Hi Oliver--Yes, but quite possibly the cloud brightening effect would be far less than the rising concentrations of GHGs over time‹you really need to be doing a comparative analysis.
And then also there is the question of statistical significance. Just sending this message also created a redistribution of heat that would, under the butterfly principle, change the weather‹the question is if the statistics are changed significantly or not. Mike On 11/15/14 5:09 PM, "Oliver Wingenter" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > 1. Cloud brightening (and any change in albedo) by sea spray or sulfate > particles from DMS will change the heat distribution and temperature of the > planet and therefore the winds. > > Best, > > Oliver > > > Oliver Wingenter > Assoc. Professor Department of Chemistry > Research Scientist Geophysical Research Center > New Mexico Tech > Socorro, NM 87801 USA > > > > On 11/15/2014 4:56 AM, Stephen Salter wrote: > > >> >> Hi All >> >> Engineers who have to design reliable hardware are always glad to get advice >> from colleagues which might prevent mistakes. This advice is particularly >> valuable if it comes from people who have read the papers, studied the >> drawings and checked the algebra of the design equations. >> >> When I read Jim's comment about Rube Golberg ideas I immediately sent him a >> paper on the design ideas, asked him for technical criticism and offered to >> send him all my calculations. He has not got back to me yet but when he >> does, and with his permission, I would like to share them around the >> community. The more scutiny I can get the less chance of mistakes. If there >> is anyone else who can offer help in spotting potential problems about marine >> cloud brightening, please contact me and John Latham. >> >> Alan has done some valuable work with his list of 26 problems for solar >> radiation management using stratospheric sulphur. But there is not much >> overlap to marine cloud brightening in the troposphere and I hope he can >> produce a similar list. >> >> 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 >> <http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change >> >> >> On 10/11/2014 15:03, Alan Robock wrote: >> >> >>> >>> http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2014/11/09/many_experts_say_technology_c >>> ant_fix_climate_change.html >>> >>> >>> >>> Many experts say technology can't fix climate change >>> >>> There are several geoengineering schemes for fixing climate change, but so >>> far none seems a sure bet. >>> >>> >>> By: Joseph Hall <http://www.thestar.com/authors.hall_joe.html> News >>> reporter, Published on Sun Nov 09 2014 >>> >>> >>> >>> As scientific proposals go, these might well be labelled pie in the sky. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Indeed, most of the atmosphere-altering techniques that have been suggested >>> to combat carbon-induced global warming are more science fantasy than >>> workable fixes, many climate experts say. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³I call them Rube Goldberg <http://www.rubegoldberg.com/> ideas,² says >>> James Rodger Fleming, a meteorological historian at Maine¹s Colby College, >>> referring to the cartoonist who created designs for gratuitously complex >>> contraptions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³I think it¹s a tragic comedy because these people are sincere, but they¹re >>> kind of deluded to think that there could be a simple, cheap, technical fix >>> for climate change,² adds Fleming, author of the 2010 book Fixing the Sky: >>> The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yet the idea that geoengineering ‹ the use of technology to alter >>> planet-wide systems ‹ could curb global warming has persisted in a world >>> that seems incapable of addressing the root, carbon-spewing causes of the >>> problem. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And it emerged again earlier this month with a brief mention in a United >>> Nations report on the scope and imminent perils of a rapidly warming world. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> That Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report <http://www.ipcc.ch/> >>> , which seemed to despair of an emissions-lowering solution being achieved ‹ >>> laid out in broad terms the types of technical fixes currently being studied >>> to help mitigate climate catastrophe. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> First among these proposed geoengineering solutions is solar radiation >>> management, or SRM, which would involve millions of tons of sulphur dioxide >>> (SO2) being pumped into the stratosphere every year to create sun-blocking >>> clouds high above the Earth¹s surface. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyone Canadian who remembers the unusually frigid summer of 1992, caused by >>> the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines a year earlier, >>> grasps the cooling effects that tons of stratospheric SO2 can have on the >>> planet. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And because such natural occurrences show the temperature-lowering potential >>> of the rotten-smelling substance, seeding the stratosphere with it has >>> gained the most currency among the geoengineering crowd. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> One method put forward for getting the rotten-smelling stuff into the >>> stratosphere could well have been conceived by warped cartoonist Goldberg. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³You could make a tower up into the stratosphere, with a hose along the >>> side² says Alan Robock, a top meteorologist at New Jersey¹s Rutgers >>> University who has long studied SRM concepts. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The trouble is that any stratosphere-reaching tower built in the tropics, >>> where the SO2 would have to be injected for proper global dispersal, would >>> need to be at least 18 kilometres high. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Other stratospheric seeding suggestions include filling balloons with the >>> cheap and readily available gas ‹ it¹s routinely extracted from petroleum >>> products ‹ and popping them when they get up there. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> But Robock says ³the most obvious way to go² would be to fly airplanes up >>> and then spray SO2 into the stratosphere. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Once up there, the sulphur dioxide particles would react with water >>> molecules and form thin clouds of sulphuric acid droplets that could >>> encircle the Earth and reflect heating sunlight back into space. