I'm not sure Dr Trenberth's comments accurately reflect the state of
current knowledge.

>From my recollection of yesterday's webinar (https://youtu.be/YHKEEqYlJP4)
, David Keith was particularly scathing about the persistence of this
"drought" mythology.

My personal understanding is that :
* Hydrological cycle activity increases under warming, so any "drought" is
relative to an artificial climate
* Studies (eg
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074013/meta)  have
shown that all regions benefit from solar geoengineering, in terms of
restoring both temperature and precipitation
* Temperature correction is slightly weaker  than precipitation correction,
so a full temperature correction would lead to over-drying. However, nobody
is recommending that particular level of intervention, to my knowledge.
It's therefore as absurd as saying "we can't use air-conditioning, as it
can cause hypothermia".
* "Drought" is a complex phenomenon, and stomata response to rising CO2,
plus the increased amount of diffuse solar radiation may enhance yields and
reduce evapotranspiration (Dagon & Schrag (2016): Evapotranspiration over
land decreases under model
simulations of solar geoengineering)

A

On 25 Mar 2017 16:22, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear Dr Trenberth
>
> You are quoted in The Guardian article of 24March by Arthur Neslan as
> saying that cutting incoming solar radiation promotes drought. This is
> supported by Jim Haywood at the UK Hadley centre with regard to volcanic
> eruptions and presumably injections of stratospheric sulphur.  However
> other work by Jim and his colleagues on marine cloud brightening with sea
> salt in the troposphere shows that effects are different and that
> precipitation can be changed in BOTH directions depending on where it is
> done.  Their 2009 paper  at doi:10.1029/2008JD011450  in figure 8f shows
> that spray in the South Atlantic off Namibia would produce 0.4mm more a day
> in South Sudan and surrounding drought stricken regions but also a
> reduction of about 1 mm a day in the Amazon basin.
>
> The same result of 0.4 mm a day is shown in work from Max Planck by Ulrike
> Niemeier et al. in doi:10.1002/2013JD020445 in the bottom row of figure 7.
>
> The same amount is reported from the Geomip project in doi:
> 10.1002/jgrd.50856.
>
> Bala et al in  10.1007/s00382-010-0868-1  showed that spraying everywhere
> by enough to offset double CO2 would reduce the global mean precipitation
> by 1.3% but that this was offset by the reduction in evaporation which
> increased river run off by 7%.
>
> All the climate modelling I have seen has used steady spraying throughout
> the year.  But given the short life of tropospheric aerosol and the speed
> and agility of spray vessels it is reasonable to hope that with knowledge
> of the phase of monsoons, el Nino and local observations we can deploy
> fleets tactically and cherry pick places and seasons for spray operations
> to get a win-win result.
>
> What we need is a seasonal everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function of
> the climate system.  It may be possible to borrow an idea used by
> telecommunications engineers to use climate models with separate
> pseudo-random sequences of the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei
> followed by correlation with model results round the world. This has been
> tried as part of a PhD thesis by Ben Parkes at Leeds.  He was able to
> confirm the Hadley Centre Amazon drying result but also that it could be
> reversed by spray off the Aleutians.  I would like to see a replication of
> his work.  Please let me know if you would like more information on the
> method and put me in touch with anyone who could do it.
>
> I would also be grateful to see any climate model results of marine cloud
> brightening which have not been published especially if they were not
> steady all-year round ones.   We also need to understand the difference
> between mono-disperse spray and the wider spreads of diameters.  The
> Alterskjaer 2013 paper at doi10.1029/2012GL054286 suggests that a wide
> spread of small nuclei might work in the warming direction.
>
> Figures from the papers should be below.
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of
> Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3DW
>  +44 (0) 131 650 5704 <+44%20131%20650%205704>
>
>
> On 24/03/2017 21:49, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us-scien
> tists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-study?
> CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to