As discussed in my original post, a significant scaling of synthetic cosmic rays is possible, over background levels (3-5 orders) This may give a large climate signal, sufficient to analyse the effect with a view to using it for CE.
Does anyone have a view on the potential usefulness of high-volume, standard-energy cosmic rays? A On Sun, 19 Aug 2018, 16:35 Olivier Boucher, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Andrew, > > see section 7.4.6 of IPCC AR5 : > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf > > The summary is > > "Cosmic rays enhance new particle formation in the free troposphere, but > the effect on the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei is too weak to > have any detectable climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the > last century (medium evidence, high agreement). No robust association > between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified. In the > event that such an association existed, a mechanism other than cosmic > ray-induced nucleation of new aerosol particles would be needed to explain > it. {7.4.6}" > > Best > > Olivier > > Cosmic rays cause cloud condensation nuclei. They are therefore believed > to affect cloudiness, and therefore climate. If we made more cosmic rays, > that would likely make it more cloudy. Whether this was a warming or > cooling effect would depend on whether it was cirrus or cumulus clouds (NB, > sometimes making cirrus ultimately removes water, resulting in less > cirrus) > > Cosmic rays are almost all protons, with an typical energy peak > distribution of 0.3GEv. (4.8×10−11 J). No idea if that's the right energy > for CCN, but we can tweak that later. > > Creating artificial cosmic rays is possible, using a linear particle > accelerator. This is similar to an ion thruster, as used in space probes. > > To affect climate, you'd probably have to get densities of the order of > 1/s/sqm (more on that, later). > > 360 million square kilometers of ocean is 360tn sqm or 3.6x10^14sqm. You > don't really want to send particles into people, and the cleaner air over > the oceans makes them more effective. > > A kilo of hydrogen contains 6x10^26 protons. > > That means 1kg of H2 gives you enough material for 1.6x10^12s = roughly 50 > years - so a satellite could easily carry enough material to do the job. > > Power is 3.6x10^14 x 4.8x10^-11J/s = 17kW - again, well within what a > satellite could muster (roughly 100sqm of solar panels, at around 20% panel > efficiency (conservative) and 50pc conversion (made up) efficiency). > > Cheap satellites are about $50m - well within the capabilities of a rich > philanthropist. Even if this is not cheap, it's still only perhaps 500m > > If I'm out by 5 orders (1 ray per sq cm, not per sq m each second), then > that's only 10,000 satellites. That's expensive, but not outlandish. > Superficially, that would be $500bn at the lower cost, but there is likely > a 10x or 100x experience curve cost reduction, meaning the whole programme > would be about $5-50bn max. > > As an alternative, you could use aircraft or balloons, but beam > attenuation would be a serious issue. 40km balloons can be launched, albeit > with small payloads. They would fly at the bottom of the mesosphere, over > 99.9pc of the atmosphere. So maybe beam attenuation would be tolerable, at > that height. I don't know how to calculate it, but I'm guessing it would be > cms to kms - so not really far enough to make a difference to climate. You > could perhaps have mountaintop accelerators with very high powers, and a > sweeping beam (like a lighthouse). If the power requirement was GW-range, > then maybe the beam range would be a hundred km, or so. That might be > enough to work, but it would have some pretty significant effects on local > atmospheric chemistry - so probably not a good idea. > > Any thoughts from anyone? > > Andrew Lockley > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > ------------------------------ > BAMS State of the Climate 2017 > <https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/> > has an aerosol section in the Global Climate chapter > > -- > 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.
