You may want to look to
https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/gmd-10-2247-2017.pdf
Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. There is an associated dataset in netcdf
format available on the Earth System Federation grid (input4MIPS).
This is a little far from my field, but I trust this is a good source of
data / information.
Best regards,
Olivier
Thanks, Russell. Do you have a citation for the power numbers for
natural rays (although I've ignored the rarer, high-energy rays)? The
numbers you've provided contradict my sources, which are many orders
of magnitude lower.
For clarity, the comparator technology is an ion thruster, not a
research particle accelerator. These have to be efficient, otherwise
they'd impart a very large energy penalty on space probes.
A
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, 01:55 Russell Seitz, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The grid-to-beam efficiency of greater than GEV particle
accelerators ranges from kess than 5 % for high current systems ,
to as little as 0.02% for superconducting colliders like the
LHC. As the global cosmic ray flux is of the order of 5 GW,
matching it might therefore take anywhere from a hundred GW to
several tens of terawatts.
At the high end of that power range one runs into a serious
feedback- the cloud nucleation cooling might be overwhelmed by
extra CO2 radiative forcing from the thermal plants in the grid
powering the accelerators.
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:17:58 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley
wrote:
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
