ice being pushed to the Atlantic via the Fram Strait and also to the Barents Sea through the gaps between the Franz Joseph and Svalbard archipelagoes. When we look at the sea ice area on Cryosphere Today that is 639,000 km2 below average. This is one of the best sea ice area readings for perhaps 15 years, but it is deceptive because the thickest ice from behind the Queen Elizabeth Islands (northern Nunavut) and Greenland has been pushed out to the Atlantic Ocean and also to the Beaufort Sea.
Summer 2014 has seen virtuall all sea ice over 5 metres disappearing to the Fram Strait. There are still some thick ice 3-4 metres left north of Nunavut and also in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and Yukon. The Central Arctic has thinner ice as the very thick perennial ice from behind the Queen Elizabeth Islands have been pushed aside either towards the Atlantic or towards Alaska. The snow's high reflectivity cannot be fully replaced and I have for years lectured about the methane clathrates also erupting on shore. This summer three fairly sizable methane craters have been found in the Taimyr Peninsula and the Yamal Region in northern Russia. I think these will also start to happen on the sea floor. I think it is possible to see vast increases of on-shore methane cratering much like the amount of moulins and crevasses has increased in the proper ice (like glaciers in Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard). I think that sulphuric acid or sulphur dioxide would be quantitatively available for sky brightening, but may be white chalk particles would be environmentally friendlier as there are strong opposition to acidification in the Arctic regions as it helps to release mercury from the soil to drinking water. It bears to be remembered that according to the ice cores, Toba eruptions massive injection of SO2 lasted just for 6 summers before the levels of SO2 returned back to earlier background levels in Greenland ice cores. There is no hope of things staying for long as Toba injected 3,500 km2 ash and aerosols and we cannot match such a master injection of SO2. So, there will have to be a continuous resupply to maintain any substances in the cold and still Arctic air in the winter months. Will that kind of fleet of aircraft be acceptable and how much we actually can cool the air. We should not be overly optimistic of great blinds to be put in place by man to compensate lost snows. Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:03:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [AMEG 8562] Re: [geo] Re: 2. What are some potentially false 'memes' related to solar geoengineering? From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Hi, John - For me, there's a complex mix of facts and fictions in all this. In terms of Jennifer Francis & her work, she wrote to your group specifically, after I suggested it, and stated that she "emphatically" did not think that arctic geoengineering (and this was on the assumption that the forcing would certainly be net negative, I believe) could counteract jet stream changes, or those to NAO, AO, ENSO, etc, and briefly stated her reasons, which seemed pretty clear. It's now a couple of years later - as I've suggested before, you might want to contemplate what she was saying. For the rest of what John writes here, on some details: on SLR, I think Hanson sees Pulsewater melt 1A rate as even higher than what you state, and there's some evidence of almost as high a rate in the Eemian, which is even more relevant for today, but there's no way, given the big, slow signal of sea level, that you could ever talk about total "sea level commitment" (a metric that should be used much as "climate change commitment") separated from CO2 and other emissions policy. I don't get the point, therefore, when trying to push for your 'geoengineering alone' approach - which is, again, what you seem to suddenly revert to in the rhetoric above - that you bother with this. I agree we've been geoengineering already, although I'm not sure why you bring in the work of Ruddiman, etc, on the Holocene early human impact issue, to support it, since that work is not a slam dunk (20th century "geoengineering" is) - although some recent work looks clearer than his, but only from ~2,000 yrs ago, with methane from cattle being a larger part of it. If geoE's problem is a bad rap in the media, that certainly isn't what's impacting my thoughts, or those of many on this email chain, or Jennifer Francis, etc. And clearly everyone thinks that the problems are very serious, and I don't think anyone is "ignoring the trend" on sea ice on this list. I wrote to you before about the loose talk of using TiO2 for a stratospheric haze, and find that really thin stuff. Did you ever talk to a chemist about this? Like Ruddiman, John Yates, probably the leading TiO2 chemist in the world (after Fujishima, anyhow) is also at UVA, and so when I was there at the music department, and had some ideas about a mild thing that could possibly be done w/ TiO2 (on its photocatalytic side, not white reflectivity side), organized a little experiment that got run in the Lehmann lab there, and so was then invited by Yates to come visit his lab, in which he has constructed a way in which one can look in at a single TiO2 molecule, and observe how the poor bonding in one of the O atoms is the source of TiO2's amazing properties (which could well become important for the future, but more likely in solar cells and such....). But from what I know about TiO2, as a non-expert, it seems to me like something of a joke to imagine that you could expect to get any good effect putting TiO2 into the stratosphere to get