Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
Hi Josh, Before commenting on your question, I need to explain the recent activities of AMEG, a group whose position Professor Salter supports. Professor Peter Wadhams and I gave evidence, on behalf of AMEG, to the first of two hearings of the Environment Audit Committee (AEC) inquiry Protecting the Arctic on 21st February. We were given an opportunity to make a further presentation of the AMEG case to the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (APPCCG) on 13th March, i.e. last Tuesday, where we were joined by Professor Salter and journalist, Jon Hughes. Richard Black, of the BBC, reported on the APPCCG meeting [1]. The second hearing of EAC was on 14th March, at which the Met Office gave oral evidence, reported by the Guardian [2] [3]. I am a great supporter of Stephen's cloud brightening approach, and we both want it deployed as soon as possible. Stephen is a supporter of Peter Wadhams and the AMEG position, that geoengineering is urgently needed to try to save the sea ice. The sea ice is disappearing extraordinarily rapidly as Richard Black reports from the APPCCG presentation [4] and you can see from the graph of sea ice volume decline [5]. One can see from this graph that, if we are unlucky and the sea ice volume declines this summer as much as it did between the minimum in 2009 and 2010, i.e. ~2000 km-3, then it would halve the sea ice left this September. Such a collapse in volume is likely to be accompanied by a collapse in sea ice extent. With less heat flux going into melting the ice, there could be a sudden spurt in Arctic warming, making a reversal to restore the ice, by geoengineered cooling, extremely difficult if not impossible. A point of no return could be reached this summer. Therefore we are in a desperate situation. As I pointed out to the EAC, beggars can't be choosers, so we have to use available means to try and cool the Arctic quickly, and avoid any actions which could make this daunting task more difficult. Thus for example, we urged EAC to recommend an immediate halting of Arctic drilling because escape of methane (the main constituent of natural gas) would have a warming effect on the Arctic. Stephen was not at the EAC hearing on 21st February, but afterwards made it clear to the committee that he supported the AMEG position. Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. The signatories had apparently included Stephen Salter, but this was a mistake - he had not agreed to the wording that was used. On the other hand the APPCCG meeting last week was an opportunity for Stephen to trumpet the advantages of cloud brightening over what is seen as its main rival. So I think you should take Stephen's strong statement as a warning that, if used at the wrong time and place, stratospheric aerosols could be counterproductive. I'll let him produce his detailed argument, which he submitted as written evidence to the EAC hearing. We will no doubt have to use a combination of techniques and measures to deal with the desperate situation in the Arctic. Cheers, John [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/14/oil-spill-arctic-exploration [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-winter [4] Analysis from the University of Washington, in Seattle, using ice thickness data from submarines and satellites, suggests that Septembers could be ice-free within just a few years. [5] http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pitaken from http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-record-lower-still.html [6] Email from Hue Coe to members of the AEC, 21st Feb, forwarded to the geoengineering group on 23rd by Andrew Lockley. --- On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.comwrote: The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in fact be disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing it would increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C. That's a pretty strong statement--what's the evidence for this? Josh Horton On Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:25:22 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**science-environment-17400804http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News An eminent UK engineer is suggesting building cloud-whitening towers in the Faroe Islands as a technical fix for warming across the Arctic. Scientists told UK MPs this week that the possibility of a major methane release triggered by melting Arctic ice constitutes a planetary
RE: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
Hello John Nissen and All, John N says:- Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. The major stages of the required research involve modelling, resolution of all technological questions, examination of - and international agreement on - possible adverse consequences of deployment, and the execution of (in the case of MCB, for example), of a limited area field-testing experiment. If the required funding was available now I think I think all the above goals could be achieved in 5 years, perhaps even 3. At the moment these goals are far from being achieved. An attempt to successfully deploy now any likely SRM technique would be doomed to failure. The technological questions have not been fully resolved - so it would not work - and there would be - in my opinion - an international outcry against deployment. