Latex balloons are subject to substantial UV degradation in flight, and are prone to damage on the ground. They need trackers to recover them (unless you're releasing thousands), which AFAIK MS don't use. So recovery and reuse claims remain to be demonstrated in this use case, to my knowledge.
On Wed, 28 Dec 2022, 18:02 Daniele Visioni, <daniele.visi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Olivier for putting the numbers together - wanted to do it as well > but I’m still conflicted over whether it’s better to ignore them or call > out the BS. > > Few more things (probably some are new) I also found while browsing their > website that suggest this is just really a silly publicity stunt: > > Their second blog post says at the end: > *99% of this blog post and title was written using the help of ChatGPT > <https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/>* > > Which doesn’t really cast a positive or reassuring area over their > expertise… > Most worryingly, in the main page they now claim > > and we’ll offset a substantial amount of warming in 2023! > > Which sounds pretty outlandish on itself. > > They also claim their balloons are “reusable”: now, anyone who has > launched a ozone sonde knows how hard it is to actually recover the > balloons if you can track them (and a tracker in their case would add to > their cost/weight). Imagine the costs of recovering most of them. Also, > they don’t always reach the proper altitudes - even assuming they’re > actually doing this (and for now, I see no proofs of that except their own > claim) - who’s to say the SO₂ actually reached the stratosphere? > > Lastly, it looks like they claim they are backed by venture capital firms > - but on the websites of both those VC, which list all companies they > invested in, there is nothing about Make Sunset. They’re either ashamed, > someone is lying, or the meaning of “backed” has been twisted somehow. > > To me, this story sounds more and more like the SRM version of the > Republican House Member who just got elected and then everyone found out he > had a completely made-up resume…( > https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/26/politics/george-santos-admits-embellishing-resume/index.html > ) > > On 28 Dec 2022, at 12:00, olivier boucher <olivier.bouc...@ipsl.fr> wrote: > > > > Thank you Andrew for pointing to this Make Sunset news which I had not > seen. > > I find their calculations to be both optimistic and misleading. > > *"The key number -.62 W/m2 radiative forcing created for a year by > injecting 1 Tg of sulfur" based on several studies * > - Ferrero et al 2012 did not inject aerosols but prescribed them in their > model, they achieve -3.5 Wm-2 for a burden of 14.5 TgSO4, that's -0.7 Wm-2 > / Tg S burden > - Pope et al 2012 did not provide Wm-2 in their study > - Kuebbeler et al 2012 provide an ERF (with cirrus adjustments) of -0.93 > Wm-2 for 5 Mt SO2/yr, that's -0.37 Wm-2 / (TgS/yr ) > - Pitari et al 2014 : G4 experiment for 5 Mt SO2/yr shows -1.54, -0.73, > -1.27 and -1.31, that's -0.61, -0.29, -0.51, -0.52 Wm-2 / (TgS/yr) > - Kleinschmitt et al 2018, table 7a : -0.35 Wm-2 / (TgS/yr) with a lower > value from Niemeier and Timmreck (2015) on the same graph at -0.26 Wm-2 / > (TgS/yr) > - Dai et al. 2018 : equatorial 5 Mt-S/yr SO2 injection at 21–24.5 km > results in 0.72 Wm-2 / (TgS/yr), note that's a very high injection point > So -0.6 Wm-2/(TgS/yr) is a clearly an upper (negative) bound of what the > literature says. And it's unlikely to be achieved with an injection that is > not controlled at all. > > *"How long do these particles create cooling? 1-3 years. For our purposes, > we'll go with 2.1 years"* > - Kleinschmitt et al 2017 point to a residence time of 0.8 year for their > model and that of Niemeier and Timmreck, see Fig 7d. > - Heckendorn et al 2012 has a residence time of at most 1 year for low > injection rates, see their Fig 4a > But more importantly there is no reason to mutiply by the residence > time... all the above numbers are for continuous injections. Therefore they > already account for the residence time of S ! > > *"From the first table above, .7C per W/m2. So, we'll convert our > radiative forcing per Tg SO2 to temperature change: -.31 W/m2 * .7C per > W/m2 = -.217 C per Tg SO2/year"* > This value of the ECS is also for a constant-in-time RF and therefore a > continuous injection rate. > One cannot use a steady state calculation to infer what a pulse injection > would do. > > There is a whole lot of literature on "climate metrics" on how to compare > short-lived and long-lived species. This is a typical example here with SO2 > (1 yr) and CO2 (multi-century). There is no such thing as a best metric > (it's partly a scientific, partly a policy choice) but it is important to > avoid inconsistencies. Here Make Sunset uses something alike the GTPs (GTP > for sustained emissions), see > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-1146-9 , to draw an > equivalence between the SO2 and the CO2 but then applies it to a pulse > emission, which is why I say their approach is misleading. And there is > this double counting with the residence time. In my calculation which I > posted a couple of days ago, I implicitly chose a GWP1 (GWP with 1 yr time > horizon) for my calculation, with the caveat that you have only offset the > RF of the CO2 for one year. If one wants to go for a T calculation, I would > suggest to use GTP20, GTP50 and GTP100 for pulse emissions to get a range > of equivalences between g SO2 and CO2. > > Also in their Table : > *"RF efficacy decline of 1% for each additional TgS/yr"* > Although that's not part of the calculation, this is not supported by the > above studies. The saturation effect is much more. > > Finally I did not see on their web site what 10 $ buys you. It seems 10 $ > only buys you 10 $ of cooling. Could the "10 $ buys 1 gSO2" just be an > extrapolation from MIT Tech Review? > > Best regards, > > Olivier > > > ------------------------------ > *De: *"Govindasamy Bala" <bala....