cooling. What are you putting it in? Is it serving as pigment for reflectivity, scattering, etc? Like all white pigments, it's completely transparent until it's in a vehicle where the refractive index is in a particular ratio to the pigment's....you can protect the TiO2 when it's "inside" something, but then you're, you know, throwing fossil fuels or acrylic acids and stuff into the stratosphere.....if it's not encased in something, then you get all those 'band gap excitation' properties activated, all that.....but who knows, maybe that's even a good idea - you might not get any reflectivity, but maybe you'd clean up a tiny bit of stratospheric methane! Cheers, Nathan ps - Saying things like: "So geoengineering is our only option to cool the Arctic and stop the melting," is really just poor, I feel. It merits criticism, I think, as it is the kind of disinformation that can create a kind of cult-like group-think quality among those who buy into it...... On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Fulkerson, William <[email protected]> wrote: Dear all: I agree with John. The loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic seems serious to me particularly if Jennifer Francis is correct about the Arctic Jet Stream changes impacting lower latitudes. Bill Fulkerson, senior fellow [email protected] Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment. The University of Tennessee 1-865-680-0937 1-865-974-1838 Fax From: John Nissen <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:39 PM To: nathan currier <[email protected]> Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group <[email protected]>, Google Group <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>, "Dr. Adrian Tuck" <[email protected]>, David Tattershall <[email protected]>, Peter R Carter <[email protected]>, John Topping <[email protected]>, Robert Corell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AMEG 8562] Re: [geo] Re: 2. What are some potentially false 'memes' related to solar geoengineering? Dear Nathan, I would sleep better at night if one government in the world was preparing to lead the battle to save the sea ice and prevent Arctic meltdown. While governments are being told that there is no immediate requirement for geoengineering and they should focus entirely on emissions reduction, we are losing precious time which means the probability of successful geoengineering is reducing. It is as if we, as a society, are sleep-walking over the edge of a cliff. Everyone is aware of the danger of tipping points, but how many realise that we are past the tipping point with the Arctic sea ice? This isn't even mentioned by IPCC in AR5. The cycle of warming and melting is self-sustaining and thus the rate of warming and melting are increasing - i.e. we have highly non-linear processes to deal with. If we were in any other walk of life, we would declare an emergency, but because we are dealing with our own beloved Earth System we can't believe how quickly the Arctic is changing. So nothing is being done to cool the Arctic and break the cycle. Here in the geoengineering group are people who know what to do in this circumstance. Some are advising government. Are they giving the right advice? Are they willing to change their advice, even if it means calling for geoengineering? I am afraid that there is so much prejudice against geoengineering in the scientific community (about 99% at AGU were against geoengineering when Gavin Schmidt asked), that any suggestion of geoengineering is met with horror and suspicion. Who is brave enough to speak up for geoengineering, and the vital need to cool the Arctic with SRM? I am confident that geoengineering can be made to work, if people recognise that it has to be made to work. Cheers, John P.S. What Ken Caldeira once accused me of was of getting my science wrong. I have always tried to be sound on science, so I challenged him to say what I'd got wrong. You will not have seen my challenge, because it never got through moderation onto this list. -- On 17/08/2014 21:24, nathan currier wrote: Dear John - Had you a technique that worked securely, quite a few people might sleep better at night. But Ken once accused you, if I remember correctly, of "making reckless statements," and since you don't have such a technique, trying to speak in ways that intentionally builds a feeling of dependency on non-existent technologies to be deployed 9 months from now would seem to count as such. I find it somewhat frustrating, because what you seem unwilling to do is the >2,000 year old political strategy of "divide and conquer" as applied to climate strategy (you're not alone in this, I might add), since whenever you want to create this feeling of complete dependency upon geoengineering for the near-term, you tend to revert to speaking of "emissions" as a single lump phenomenon, and therefore hopeless, when in fact it is virtually unquestionable that if your concerns are really so immediate, there are 100s of shovel-ready, very practical projects involving SLCF emissions, that no one in the world is opposed to in principal, that are vastly under-appreciated by so many people, and that you could be helping to accelerate enactment of, which could take out some forcing from the Arctic more quickly than anything else. We don't really know just how much "cooling power" would be needed to significantly improve Arctic conditions for the near-term. There's virtually a 100% chance that what I mention would help, though, and might even work better than has been projected already in the literature (i.e., in the UNEP BC/O3 study, etc.). That's because, I believe, the implications of the recent