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot, I think, if we tried to deploy now. If there was a major failure - which is likely - the response could be such as to prohibit further SRM work for a long time.We need to engage in crash programmes of research now, which means that we need immediately to obtain the required funding. [How, I dont know, I'm afraid]. All Best, John (Latham) John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:40 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering; John Nissen; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Hi Josh, Before commenting on your question, I need to explain the recent activities of AMEG, a group whose position Professor Salter supports. Professor Peter Wadhams and I gave evidence, on behalf of AMEG, to the first of two hearings of the Environment Audit Committee (AEC) inquiry Protecting the Arctic on 21st February. We were given an opportunity to make a further presentation of the AMEG case to the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (APPCCG) on 13th March, i.e. last Tuesday, where we were joined by Professor Salter and journalist, Jon Hughes. Richard Black, of the BBC, reported on the APPCCG meeting [1]. The second hearing of EAC was on 14th March, at which the Met Office gave oral evidence, reported by the Guardian [2] [3]. I am a great supporter of Stephen's cloud brightening approach, and we both want it deployed as soon as possible. Stephen is a supporter of Peter Wadhams and the AMEG position, that geoengineering is urgently needed to try to save the sea ice. The sea ice is disappearing extraordinarily rapidly as Richard Black reports from the APPCCG presentation [4] and you can see from the graph of sea ice volume decline [5]. One can see from this graph that, if we are unlucky and the sea ice volume declines this summer as much as it did between the minimum in 2009 and 2010, i.e. ~2000 km-3, then it would halve the sea ice left this September. Such a collapse in volume is likely to be accompanied by a collapse in sea ice extent. With less heat flux going into melting the ice, there could be a sudden spurt in Arctic warming, making a reversal to restore the ice, by geoengineered cooling, extremely difficult if not impossible. A point of no return could be reached this summer. Therefore we are in a desperate situation. As I pointed out to the EAC, beggars can't be choosers, so we have to use available means to try and cool the Arctic quickly, and avoid any actions which could make this daunting task more difficult. Thus for example, we urged EAC to recommend an immediate halting of Arctic drilling because escape of methane (the main constituent of natural gas) would have a warming effect on the Arctic. Stephen was not at the EAC hearing on 21st February, but afterwards made it clear to the committee that he supported the AMEG position. Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. The signatories had apparently included Stephen Salter, but this was a mistake
Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
Josh My source is figure 2b of Jones Hayward Boucher Kravtitz and Robock of June 2010 in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics They reckon 5 million tonnes year will do a general world-wide coolling of 1.1 watt/m2 but will work the wrong way over the Arctic giving a warming of 4 to10 watts/m2 above the methane releasing areas where last year there was a step up by a factor of 20. I was caeful to say 10 watts not 10 C but other speakers had been talking in temperature which are already scary enough. Jon Egil Kristjansson at Oslo has some confirming results. Can anyone predict the effects of a spike of methane lasting two years? I will put figure 2b in my next email incase your spam filters disapprove of it. The reason for intense Arctic warming might be that in the summer stratospheric aerosol scatters energy from solar rays that might just have missed the earth and half the scattering is downwards. At the summer solstice there is more solar energy hitting the North pole than the equator. In winter there could be about 200 watts per square metre of longwave radiation trying to get out from the Arctic to deep space. Aerosol at any height cannot tell up from down and will reflect some back like a blanket. Low level cloud brightening would have exactly the same blanketing effect but the shorter life means that we have a much better chance of not getting any salt residues that far north. Intercepting heat going from the tropics to the poles can be done anywhere along the route. Cloud brightening anywhere away from the Arctic will cool it. Short life and local control is a very attractive feature. Patchy and quick good, promiscuous and slow bad. The cloud brightening community would greatly appreciate some distinction between our own low-level highly controlled activities and higher level, uncontrolled more acidic ones. See if there is anything in your spam tray. Stephen Josh Horton wrote: The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in fact be disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing it would increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C. That's a pretty strong statement--what's the evidence for this? Josh Horton On Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:25:22 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News An eminent UK engineer is suggesting building cloud-whitening towers in the Faroe Islands as a technical fix for warming across the Arctic. Scientists told UK MPs this week that the possibility