f Andrew Lockley
>> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:28 AM
>> To: Aaron Franklin
>> Cc: geoengineering ; Arctic Methane Google
>> Group
>> Subject: Re: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
>>
>> Aaron,
>>
>> As far as I know, you are th
eering@googlegroups.com>; Arctic Methane Google
Group
<mailto:arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* RE: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
No… see
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2019.1648169
*From:*geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> as this is a very limited resource that already is being wasted far too
> much.
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *On Behalf Of *Douglas MacMartin
> *Sent:* 11 April 2020 15:59
> *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Aaron Franklin
>
> *Cc:* geoengineering
&
2020 15:59
*To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Aaron Franklin
*Cc:* geoengineering ; Arctic Methane
Google Group
*Subject:* RE: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
No… see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2019.1648169
*From:*geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mai
lf Of *Andrew Lockley
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:28 AM
> *To:* Aaron Franklin
> *Cc:* geoengineering ; Arctic Methane
> Google Group
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
>
>
>
> Aaron,
>
>
>
> As far as I know, you are the first person t
17:47
*To: *mmacc...@comcast.net <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>;
geoengineering <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Subject: *Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
Dear Mike,
That's what many of us are spending years trying to
0 5:28 AM
To: Aaron Franklin mailto:stateoftheart...@gmail.com> >
Cc: geoengineering mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >; Arctic Methane Google Group
mailto:arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
Aaron,
As far as I know, you a
om/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Alan Robock ☮<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
Sent: 10 April 2020 17:47
To: mmacc...@comcast.net<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>;
geoengineering<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
Dear
le game theoretical
>>> analysis show the chance of a global agreement on getting the CO2 emission
>>> cuts to address climate change is in the in the order of 6E-64 with the
>>> current approach.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So the only prudent w
>> So the only prudent way forward now is to start thinking in detail about
>> what an SRM programme would be and how we would manage it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alan Robock ☮
> *Sent: *10 April 2020 17:47
> *To: *mmacc...@comcast.net; geoengineering
>
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget
>
>
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> That's what many of us are spending years trying to assess. Each
> pote
thinking in detail about what an SRM programme would be and how we would manage it. Kevin Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Alan Robock ☮Sent: 10 April 2020 17:47To: mmacc...@comcast.net; geoengineeringSubject: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget Dear Mike,That's what many of us are spending
Hi Alan--No question we need as much mitigation as possible, long- and
short-lived species, conservation, efficiency improvement and resilience
building/adaptation as possible.
It seems to me that then the question is one of evaluating comparative
impacts and uncertainties as best possible--an
Of course the sulfates have a short life. But, for small injections, the
heat budget would net out. Of course, you could inject 1pc of the total
every year.
I dealt with this in more depth in a paper, but I never did the
calculations.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 17:43 Michael MacCracken, wrote:
> Hi A
Dear Mike,
That's what many of us are spending years trying to assess. Each
potential benefit and risk has to be evaluated, and the answers depend
on the specific scenarios of global warming and SRM implementation, as
well as many assumptions that are made. Since the answer to your
questio
Hi Alan--Is there a comparative and comprehensive assessment that
indicates that the risks from injecting sulfates into the stratosphere
that you raise are greater than the alleviated risks from global warming
that is cancelled out, and how this evaluation changes with amounts of
warming and co
It's just a concept, for budgeting. No direct link to delivery
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 17:31 Alan Robock ☮, wrote:
> Dear Andrew,
>
> I'm not sure I understand. How do you propose to put the sulfate into the
> stratosphere? And will you be personally responsible for your share of the
> risks asso
. . . . and how would you get it back down if things got too cold
because of another Tambora?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering,
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.
Hi Andrew,
It is not clear to me where your assertion “10kg sulphate in the stratosphere
for every year of their life” comes from.
The anthropic-emitted sulfate has a very short lifetime and mostly does not
reache the stratosphere.
That’s why the lifetime of that sulfate has generally a lifetime
Dear Andrew,
I'm not sure I understand. How do you propose to put the sulfate into
the stratosphere? And will you be personally responsible for your share
of the risks associated with the impacts?
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Departmen
I've just run some numbers on what my 'personal sulfate budget' might be.
By the calculations below, if a typical person put 10kg sulphate in the
stratosphere for every year of their life, they'd net out their entire RF
carbon footprint for a century.
Obviously, this has a whole pile of caveats an
21 matches
Mail list logo