Cowtan & Way material is very significant to the concerns of your group AMEG, but you've paid little attention to it. What I mean is, there's a very close correspondence of timing between the so-called warming "pause" and an increased acceleration of Arctic amplification - so poorly recorded in the primary data sets as to virtually get rid of the pause entirely once it is corrected (see discussion at Real Climate), which to my mind has all sorts of potential implications about the causes of what we see happening in the Arctic - how much is internal feedbacks, how much comes from rather rapid changes in oceanic/atmospheric circulation, etc, and this in turn has implications for the Flanner papers that you have so often depended upon to estimate how much "cooling power" would be needed to help the Arctic. In short, Jim Hansen has often said that one of hardest things is to tell a forcing from a feedback, and I think you would need to get that straightened out first before making such an estimate correctly.... But in the meantime, I'd just suggest concentrating a lot more on the things that we already are certain will work, even if they clearly can't "solve" the problem (which, needless to say, geoengineering alone couldn't either, even if you had that technique all ready to go....) Best, Nathan On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks for your response, Nathan, with your concern that SRM techniques are unready and unproven. I didn't say anything about which techniques might be used for cooling the Arctic, or how well they might work, or the probability of success. If we have no option but geoengineering to cool the Arctic - if that is the only way to provide enough cooling power (which we can estimate as in the order of a few hundreds of terawatts) - then we have to find a way of doing it, or face the risk of complete Arctic meltdown. To deny the need for geoengineering to cool the Arctic is to risk self-destruct - like pressing the trigger in Russian roulette where every chamber may contain a bullet. Are we to rely on IPCC global climate models which predict that sea ice will last for decades, when the models have abjectly failed to anticipate minimum sea ice in 2007 and 2012? Are we to believe that these minima were just one in a million year events, arising from freak conditions in the Arctic? Are we to believe that there is no vicious cycle of warming and melting from albedo loss, when the sea ice volume is following an exponential trend? On the other hand, there are two techniques which have a good chance of working because they are based on well-known natural phenomena: the cooling from stratospheric haze and the cooling from cloud brightening. Re stratospheric aerosol, we know that this can have a dramatic cooling effect from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. We know that the thickness of the stratospheric haze has recently increased due to man-made emissions of SO2 puncturing the tropopause and entering the stratosphere at low latitude. If the SO2 were injected at suitably high latitude, in the lower stratosphere, then Brewer-Dobson circulation would take the resultant haze of fine droplets towards the pole where they would fall back into the troposphere within a few months. We just need to determine the optimum latitude and time of year to make the injection for maximum cooling effect on currents and rivers flowing into the Arctic. There is no good reason why deployment could not start in spring 2015, given a stock-piling of SO2 and suitable fitment of stratotankers. Re cloud brightening, this can complement the stratospheric aerosol, because it can be done in specific areas and specific times. The effect will last weeks rather than months. Thus it can be finely tuned to provide cooling when and where it's most effective - providing there are suitable clouds to brighten. As you suggest, Nathan, SO2 could be used. The use of seawater spray would be brilliant, but it is still an engineering challenge to produce the droplets of the right size. If the development were fully funded, the challenge might be met, ready for deployment in spring 2016. Why isn't the government putting the necessary funding into this? The answer is in the meme! The government thinks that geoengineering to cool the Arctic "would be premature", because that's what they've been told. So we should explain the situation to governments and urge them to fund preparation for deployment for SO2 cooling (both stratospheric and tropospheric) in spring 2015, and development and deployment for cloud brightening with salt spray to replace SO2 in spring 2016. This would be the best possible course of action to reduce the risk of Arctic meltdown to a minimum. There is strong scientific evidence that we are heading that way, with no natural negative feedback in sight. Cheers, John On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Nathan Currier <[email protected]> wrote: In answering what John Nissen writes, I'd like to try to draw together various recent conversations at this group - first I'll respond a bit here, since John was sending this my way, but then will try to continue on another thread. Basically, I consider what John writes to itself contain unwittingly one of the key 'false memes' of geoengineering for Ken's consideration. The basic problem is much the same in what John writes as in what Andrew was complaining about in his "govern-nonsense" thread, deriding its pernicious effects and describing the need to get back to the basic science, which I agreed with strongly. The 'meme' was a concept of Dawkins meant to parallel the gene in the realm of ideas, so a 'false meme' is a bit like