Simon and List, Thank for your assurance. I will learn what I can from the details and thank you for making them available. In my past readings on this concern, only GCMs have been used to work this issue.
I will calm my concerns over sufur warming the poles based upon your claims. Yet seeing an actual test injection within polar conditions will help remove the concern completely. As to my interest in BC, I am developing an initiative for conversion of marine C into soil C that will be producing wetted C in the form of biochar for soil use. This same wetted C will be used in the stratosphere as a means to harvest energy from the upper global ectrical circuit as an alternative production energy source. As such, the wetted C will be used extensively in the stratosphere and that wetted C will dehydrate the local stratosphere, a SRM service. Here are a few public notes on the Global Electrical Circuit Enhancement (GEC+) tech. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1422084827841365&substory_index=0&id=100001195830750 The GEC+ tech is also related to a Hydroxyl Cryogenesis local and regional cooling method. The Hydroxyl Cryogenesis Geotherapy (HCG) Initiative: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1422560591127122&id=100001195830750 Both GEC+ and HCG tech baskets are in support of a broaded BlueBiochar Initiative: https://www.dropbox.com/s/w8b72amx3yxrkk4/BlueBiochar%20Initiative%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 As you may recognize, if this type of technology package becomes wide spread, your particular talents and tools will be in high demand as a guide. Thanks, Michael Hayes On Nov 8, 2017 12:12 PM, "Simone Tilmes" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Michael, our model does include PSC, and includes the important chemical reactions that are related to those. We are running with most recent updated schemes that from PSCs, liquid and ice clouds. You are welcome to dive into our recent model description papers, if you like. Our model compares exceptionally well with observations regarding producing the Antarctic ozone hole as well and identifying the impact of aerosols on chemical reactions after volcanic eruptions. I can point you to a recent paper on that as well. Please see the just published paper as advertise in this list by Mills et al., 2017! Regarding the topography, I am not sure what exactly you mean. Mountain waves for instance are often not properly resolved and temperatures are therefore regionally not necessarily properly represented especially in high northern latitudes. However, on the scale our model is working it is doing quite well. Certainly, details need to be updated and there are still a lot of questions, so more work is needed. In fact there are plans to explore the changes in PSC, and impacts on stratospheric ozone in very detail based on the new simulations. Regarding the BC, tropospheric aerosols are well reproduced in this model. But, we are addressing here mostly stratospheric processes and stratospheric injections of sulfur as Ben pointed out, since we are looking at stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. So I am not sure I understand your concern, Best, Simone On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, if you ever do get around to running the model with PSCs, I would be > interested in viewing the results and learning more about the details of > your model. > > As I have had my concerns over this sulfur/PSC issue for years, I've read > up on a number of models specifically crafted for PSCs and most authors on > the subject believe PSCs need unique treatment. > > I just don't see how your type of model can depict the full range of PSC > factors. Just on the issue of topography alone, which some PSC specific > models factor in as topography is a factor in some PSC formations, seems to > be absent within this new model. > > I would like to know how your model can fully depict the many factors > related to PSCs. > > As to the BC, you may wish to adjust your model for wetted BC even if for > the only the reason that such modeling may represent a first effort of its > kind. I guess that, and that alone, would give it value. > > As to the valcanic sulfur thing, there would seem to be far more wetted BC > being released each year from ffs and fires than valcanic sulfur. Why not > model for wetted BC? > > Michael Hayes > > On Nov 8, 2017 7:55 AM, "Ben Kravitz" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Michael - >> >> We do have a thorough treatment of polar stratospheric clouds in our >> simulations. We haven't looked into the details that you're talking about, >> but in principle, someone could. >> >> I know basically nothing about wetted carbon. We used stratospheric >> sulfate aerosols in our simulations because nature has put a lot of sulfur >> in the stratosphere in the past, so we have some ideas as to what it would >> do. There are lots of proposals out there for other types of aerosols >> (e.g., Keith et al., 2016), but I don't know nearly enough about them to >> argue whether anything needs to be "retired from the field". I think a lot >> of research needs to be done in many areas, including this one. >> >> Best, >> >> Ben >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >> pic/geoengineering/d19R_ZOAbvc/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- 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.