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Placing the cloud in the stratosphere is a must as the droplets last about a >>> year there while they fall within a week in the lower troposphere. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Still, the clouds, which would rain sulphuric acid back down on the Earth¹s >>> polar regions, would require frequent replenishment, with about 5 million >>> tons of SO2 being needed each year to maintain their reflective capacity, >>> Robock says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Due to uncertainties about the droplet sizes that would be produced by SO2 >>> cloud-seeding, no one is certain how much cooling the technique would >>> create. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³We don¹t know how thick a cloud we could actually make and how much cooling >>> there would be,² Robock says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Though he¹s devoted much of his career to studying sun-blocking proposals, >>> Robock is in no way convinced of their merits. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³I have a list of 26 reasons why I think this might be a bad idea,² he says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Chief among these is that the cooling produced by SRM would be uneven around >>> the globe, with the greatest temperature drops being seen in the tropics. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³And so if you wanted to stop the ice sheets from melting . . . you¹d have >>> to overcool the tropics.² >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The scheme would also produce droughts in heavily populated areas of the >>> world such as the Indian subcontinent, he says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³Another thing on my list is unexpected consequences. I mean, we don¹t know >>> what the risks would be. We only know about one planet in the entire >>> universe that sustains intelligent life. Do we want to risk this one planet >>> on this technological fix?² >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Though SRM thinking still centres on sulfates as the best cloud-seeding >>> compounds, some are now looking at manufactured nanoparticles to send into >>> the stratosphere, meteorological historian Fleming says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³There¹s some talk about designer particles . . . but I don¹t know of any >>> production stream, and that would make it much more expensive.² >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The second major proposed geoengineering strategy to combat global warming >>> is based on carbon dioxide (CO2) removal. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This could take place either at large sources of CO2 such as power plants or >>> from the air itself, where even at today¹s climate- threatening levels, it >>> exists in low concentrations of about 400 parts per million. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Know variously as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) or carbon capture and >>> sequestration (CCS), there are several strategies being discussed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All the plans, however, would likely entail huge costs, the use of dangerous >>> chemicals and uncertain storage prospects, Fleming says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³There are chemical means that would use some very alkaline, harsh >>> chemicals.² >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> He notes that there are also thermodynamic means ‹ kind of the way they make >>> dry ice and they just suck it out and condense it (into a liquid or solid).² >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> But thermodynamic removal and compression techniques, Fleming says, are >>> prohibitively expensive and require the use of large amounts of >>> carbon-producing energy. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This is largely due to the increased weight carbon acquires by combining >>> with oxygen during the burning process. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A ton of coal, for example, produces more than three tons of carbon dioxide >>> because of the added oxygen load, Fleming says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³To make it really effective you¹d have to have about a 30-per-cent increase >>> in world energy use. But it would have to come from renewable (sources), >>> which are not in the offing right now.² >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Other removal plans would employ membrane filters that are permeable to all >>> the air¹s component molecules except carbon. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³This seems viable on a small scale, but the question is, as in all these >>> projects: how do you make it a very large and very viable and economically >>> feasible?² Fleming says. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Most plans would see the captured CO2 turned back into a burnable fuel by >>> removing the oxygen component, or have it condensed into a liquid form and >>> pumped into underground caverns or ocean trenches. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> But the fuel idea would also requite massive energy inputs to crack the >>> molecule into its two elements, and the storage scheme would likely produce >>> leakage. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Others are proposing to turn the captured carbon into charcoal by burning it >>> in oxygen-free fires and burying it underground for soil enrichment. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³The problem with that one is the scale,² Fleming says. ³The topsoil of the >>> world is not large enough to capture all the carbon of industry.² >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Climate altering schemes go back to at least 1841, when pioneering U.S. >>> meteorologist James Pollard Espy >>> <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/James_Pollard_Espy.aspx> published a >>> rather ruinous proposal. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ³He observed that oftentimes it rained after giant fires,² Fleming says. ³So >>> he thought, well, maybe we can stimulate artificial rains by lighting the >>> Appalachian forests all the way down the east coast of the U.S. and then the >>> westerly winds would bring the rains across the eastern seaboard.² >>> >>> -- 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.