a virus, and people can easily spread one around unknowingly. The really pernicious thing about all the talk about governance with geoengineering is that it creates the false impression, once people get into too many heated arguments about geoengineering's side effects, or how it could or couldn't be controlled, that it actually exists. That is to say, that there really is an executable SRM technique already that actually works. It is self-perpetuating, because the more that people unintentionally reify that concept, the more they will argue vociferously, and more or less endlessly, about whether its side effects are too damaging, if its disincentives to emissions reductions are too powerful, etc. All of which hides the clear and honest truth: that no one yet knows if there is any viable SRM geoengineering technique that really will work (except Mike MacCracken's idea of tropospheric SO2, a small-scale Arctic-only version of which I suggested to John Nissen and those at AMEG a couple of years ago, as a derring-do trial study, but they actually had no interest in it......). It seems clear to me that, although coming from a far less common position, John is actually passing around a mutation of the very same 'virus', when saying that we should consider this a fundamental false meme of geoengineering: That you can prevent catastrophic meltdown of the Arctic ice cap without SRM geoengineering to cool the Arctic. This statement clearly has the intention and effect of creating the same false assumptions as the "govern-nonsense" crowd, lending tacit feelings of certainty, given enough repetitions, as to the existence of some viable SRM technique. But that is really not the case as of now. I would like to note that, in a side correspondence with Adrian Tuck, after discussing the stratospheric H2O issue recently, I was impressed by how, despite the brevity of our exchange, he was so completely negative on my question to him about the ability of an Arctic-only stratospheric SRM to actually work with any efficacy. Adrian probably has more expertise on stratospheric dynamics than anyone else who has been writing about SRM in these threads (he was, if I remember correctly, Chief Scientist for the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA's ESRL during the height of the ozone hole crisis period, and thus has a great deal of experience in dealing with many of the most complex relevant dynamics involved), and he thinks that arctic-only SRM basically will not work (the lofting at these latitudes will be found to be quite poor, he feels.....). Best, Nathan Hi Ken, I hope I am not too late to bring this up. There are two fundamental memes about geoengineering which worry me because the leading scientific evidence suggests they are false: 1. That you can reduce CO2 to a safe level in the atmosphere (as regards its global warming and ocean acidification effects) without CDR geoengineering. 2. That you can prevent catastrophic meltdown of the Arctic ice cap without SRM geoengineering to cool the Arctic. The first meme is widely promoted in the media, who have the mistaken assumption that the CO2 level will drop quickly if you stop emissions, ignoring that the lifetime of CO2 is over a hundred years (and a proportion over 10k years). One often sees statements that a strategy of drastic emissions reduction will reduce the effects of global warming to the extent that adaptation to the worst effects of climate change will be affordable. This strategy is encapsulated by IPCC AR5 in a carbon budget for keeping below 2 degrees C; however this budget is almost certainly bust already because of underestimations of climate sensitivity, warming from methane over 20 years, and albedo loss in the Arctic. Dangers from continued ocean acidification over decades are ignored in AR5. The second meme is promoted by IPCC, Met Office and others, who base their projections of sea ice longevity on models rather than observations. There is an assumption that natural negative feedback will mysteriously appear to offset the forcing from albedo loss, which (between 1979 and 2008) amounted to 0.45 W/m2 averaged globally according to Mark Flanner [1]. The scientists claim that the observed exponential trend of PIOMAS sea ice volume decline [2] cannot and will not continue, hence the summer sea ice will last for many decades. The media seem to believe that emissions reductions can halt Arctic warming and save the sea ice. Even if these two memes cannot be proved to be false, the evidence that they might be false is plausible, so, on theprecautionary principle, we should be immediately preparing for geoengineering deployment on the necessary scale, whilst seeking more evidence one way or the other. Cheers, John [1] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/abs/ngeo1062.html [2] http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/sea-ice-melt-by-2016/ On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:18:03 AM UTC-4, Nathan Currier wrote: Oh! Could you point me towards those discussions, papers, etc, describing the mechanism of this? The volcanic H2O paper I just attached discusses lower stratospheric warming's role in it, but if true, what you mention would seem very likely to be involved.....and provide an example of the kind of thing I was wondering about.....Nathan On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:24:47 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: There's an intrinsic connection as SRM warms the tropopause A On 11 Aug 2014 04:24, "Nathan Currier" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, Andrew - I fully agree, and really enjoyed your post "SRM interaction with