of a major methane release triggered by melting Arctic ice constitutes a planetary emergency. The Arctic could be sea-ice free each September within a few years. Wave energy pioneer Stephen Salter has shown that pumping seawater sprays into the atmosphere could cool the planet. The Edinburgh University academic has previously suggested whitening clouds using specially-built ships. At a meeting in Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (Ameg), Prof Salter told MPs that the situation in the Arctic was so serious that ships might take too long. I don't think there's time to do ships for the Arctic now, he said. We'd need a bit of land, in clean air and the right distance north... where you can cool water flowing into the Arctic. Favoured locations would be the Faroes and islands in the Bering Strait, he said. Towers would be constructed, simplified versions of what has been planned for ships. In summer, seawater would be pumped up to the top using some kind of renewable energy, and out through the nozzles that are now being developed at Edinburgh University, which achieve incredibly fine droplet size. In an idea first proposed by US physicist John Latham, the fine droplets of seawater provide nuclei around which water vapour can condense. This makes the average droplet size in the clouds smaller, meaning they appear whiter and reflect more of the Sun's incoming energy back into space, cooling the Earth. On melting ice The area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice each summer has declined significantly over the last few decades as air and sea temperatures have risen. For each of the last four years, the September minimum has seen about two-thirds of the average cover for the years 1979-2000, which is used a baseline. The extent covered at other times of the year has also been shrinking. What more concerns some scientists is the falling volume of ice. Analysis from the University of Washington, in Seattle, using ice thickness data from submarines and satellites, suggests that Septembers could be ice-free within just a few years. Data for September suggests the Arctic Ocean could be free of sea ice in a few years In 2007, the water [off northern
Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
Dear John, How I wish we had the time. We should have been doing what you suggest immediately after the crash in sea ice extent of September 2007 - a wake-up call. We have just left it far too late, and have no option but to try anything that might reduce the chance of a collapse in sea ice extent this year. If you just look at the PIOMAS graph of sea ice volume which is down 75% in three decades and compare it with the sea ice extent which is down 40%, it is obvious that the sea ice extent cannot hold out much longer while the ice continues thinning. There must be a great deal of heat going into melting the ice - and much of this heat is from the heating of open water by the sun when the sea ice retreats - i.e. from the albedo flip effect. After a collapse such that there's little sea ice left in September, there will be a spurt in Arctic warming, perhaps to double the current rate of warming. And after we have a nearly sea ice free Arctic ocean for six months, the warming could increase to triple or quadruple the current rate. Meanwhile there is the methane to contend with. There are already signs of an escalation of methane emissions from shallow seas of the continental shelf. That by itself would be cause for concern, since the sea ice retreat is allowing the seabed to warm well above the thaw point for methane hydrates. So I have three questions for you: 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? Kind regards, John --- On 18/03/2012 15:29, John Latham wrote: Hello John Nissen and All, John N says:- Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. The major stages of the required research involve modelling, resolution of all technological questions, examination of - and international agreement on - possible adverse consequences of deployment, and the execution of (in the case of MCB, for example), of a limited area field-testing experiment. If the required funding was available now I think I think all the above goals could be achieved in 5 years, perhaps even 3. At the moment these goals are far from being achieved. An attempt to successfully deploy now any likely SRM technique would be doomed to failure. The technological questions have not been fully resolved - so it would not work - and there would be - in my opinion - an international outcry against deployment. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot, I think, if we tried to deploy now. If there was a major failure - which is likely - the response could be such as to prohibit further SRM work for a long time.We need to engage in crash programmes of research now, which means that we need immediately to obtain the required funding. [How, I dont know, I'm afraid]. All Best, John (Latham) John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:40 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering; John Nissen; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Hi Josh, Before commenting on your question, I need to explain the recent activities of AMEG, a group whose position Professor Salter supports. Professor Peter Wadhams and I gave evidence, on behalf of AMEG, to the first of two hearings of the Environment Audit Committee (AEC) inquiry Protecting the Arctic on 21st February. We were given an opportunity to make a further presentation of the AMEG case to the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (APPCCG) on 13th March, i.e. last Tuesday, where we were joined by Professor Salter and journalist, Jon Hughes. Richard Black, of the BBC, reported on the APPCCG meeting [1]. The second hearing of EAC was on 14th March, at which the Met Office gave oral evidence, reported by the Guardian [2] [3]. I am a great supporter of Stephen's cloud brightening approach, and we both want it deployed as soon
