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 Roadhttp://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>.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
--
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/032b01d61017%245202dd60%24f6089820%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/032b01d61017%245202dd60%24f6089820%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