atmospheric anomalies (plus water)" of several days ago, which had mentioned the importance of "folding events." In this case, I was particularly trying to bring up whether there might be evidence sitting right in front of us coming from Pinatubo itself, but perhaps somewhat obscured from our thoughts by the "questionable meme" of Pinatubo as a primary demonstration of "cooling the planet", that stratospheric SRM might inherently contain forcings of opposing signs - such that its radiative effects would always be the net effects of both negative and positive forcings from its various dynamics. Folding events could potentially get messy with geoE, but I don't think one could say there's any intrinsic connection (at least I haven't heard of one). If it were true that both + and - forcings are always there with this kind of SRM, it might of course still work, but this should lower our confidence level in the concept's ultimate viability considerably, because as I say, you'd really have to keep track of all slight but longer-term positive radiative signals it is putting into the climate system (i.e., cooling the stratosphere, warming us), since you certainly need some degree of prolongation for the technique to have much value......and of course, these are just the kinds of things where we currently seem to know quite little......... Cheers, Nathan On Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:17:04 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Great point, Nathan. However, you're ignoring an additional issue. Warming of the tropopause means it's easier for water to convect or fold in to the stratosphere. This is a potentially serious problem, and one I put on the list of unknowns already. Bulk air movements also bring more methane into the stratosphere, which ultimately end up as water. My view is that we need urgent improvements in our ability to monitor and model the tropopause, if we are to have a hope of making SRM predictable and safe. A On 10 Aug 2014 04:39, "Nathan Currier" <[email protected]> wrote: One very widespread geoengineering 'meme' concerns stratospheric SRM and Pinatubo. One reads about it continuously - "like Pinatubo," we will "cool the planet" through stratospheric aerosols. How real is this? Pinatubo clearly cooled the planet initially, but are we sure - really sure - that it cooled the planet at all temporal scales? When you turn on a conventional coal plant, it, too, "cools the planet", if you care to look only at the initial response. There is no discussion, as far as I remember, on the causes of the increased stratospheric water vapor changes in Solomon et al 2010 that I brought up recently at this group, a paper suggesting considerable climate warming from increased stratospheric H2O. In the attached paper, there's discussion of how volcanic eruptions might impact stratospheric water vapor, causing a pulse of increased water vapor over 5-10 years. Although the volcano injects water vapor itself, its initial impact is actually to dry the stratosphere, since the SO2 reaction uses up so much water vapor, meaning that the much longer pulsed increase must come from perturbations in the stratospheric chemistry/climate itself. One question I wonder about is how intrinsically tied to the sulfur itself these H2O pulses might be, perhaps because of changes in methane oxidation, of the kind I was hypothesizing before? In the paper, the modeled increased forcing of roughly +.1w/m2 might seem modest, compared to the initial large negative forcing of -3w/m2 or so, but one lasts a year, the other possibly a decade, and how accurate are these modeled estimates? It is clearly far easier to recognize the sudden cooling from the eruption when it takes place, than a slight warming signal persisting through a much longer period of time in an already warming climate system. Yet clearly this is vital to understand if anyone is going to be doing useful geoengineering based on this. It's interesting that in the Solomon the water vapor increase is noted to have gone into a considerable decline around 2000-2003, around a decade after Pinatubo. Further, it is important to note that the complex dynamics leading to these entangled positive and negative forcings from a single pulse will almost certainly be shifted by the sheer act of continuous prolongation inherent in geoengineering, so the constant Pinatubo meme becomes a little....empty? Cheers, Nathan On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 2:38:34 PM UTC-4, kcaldeira wrote: Folks, I am supposed to give a keynote talk at CEC14 in two weeks. For this talk, I would like to try to develop a list of oft-cited memes that many assume are established facts, but which may not in fact be true. I am thinking of things like: "With solar geoengineering, there will be winners and losers." "Termination risk is an important reason not to engage in solar geoengineering." "Solar geoengineering will cause widespread drying." I don't want to discuss all of these things here but simply to develop a list. You could help me by sending an email answering the questions: 2a. What memes are out there which many "experts" regard as well-established facts but which in fact might not be correct? 2b. Why do you suspect the correctness of that meme? 2c. (optional) Can you provide a citation or a link to where someone is assuming the meme is true? Thoughtful responses would be most appreciated. If you want to start discussion about a meme, please do so in a separate thread so that this thread can be easily used to develop a list. Thanks, Ken _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AMEG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
