Dear Gideon,
It is spelled "negligible." And nobody is suggesting enough SAI to
produce 3K cooling, because that means there has been no mitigation.
A nuclear war could kill billions of people from starvation, and would
collapse civilization, surely reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Why
would you even worry about global warming and geoengineering then?
That's why I say your are comparing two things that are of completely
different scales.
Alan Robock
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail:
[email protected]
14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Signature
On 7/26/2022 10:59 AM, Gideon Futerman wrote:
Dear Alan Robock,
When you say overwhelm, is the suggestion here that the increase in
radiative forcing from the termination of aerosol injection would be
entirely negligable compared to the nuclear winter scenario?
If SAI were masking 3K of warming, and you got a nuclear winter driven
cooling of say 7K, surely the impact of the termination of SAI would
not be negligable, even if it would be significantly less than the
cooling of nuclear winter (ie you still get a nuclear winter)? I am
trying to work out if the "double catastrophe" as Baum calls it
actually applies in the nuclear winter scenario. So the question of
whether the removal of the contribution of SAI to radiative forcing
(by termination) makes the nuclear winter (and the resulting warming
afterwards) worse, less bad or is entirely negligable is important.
Moreover might sunlight removal effects be important in the short
term, particularly if it were a relatively high SAI radiative forcing
and (relatively) minor nuclear winter (say about 6K of cooling)? Given
up to 50% of sulfate aerosols remain in the stratosphere up to 8
months after termination, would the added impact of the sulfate
aerosols on top of the significantly more soot aerosols have an effect
of sunlight available for photosynthesis, so increase impact on food
production in the early days of the nuclear winter? Or would this
simply be negligable in the face of the radiation reduction from even
a relatively minor nuclear winter?
Kind Regards
Gideon
On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 15:20:44 UTC+1 Alan Robock wrote:
Dear Gideon,
A nuclear war would be orders of magnitude worse than any impacts
of SAI or termination. Soot from fires ignited by nuclear attacks
on cities and industrial areas would last for many years, and
would overwhelm any impacts from shorter lived sulfate aerosols.
Of course the impacts depend on how much soot, but a war between
the US and Russia could produce a nuclear winter. For more
information on our work and the consequences of nuclear war,
please visit http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/
Alan Robock
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone:
+1-848-932-5751 <tel:(848)%20932-5751>
Rutgers University E-mail:
[email protected]
14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Signature
On 7/26/2022 10:03 AM, Gideon Futerman wrote:
As part of the RESILIENCER Project, we are looking at low
probability high impact events and their relation to SRM. One
important worry in this regards becomes termination shock, most
importantly what Baum (2013) calls a "Double Catastrophe" where a
global societal collapse caused by one catastrophe then causes
termination shock, another catastrophe, which may convert the
civilisational collapse into a risk of extinction.
One such initial catastrophe may be nuclear war. Thus, the
combination of SRM and nuclear war may be a significant worry. As
such, I am posing the question to the google group: what would
happen if SRM (either stratospheric or tropospheric- or space
based if you want to go there) was terminated due to a nuclear
war? What sort of effects would you expect to see? Would the
combination worsen the effects of nuclear war or help ameliorate
them? How would this differ between SRM types?
--
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/8d0d8c0a-0f0d-440c-9bb5-f8641560e4a0n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8d0d8c0a-0f0d-440c-9bb5-f8641560e4a0n%40googlegroups.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/b541017e-b87b-4492-b840-91e39d0b0601n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/b541017e-b87b-4492-b840-91e39d0b0601n%40googlegroups.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/8cb36de1-7647-d660-790c-1da704b053ba%40envsci.rutgers.edu.
