I would add further concerns about “trash rain” effects of numerous small balloons eventually returning to earth. Unless the balloons are fully biodegradable this may make the plastic problem worse. See issues of turtles eating plastic bags. The potential use of helium also concerns me as this is a very limited resource that already is being wasted far too much.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Douglas MacMartin Sent: 11 April 2020 15:59 To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Aaron Franklin <stateoftheart...@gmail.com> Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Arctic Methane Google Group <arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget No… see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2019.1648169 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:28 AM To: Aaron Franklin <stateoftheart...@gmail.com <mailto:stateoftheart...@gmail.com> > Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >; Arctic Methane Google Group <arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com <mailto:arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget Aaron, As far as I know, you are the first person to propose solar balloons for lofting climate-active gases. I would encourage you to publish this. I'm happy to assist. Andrew Lockley On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 23:28 Aaron Franklin, <stateoftheart...@gmail.com <mailto:stateoftheart...@gmail.com> > wrote: "Dear Andrew, I'm not sure I understand. How do you propose to put the sulfate into the stratosphere? And will you be personally responsible for your share of the risks associated with the impacts? Alan" Sounds like a good thing to set the kids on. Lots of utube videos of youngsters making and sending balloons to apropriate altitudes. If you tame away all the electronics, then a budget under ten bucks should be suitable for a child friendly design, say solar hot air, to lift about a kilo. If the kids want to shoulder the "responsibility for the share of the risk,". Who are we to deny them the chance. Good modelling and weather alerts to maximise the effects of each launch for the kids would be great if we can give it to them. Perhaps they could earn bitcoins based on the modeled effects their launch has had. Given that the 10kg per year figure is anything like ballpark, it could work out great pocket money! Aaron Franklin On Sat, 11 Apr 2020, 7:51 AM Andrew Lockley, <andrew.lock...@gmail.com <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: People have made some really valid points on this, but I'm also very keen to know if I've done the maths right (first post). If anyone has any comments please let me know. A On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 20:43 Kevin Lister, <kevin.lister2...@gmail.com <mailto:kevin.lister2...@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Alan, No one disputes that it is prudent to mitigate as much as we can. The question is how to quantify the upwards pressure on CO2 emissions, both now and in the future, and given an understanding of the upwards pressure then how much mitigation do we realistically think we will achieve in the best possible circumstance? So, if the expected emissions are above a certain threshold, then SRM must be considered, and that threshold is likely to be extremely low, given the damage we are seeing to the ecosystem at today’s levels of CO2. It seems to me that upwards pressure on emissions is likely to intensify despite progress in renewable energy. This is driven by a global population heading towards 10 billion; by adaptation burdens from climate change such as cities that have to be relocated in the face of sea level rises; and with military arms races now being unconstrained. No body wants it to be this way, but that is the way that it is. A simple game theoretical analysis show the chance of a global agreement on getting the CO2 emission cuts to address climate change is in the in the order of 6E-64 with the current approach. So the only prudent way forward now is to start thinking in detail about what an SRM programme would be and how we would manage it. Kevin Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Alan Robock <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> ☮ Sent: 10 April 2020 17:47 To: mmacc...@comcast.net <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net> ; geoengineering <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget Dear Mike, That's what many of us are spending years trying to assess. Each potential benefit and risk has to be evaluated, and the answers depend on the specific scenarios of global warming and SRM implementation, as well as many assumptions that are made. Since the answer to your question is not yet, and maybe never, I think it is prudent to not implement SRM at this time. And it is prudent to mitigate as much as we can. Alan On 4/10/2020 12:43 PM, Michael MacCracken wrote: Hi Alan--Is there a comparative and comprehensive assessment that indicates that the risks from injecting sulfates into the stratosphere that you raise are greater than the alleviated risks from global warming that is cancelled out, and how this evaluation changes with amounts of warming and cooling and how the evaluation might vary as one considers near-term to long-term aspects (and including related aspects like sea level rise and ocean acidification impacts)? Mike On 4/10/20 12:31 PM, Alan Robock ☮ wrote: Dear Andrew, I'm not sure I understand. How do you propose to put the sulfate into the stratosphere? And will you be personally responsible for your share of the risks associated with the impacts? Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> 14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock On 4/10/2020 12:13 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: I've just run some numbers on what my 'personal sulfate budget' might be. By the calculations below, if a typical person put 10kg sulphate in the stratosphere for every year of their life, they'd net out their entire RF carbon footprint for a century. Obviously, this has a whole pile of caveats and flaws, but is it vaguely right? Is it a useful concept? Here's the obvious caveats: Need temporally and spatially even distribution Doesn't work once CO2 forcing very high Assumes full offset of future emissions, nil of historic Termination shock, ocean acidification, Etc. Andrew -0.25 (W m-2)/ (Tg-S yr-1) from Wake 1.5 trillion tonnes CO2 historic 2017 https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#cumulative-co2-emissions 1.6 w/m2 Current RF 2010 (bit out of date) Approx 1 Tt/W (calculated) 10t/capita/Yr CO2 only (UK), nearly 14 Co2e https://www.carbonindependent.org/23.html To Offset everything all historic CO2 6Tg/yr 1 persons annual emissions is 1.5 x 100 billionths of the total ever emitted Personal sulfate injection is therefore 6Tg x 1.5 / 100bn = about 100g per year for 1y emissions only If each person wants to offset a year's emissions for a century (negating 100y GWP), it's 100x More — ie 10kg per year -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05HKVDJ8aYPr3dxk_N2Zecnd9kwz3%3DUo8MECqKxe1mt6g%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05HKVDJ8aYPr3dxk_N2Zecnd9kwz3%3DUo8MECqKxe1mt6g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/c04f414e-4da2-7a30-3890-2401ecc95727%40envsci.rutgers.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/c04f414e-4da2-7a30-3890-2401ecc95727%40envsci.rutgers.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/706e49a6-559c-3c04-b3bc-7e454a985ec5%40comcast.net <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/706e49a6-559c-3c04-b3bc-7e454a985ec5%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/ff7f87e6-3f0e-48e2-66d3-73e11eeca30b%40envsci.rutgers.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/ff7f87e6-3f0e-48e2-66d3-73e11eeca30b%40envsci.rutgers.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5e90a884.1c69fb81.61ead.dd40%40mx.google.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5e90a884.1c69fb81.61ead.dd40%40mx.google.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-057UhjuZyMs1dbw5zBRY5FtSRiR_mDtrmzJF3%3DVDoYt2w%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-057UhjuZyMs1dbw5zBRY5FtSRiR_mDtrmzJF3%3DVDoYt2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06b3ra6DArELZzcSD7d4xkjARWZQMF%3DUnhz-zUM7Atk%3DA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06b3ra6DArELZzcSD7d4xkjARWZQMF%3DUnhz-zUM7Atk%3DA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB470774CD6B9BC6487E8F703A8FDF0%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB470774CD6B9BC6487E8F703A8FDF0%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/032b01d61017%245202dd60%24f6089820%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk.