RE: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
John Do you have a physically based model that backs up these about collapse and quadrupling of warming rate? If so, please let us see it. If not, please consider either retracting these claims or finding a way to make clear the level of uncertainty involved. We have a climate problem and a public relations problem. The first email I have from you in my archives is dated 2008 and suggests the complete disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice at the by 2013. This now seems highly unlikely. If the current claims about immanent collapse are also proved false (as I expect they will be) you will provide ammunition to those who argue against action. Reality is bad enough. David -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:24 AM To: John Latham Cc: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; geoengineering; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Dear John, How I wish we had the time. We should have been doing what you suggest immediately after the crash in sea ice extent of September 2007 - a wake-up call. We have just left it far too late, and have no option but to try anything that might reduce the chance of a collapse in sea ice extent this year. If you just look at the PIOMAS graph of sea ice volume which is down 75% in three decades and compare it with the sea ice extent which is down 40%, it is obvious that the sea ice extent cannot hold out much longer while the ice continues thinning. There must be a great deal of heat going into melting the ice - and much of this heat is from the heating of open water by the sun when the sea ice retreats - i.e. from the albedo flip effect. After a collapse such that there's little sea ice left in September, there will be a spurt in Arctic warming, perhaps to double the current rate of warming. And after we have a nearly sea ice free Arctic ocean for six months, the warming could increase to triple or quadruple the current rate. Meanwhile there is the methane to contend with. There are already signs of an escalation of methane emissions from shallow seas of the continental shelf. That by itself would be cause for concern, since the sea ice retreat is allowing the seabed to warm well above the thaw point for methane hydrates. So I have three questions for you: 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? Kind regards, John --- On 18/03/2012 15:29, John Latham wrote: Hello John Nissen and All, John N says:- Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. The major stages of the required research involve modelling, resolution of all technological questions, examination of - and international agreement on - possible adverse consequences of deployment, and the execution of (in the case of MCB, for example), of a limited area field-testing experiment. If the required funding was available now I think I think all the above goals could be achieved in 5 years, perhaps even 3. At the moment these goals are far from being achieved. An attempt to successfully deploy now any likely SRM technique would be doomed to failure. The technological questions have not been fully resolved - so it would not work - and there would be - in my opinion - an international outcry against deployment. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot, I think, if we tried to deploy now. If there was a major failure - which is likely - the response could be such as to prohibit further SRM work for a long time.We need to engage in crash programmes of research now, which means that we need immediately to obtain the required funding. [How, I dont know, I'm afraid]. All Best, John (Latham) John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com
Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
I have to agree with David and Ken. Stick to refereed literature if you have something to say, so the idea can be peer reviewed. And don't pretend to talk for all of us to the press, like Salter and Nissen are doing. Alan [On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me is by email, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, or at 732-881-1610 (cell).] Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Mar 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, David Keith david_ke...