But it's nasty stuff. Please keep in mind the last sentence of the
abstract, "However, our assumption that the rate of COS uptake by soils
and plants does not vary with increasing COS concentrations will need to
be investigated in future work, and more studies are needed on the
prolonged exposure effects to higher COS values in humans and ecosystems."
From the National Library of Medicine,
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Carbonyl-sulfide :
"Carbonyl sulfide is a colorless, poisonous, flammable gas with a
distinct sulfide odor. The gas is toxic and narcotic in low
concentrations and presents a moderate fire hazard."
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail:[email protected]
14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
On 6/25/22 2:25 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
FYI, if you haven't heard or seen this.
Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) aerosols released from the earth's surface and
in models appear to have a cooling impact similar to SO2 released in
the stratosphere. More research on the potential impacts of increased
COS released from the surface into the troposphere, that (as I recall
from the podcast) rises and stays in the stratosphere for an extended
period of time, for example on soil and plant uptake is needed, but as
Andrew opines, *this method may be an "Sulfate Geoengineering COS
Surface Radiative Forcing" (SG-COS-SRF) surface aerosol release
breakthrough* *as it requires no aviation (conventional or other) or
advanced injection technology. *
Listen here:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/using-tropospheric-cos-emissions-for-srm-quaglia/id1529459393?i=1000565776236
Paper Abstract:
An approach to sulfate geoengineering with
surface emissions of carbonyl sulfide
Ilaria Quaglia1, Daniele Visioni2, Giovanni Pitari1, and Ben Kravitz3,4
1Department of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Università dell’Aquila,
67100 L’Aquila, Italy
2Sibley School for Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
3Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN, USA
4Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory,
Richland, WA, USA
Correspondence:Ilaria Quaglia ([email protected])
Received: 29 September 2021 – Discussion started: 11 October 2021
Revised: 16 March 2022 – Accepted: 28 March 2022 – Published: 3 May 2022
Abstract.Sulfate geoengineering (SG) methods based on lower
stratospheric tropical injection of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) have been widely discussed in recent years, focusing on the
direct and indirect effects they would have on
the climate system. Here a potential alternative method is discussed,
where sulfur emissions are located at the
surface or in the troposphere in the form of carbonyl sulfide (COS)
gas. There are two time-dependent chemistry–
climate model experiments designed from the years 2021 to 2055,
assuming a 40 Tg−S yr−1artificial global flux
of COS, which is geographically distributed following the present-day
anthropogenic COS surface emissions
(SG-COS-SRF) or a 6 Tg−S yr−1injection of COS in the tropical upper
troposphere (SG-COS-TTL). The
budget of COS and sulfur species is discussed, as are the effects of
both SG-COS strategies on the stratospheric
sulfate aerosol optical depth (∼1τ=0.080 in the years 2046–2055),
aerosol effective radius (0.46 μm), surface
SOxdeposition (+8.9 % for SG-COS-SRF;+3.3 % for SG-COS-TTL), and
tropopause radiative forcing (RF;
∼ −1.5 W m−2in all-sky conditions in both SG-COS experiments).
Indirect effects on ozone, methane and
stratospheric water vapour are also considered, along with the COS
direct contribution. According to our model
results, the resulting net RF is−1.3 W m−2, for SG-COS-SRF, and−1.5 W
m−2, for SG-COS-TTL, and it is
comparable to the corresponding RF of−1.7 W m−2obtained with a
sustained injection of 4 Tg−S yr−1in the
tropical lower stratosphere in the form of SO2(SG-SO2, which is able
to produce a comparable increase of the
sulfate aerosol optical depth). Significant changes in the
stratospheric ozone response are found in both SG-COS
experiments with respect to SG-SO2 (∼5 DU versus+1.4 DU globally).
According to the model results, the
resulting ultraviolet B (UVB) perturbation at the surface accounts
for−4.3 % as a global and annual average
(versus−2.4 % in the SG-SO2 case), with a springtime Antarctic
decrease of−2.7 % (versus a+5.8 % increase
in the SG-SO2 experiment). Overall, we find that an increase in COS
emissions may be feasible and produce a
more latitudinally uniform forcing without the need for the deployment
of stratospheric aircraft. However, our
assumption that the rate of COS uptake by soils and plants does not
vary with increasing COS concentrations
will need to be investigated in future work, and more studies are
needed on the prolonged exposure effects to
higher COS values in humans and ecosystems.
Full paper:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/5757/2022/
Best,
Ron
--
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/CAPhUB9DjU62gj9J5-wJZ4%3D%3Drku-8-_%2BQWPG%3D6NT5L3fDKB%2B%3Dow%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9DjU62gj9J5-wJZ4%3D%3Drku-8-_%2BQWPG%3D6NT5L3fDKB%2B%3Dow%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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/171f5981-a614-2170-0713-4a3fd17652a2%40envsci.rutgers.edu.
