Hi Alan,

Did you say it seriously, that we could induce a new ice age.

I simply do not believe that. I think models are skewed for too little rather 
than too much considering long term background forcings already in place (as 
CO2 stays in air for circa 1000 years).

New Scientists just published yesterday a pretty damning graphics showing it 
almost impossible to stay within +1.5C rise.

Albert
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on 
behalf of Alan Gadian <[email protected]>
Sent: 16 June 2022 15:43
To: Stephen Salter <[email protected]>
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER <[email protected]>; John Nissen 
<[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration 
<[email protected]>; Shaun D Fitzgerald <[email protected]>; 
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [geo] PRAG meeting and SLR: Satellite images reveal dramatic loss 
of global wetlands over past two decades

Dear Renaud and Stephen,

Truth often gets lost in the story.  If you believe the climate models (which I 
have concerns about),  but are the basis of the ICCP6 results, the simulations 
of MCB can easily provide 4W/m^2 cooling with < 10% of the clouds, (only the 
stratocumulus).  If you seed more, you can induce an ice age, so says the 
climate models.  If you look at the cloud models for small scale regions 
(resolution 20m which I strongly believe are correct), the increases in the 
albedo match the climate model values.  There are side effects for all  
interventions.  Please don’t ignore the fact that we use NWP rather models 
everyday and they do work.   Stratospheric Sulphur has been shown to work, with 
other very significant side effects and inability to switch off.  The aerosol 
would reach polar stratosphuric regions within ~ 4 weeks.

The weather is global.  The atmosphere’s role is solely to take heat from the 
equator to the pole.  With just MCB seeding any one of the three main 
sub-tropical stratocumulus cloud decks would affect the WHOLE planet, not just 
a region.  The biggest signal would be in the polar regions. This is often 
forgotten when discussing climate.  With a reduced AMOC, Western Europe will 
cool, but the ramifications around the globe are huge.

My personal view that a combination of measures may well be required; relying 
on one seems foolhardy as each has limitations. The consequences of MCB are 
global and one has to understand planetary meteorology to appreciate this.

The CCRA3 report (June 2021) is a far better assessment (in my opinion) than 
the IPPC6 WG1 report (July 2021)which is “concensusly” bland. The draft ONR 
document for the UK  
https://www.onr.org.uk/consultations/2021/external-hazards/ns-tast-gd-013-annex-3.pdf
 is a far more accurate assessment in my opinion and makes stark reading - but 
then I would say that as I was a co-author . Ukraine has shown that world 
leaders are incapable of realising the consequence of their actions. One 
suspects climate change is not on the radar at all, but being ready when is 
does hot will be significant.

Alan

Alan Gadian
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>



On 16 Jun 2022, at 15:07, SALTER Stephen 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Renaud
I think that the reason for good cooling from spray under clear skies is that 
they were taking a long term average and spray under clear skies has longer to 
spread and a longer life.  Double the drop number means a bit over 5% more 
reflectivity.   Because of this log term in Twomey we want the low dose over a 
wide area that we get if we spray under clear skies.  It is even better if we 
spray just after rain which has cleaned the air which will eventually get to 
somewhere with a high enough relative humidity. We are not in a hurry.
Stephen


From: Renaud de RICHTER 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:22 PM
To: SALTER Stephen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: John Nissen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 
Planetary Restoration 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
 Shaun Fitzgerald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: PRAG meeting and SLR: Satellite images reveal dramatic 
loss of global wetlands over past two decades

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email 
is genuine and the content is safe.
Don't forget also Ahlm, L., Jones, A., Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Kravitz, B., & 
Kristjánsson, J. E. (2017). Marine cloud brightening–as effective without 
clouds. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(21), 13071-13087.  
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/13071/2017/

Sulfates from ships (and from fossil fuels power plants) are also effective 
without clouds!

Le jeu. 16 juin 2022 à 11:46, SALTER Stephen 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
Hi All
John Nissen writes below that marine cloud brightening is not so scalable as 
cloud coverage is limited.
Below is a table from Jones Haywood and Boucher of the UK  Hadley Centre in the 
Journal of Geophysical Research 2009 showing 0.97 watts per square metre of 
cooling, about half the warming problem, could come from treating just 3.3% of 
the earth’s surface. This used the same spray regions all the year round but 
vessel mobility would allow us to track the movement of the best regions.

<image001.png>

Charlson and Lovelock in Nature 326 pp 655-661, 1987 say that low but not 
high-level clouds cover 18% of the oceans.
I have sent some of you the attached calculations about sea level rise and 
would be grateful if you could suggest other input assumptions. Marine cloud 
brightening has the advantage of regional and seasonal control with 
high-frequency and low phase-lag.

Stephen


From: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
 On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:04 AM
To: Planetary Restoration 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
 Shaun Fitzgerald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: PRAG meeting and SLR: Satellite images reveal dramatic loss of global 
wetlands over past two decades

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email 
is genuine and the content is safe.
 Hi everyone,

I'm in Canada for the next week without access to zoom so next Monday's meeting 
is cancelled.

I've had a chance to do a lot of reading and this paper (1) mentions the huge 
impact of sea level rise:

More than 1 billion people now live in low-elevation coastal areas globally.

The Greenland Ice Sheet could give us a sudden SLR of half a metre or more if 
glacier avalanches are triggered by dammed internal lake collapse or 
earthquake. To reduce this risk and the risk from growing extremes of 
weather/climate the Arctic must be cooled as quickly as possible.

Powerful intervention is mandatory. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection north of 
50N is our best bet. It would be wonderful if the CCRC could endorse this 
strategy while SAI still has a good chance of success. Urgency cannot be 
overstated.

(MCB is not so scalable as cloud to brighten is limited.  Using both SAI and 
MCB might be ideal, if MCB can be deployed quickly enough at strength.  SAI has 
an advantage of the blanket cooling while MCB might provide more specific 
cooling where it helps.)

We need a campaign to recognise that SAI can be deployed extremely safely, 
mimicking a high latitude volcano such that ozone hole is not significantly 
affected and winter warming avoided.

The solution to the immediate climate emergency is so simple yet so far from 
being accepted let alone implemented - it's crazy.

Cheers John from mobile

(1) https://phys.org/news/2022-05-satellite-images-reveal-loss-global.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_Fxpdpwa3%3Dsoq%3DMcsL%3DDRFp1PZGFJkD3CR9Y24JoYfs-uYA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_Fxpdpwa3%3Dsoq%3DMcsL%3DDRFp1PZGFJkD3CR9Y24JoYfs-uYA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB5692793F7FD3557E90BDCE68A7AC9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB5692793F7FD3557E90BDCE68A7AC9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.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 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB569207E2EE8136039203B5EEA7AC9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB569207E2EE8136039203B5EEA7AC9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.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 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/36F779BC-C6CD-4C09-A93D-D71A3AB7399E%40gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/36F779BC-C6CD-4C09-A93D-D71A3AB7399E%40gmail.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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AS8P193MB1848A0616ACE172D6CB4C23390AC9%40AS8P193MB1848.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

Reply via email to