@harvard.edu wrote: John Do you have a physically based model that backs up these about collapse and quadrupling of warming rate? If so, please let us see it. If not, please consider either retracting these claims or finding a way to make clear the level of uncertainty involved. We have a climate problem and a public relations problem. The first email I have from you in my archives is dated 2008 and suggests the complete disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice at the by 2013. This now seems highly unlikely. If the current claims about immanent collapse are also proved false (as I expect they will be) you will provide ammunition to those who argue against action. Reality is bad enough. David -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:24 AM To: John Latham Cc: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; geoengineering; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Dear John, How I wish we had the time. We should have been doing what you suggest immediately after the crash in sea ice extent of September 2007 - a wake-up call. We have just left it far too late, and have no option but to try anything that might reduce the chance of a collapse in sea ice extent this year. If you just look at the PIOMAS graph of sea ice volume which is down 75% in three decades and compare it with the sea ice extent which is down 40%, it is obvious that the sea ice extent cannot hold out much longer while the ice continues thinning. There must be a great deal of heat going into melting the ice - and much of this heat is from the heating of open water by the sun when the sea ice retreats - i.e. from the albedo flip effect. After a collapse such that there's little sea ice left in September, there will be a spurt in Arctic warming, perhaps to double the current rate of warming. And after we have a nearly sea ice free Arctic ocean for six months, the warming could increase to triple or quadruple the current rate. Meanwhile there is the methane to contend with. There are already signs of an escalation of methane emissions from shallow seas of the continental shelf. That by itself would be cause for concern, since the sea ice retreat is allowing the seabed to warm well above the thaw point for methane hydrates. So I have three questions for you: 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? Kind regards, John --- On 18/03/2012 15:29, John Latham wrote: Hello John Nissen and All, John N says:- Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. The major stages of the required research involve modelling, resolution of all technological questions, examination of - and international agreement on - possible adverse consequences of deployment, and the execution of (in the case of MCB, for example), of a limited area field-testing experiment. If the required funding was available now I think I think all the above goals could be achieved in 5 years, perhaps even 3. At the moment these goals are far from being achieved. An attempt to successfully deploy now any likely SRM technique would be doomed to failure. The technological
RE: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
John (N) Taking yr 3 questions:- 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? Performing research is not doing nothing. It is a vital component of the total effort (as is fund-raising, unfortunately) and must precede deployment. This includes assessments of adverse consequences, seeking international agreement and field-testing the idea. Not to follow this route could SLOW DOWN geo-eng drastically, as argued earlier. 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? I did not say that, John. I said that I am not aware of any SRM scheme that has been optimally and exhaustively studied in the way defined above, and is therefore ready for deployment. In the case of MCB, we do not yet have a fully functioning spray production system. Our work on adverse consequences is far from completion.etc. Our modelling work provides us with encouragement to continue. 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? I suppose you could say that you issued warnings which were not listened to sufficiently. I could not. All of us are trying to help avoid the scenario you pose. It is healthy for us to fight, try to persuade, allow oneself to be persuaded. I may be completely wrong, John, but I think that the people who agree with you have - in some instances - a different interpretation of the scientific facts, or the completeness or general validity of them than people who do not.. If so, with time and tolerance, it should be possible to reach concerted agreement. You might like to know that we have initiated computational studies of the possible role of MCB in inhibiting coral bleaching. Should the work turn out to be potentially valuable, the required field-testing of the idea need only be on a small spatial scale. All Best, John (L). John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: John Nissen [j...@cloudworld.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 5:23 PM To: John Latham Cc: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; geoengineering; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Dear John, How I wish we had the time. We should have been doing what you suggest immediately after the crash in sea ice extent of September 2007 - a wake-up call. We have just left it far too late, and have no option but to try anything that might reduce the chance of a collapse in sea ice extent this year. If you just look at the PIOMAS graph of sea ice volume which is down 75% in three decades and compare it with the sea ice extent which is down 40%, it is obvious that the sea ice extent cannot hold out much longer while the ice continues thinning. There must be a great deal of heat going into melting the ice - and much of this heat is from the heating of open water by the sun when the sea ice retreats - i.e. from the albedo flip effect. After a collapse such that there's little sea ice left in September, there will be a spurt in Arctic warming, perhaps to double the current rate of warming. And after we have a nearly sea ice free Arctic ocean for six months, the warming could increase to triple or quadruple the current rate. Meanwhile there is the methane to contend with. There are already signs of an escalation of methane emissions from shallow seas of the continental shelf. That by itself would be cause for concern, since the sea ice retreat is allowing the seabed to warm well above the thaw point for methane hydrates. So I have three questions for you: 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? Kind regards, John --- On 18/03/2012 15:29, John Latham wrote: Hello John Nissen and All, John N says:- Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position. I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. The major stages of the required research involve modelling, resolution of all technological questions, examination
[geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news
The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in fact be disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing it would increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C. That's a pretty strong statement--what's the evidence for this? Josh Horton On Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:25:22 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News An eminent UK engineer is suggesting building cloud-whitening towers in the Faroe Islands as a technical fix for warming across the Arctic. Scientists told UK MPs this week that the possibility of a major methane release triggered by melting Arctic ice constitutes a planetary emergency. The Arctic could be sea-ice free each September within a few years. Wave energy pioneer Stephen Salter has shown that pumping seawater sprays into the atmosphere could cool the planet. The Edinburgh University academic has previously suggested whitening clouds using specially-built ships. At a meeting in Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (Ameg), Prof Salter told MPs that the situation in the Arctic was so serious that ships might take too long. I don't think there's time to do ships for the Arctic now, he said. We'd need a bit of land, in clean air and the right distance north... where you can cool water flowing into the Arctic. Favoured locations would be the Faroes and islands in the Bering Strait, he said. Towers would be constructed, simplified versions of what has been planned for ships. In summer, seawater would be pumped up to the top using some kind of renewable energy, and out through the nozzles that are now being developed at Edinburgh University, which achieve incredibly fine droplet size. In an idea first proposed by US physicist John Latham, the fine droplets of seawater provide nuclei around which water vapour can condense. This makes the average droplet size in the clouds smaller, meaning they appear whiter and reflect more of the Sun's incoming energy back into space, cooling the Earth. On melting ice The area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice each summer has declined significantly over the last few decades as air and sea temperatures have risen. For each of the last four years, the September minimum has seen about two-thirds of the average cover for the years 1979-2000, which is used a baseline. The extent covered at other times of the year has also been shrinking. What more concerns some scientists is the falling volume of ice. Analysis from the University of Washington, in Seattle, using ice thickness data from submarines and satellites, suggests that Septembers could be ice-free within just a few years. Data for September suggests the Arctic Ocean could be free of sea ice in a few years In 2007, the water [off northern Siberia] warmed up to about 5C (41F) in summer, and this extends down to the sea bed, melting the offshore permafrost, said Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University. Among the issues this raises is whether the ice-free conditions will quicken release of methane currently trapped in the sea bed, especially in the shallow waters along the northern coast of Siberia, Canada and Alaska. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it does not last as long in the atmosphere. Several teams of scientists trying to measure how much methane is actually being released have reported seeing vast bubbles coming up through the water - although analysing how much this matters is complicated by the absence of similar measurements from previous decades. Nevertheless, Prof Wadhams told MPs, the release could be expected to get stronger over time. With 'business-as-usual' greenhouse gas emissions, we might have warming of 9-10C in the Arctic. That will cement in place the ice-free nature of the Arctic Ocean - it will release methane from offshore, and a lot of the methane on land as well. This would - in turn - exacerbate warming, across the Arctic and the rest of the world. Abrupt methane releases from frozen regions may have played a major role in two events, 55 and 251 million years ago, that extinguished much of the life then on Earth. Meteorologist Lord (Julian) Hunt, who chaired the meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, clarified that an abrupt methane release from the current warming was not inevitable, describing that as an issue for scientific debate. But he also said that some in the scientific community had been reluctant to discuss the possibility. There is quite a lot of suppression and non-discussion of issues that are difficult, and one of those is in fact methane, he said,