@gmail.com> > *À: *"Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *"geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Envoyé: *Mercredi 28 Décembre 2022 07:42:32 > *Objet: *Re: [geo] Make sunsets - Calculating Cooling > > this is all good and well-known, but the cost of this commercial venture > (as per the news) is way too high. > For a 2deg offset, the calculations show ~4 TgSO2 of injection per year > which translates to ~ 40 Trillion dollars per year at a rate of $10 per > gram of SO2. Cost estimates have gone through the roof into the > stratosphere from a few billion dollars to trillions of dollars. Well, > looks this is what commercialization would do. At this rate, the cost of > stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could be similar to the cost of > mitigation.... > > Bala > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 5:07 AM Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/calculating-cooling >> >> >> DECEMBER 27, 2022 >> Share >> Calculating Cooling >> >> How do we know how much cooling we're creating with our "clouds," and how >> does this compare to warming from carbon dioxide emissions? >> Fortunately, much smarter people have studied this for decades. Let's >> review some of their work and calculate our climate cooling impact. >> >> Radiative Forcing? >> >> Radiative forcing is the key concept here. This is how much energy enters >> the atmosphere vs. leaves it. An increase in radiative forcing leads to >> warming, and a decrease causes cooling. Here's a more detailed explanation. >> Measured in watts per square meter (W/m^2), we're over 3.1 W/m^2 of >> increased radiative forcing since 1750. >> >> >> Reflective Clouds >> >> How much reflectivity can we get from our clouds? Here's the summary >> we're working from: >> >> This number isn't pulled from thin air. As the author explains: "This >> sulfate efficacy value differs from that used in Smith and Wagner (2018) >> (which considered only incoming radiation) and falls towards the center of >> the values present across recent literature (Ferraro et al 2012, Pope et al >> 2012, Kuebbeler et al 2012, c, Kleinschmitt et al 2017, Dai et al 2018)." >> >> The key number here: >> -.62 W/m2 radiative forcing created for a year by injecting 1 Tg of sulfur >> >> But, we're using SO2. So, SO2/S mass ratio means we get half as much >> cooling per Tg: >> -.62/2 = -.31 W/m2 radiative forcing per Tg SO2/year >> >> CO2's Warming >> >> How much does carbon dioxide warm the planet? I was surprised about the >> uncertainty band here. IPCC says between .27 and .63 C per 1000 gigatons >> co2: >> >> >> >> So: 1000 gigatons CO2 = +.45C >> >> Converting Units >> >> Now we've got all the information we need to do our math. First, a >> conversion: temperature to radiative forcing. From the first table above, >> .7C per W/m2 >> >> So, we'll convert our radiative forcing per Tg SO2 to temperature change: >> -.31 W/m2 * .7C per w/m2 = -.217 C per Tg SO2/year >> >> Residence Time >> >> How long do these particles create cooling? 1-3 years. For our purposes, >> we'll go with 2.1 years (although further particle optimization, higher >> injection altitudes, and other changes may eventually result in much >> greater residence time). >> >> So, 2.1 years particle life * -.217C per TG SO2/year = -.4557 C per Tg >> SO2 launched for 1 year >> >> Putting It All Together >> >> So, how many grams of "cloud" to offset 1 ton of co2's warming impact for >> a year? >> 1000 gigatons co2 = +.45C >> 1 Tg SO2 = -.4557C >> 1000 gigatons co2 ~ 1 Tg SO2 >> 1 gigaton = 1,000 Tg, so: >> 1,000*1,000 = 1,000,000 Tg co2 = 1 Tg SO2 >> dividing both sides by 1T: >> 1,000,000 g co2 = 1 g SO2 >> 1 metric ton = 1,000,000 g: >> 1 metric ton co2 = 1 g SO2 >> >> So, with uncertainty bands on all of this, a gram offsets a ton: one gram >> "cloud" offsets 1 ton of co2's warming impact for a year. >> >> Here's the spreadsheet I used to calculate this, with links to sources. >> >> There are arguments to compare this in different ways (joules, etc.); >> many of these have strong merits. Because buyers of voluntary carbon >> credits are focused on co2 equivalence, we've gone this route. >> >> As with all our work here, please let us know if you think we've made a >> mistake and we'll correct! >> >> (image via Lexica) >> >> > -- > 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/645213159.46944580.1672246822359.JavaMail.zimbra%40ipsl.fr > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/645213159.46944580.1672246822359.JavaMail.zimbra%40ipsl.fr?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. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4FEB28CB-E5E9-4691-834A-FCF3CB65DB01%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4FEB28CB-E5E9-4691-834A-FCF3CB65DB01%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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04uS3av-k%3Dn8w5Ju6xyWn_FjMT2iwzQ8fLXwSebbS%2Bvhw%40mail.gmail.com.
