It would be good to know if something about my calculations here are
fundamentally wrong. I am no aerosol expert by any margins, and as seen, my
model is pretty much the most simple possible thing that I could make on
this, but it does seem to give an indication against the "double
catastrophe"
I've just tried running some really simple equations to look at forcing, so
I thought I would share my back of the envelope calculations and see what
you all think.
So I tried to calculate what would happen to forcing in a 5Tg of soot
released (likely due to a regional nuclear war) combined with
I'm surprised Alan should neglect to cite studies other than his own, as
climate responses to carbon aerosols in the atmosphere vary greatly. The
recent literature is illustrative- a growing concern is the impact of
black carbon from satellite and spacecraft launches, which may warm the
uppe
; or 6.1 or 6.5 isn’t something that I feel matters particularly (nor do I
> think it is particularly answerable). What decisions would depend on the
> answer to that question?
>
>
>
> *From:* Gideon Futerman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:31 PM
> *To:* Douglas MacMartin
ay, July 27, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>>
Cc: gdebrou...@gmail.com<mailto:gdebrou...@gmail.com>; Daniele Visioni
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>>; geoengineering
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter
ree with the need to think through low probability but high
> impact possibilities.
>
>
>
> d
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *On
> Behalf Of *Gilles de Brouwer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 26, 2022 11:11 PM
> *To:* ggfuter...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Daniele Visi
1:31 PM
> *To:* Douglas MacMartin
> *Cc:* gdebrou...@gmail.com; Daniele Visioni ;
> geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
>
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Apologies for misinterpreting. Its a statement like this that I have been
>
answer to that
question?
From: Gideon Futerman
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin
Cc: gdebrou...@gmail.com; Daniele Visioni ;
geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
Hi Doug,
Apologies for misinterpreting. Its a statement
o:* ggfuter...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Daniele Visioni ; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
>
>
>
> FYI Updated nuclear winter analysis is so much worse than SAI that it's
>
possibilities.
d
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of Gilles de Brouwer
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 11:11 PM
To: ggfuter...@gmail.com
Cc: Daniele Visioni ; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)
FYI Updated nuclear winter
To address nuclear winter, consider this paper, Daniel Heyen, Joshua
Horton, and Juan Moreno-Cruz. 3/20/2019. “Strategic implications of
counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?” Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 95, Pp. 153-177.
This offers a possible way out. Equipment to r
. Kevin Sent from Mail for Windows From: Gideon FutermanSent: 27 July 2022 12:44To: geoengineeringSubject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock) Hi all,I think I ought to clarify what I am trying to do and repose the question, as well as respond to all the replies.What I am
Hi all,
I think I ought to clarify what I am trying to do and repose the question,
as well as respond to all the replies.
What I am attempting to do is this: Under low probability scenarios of
nuclear war with high SRM burden (maybe due to a large warming, either
because of high emissions or hig
FYI Updated nuclear winter analysis is so much worse than SAI that it's
pointless to consider.
*Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear
arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences*
Alan Robock,1 Luke Oman,1,2 and Georgiy L. Stenchikov1
Received 8 November 2006; rev
Apologies, you are correct, I was using the ECS values from AR5 and forgot
it had reduced with AR6. I was also getting my range vs values mixed up.
Nonetheless, a similar point still broadly stands- the ipcc suggests with
only medium confidence that it is "very likely" that ECS is between 2K and
5K
There is a real question about how much smoke an India-Pakistan conflict
could generate and loft. So, in a normal scenario, one shoots one's
weapons at the other sides offensive weapons (missiles, control systems,
maybe fuel storage locations, etc.) and not clear (at least to me) that
this coul
I'm not sure I agree with the framing that is being used here. We do not
have to imagine a global cataclysm. Alternatively we could imagine that
India is the only country engaging in geoengineering, and it engages in a
locally catastrophic but limited war with Pakistan. In this case, we could
consi
Dear Gideon,
not to pile on but I feel like this should be corrected: none of the most
current IPCC projections say that 550ppm have a 10% chance of leaving us with
6K of warming.
Even the most high sensitivity models in CMIP6 only show a ECS of, at most, 5
per doubling of CO₂ (so 560), but the
I'm with Alan on this one.
With 3 C warming offset by SAI, if done thoughtfully the society and
agriculture would have been adjusting along the way, and then comes
nuclear war to disturb that ongoing situation.
And as the SCOPE study on the consequences of nuclear war made clear,
there is t
Dear Dr Robock,
Whilst I would admit that 3K of cooling by SRM is unlikely, it is certainly
not out of the range of possibility. Given CO2 concentrations of 550PPM
have a 10% chance of leaving us with 6K of warming (and that certainly
doesn't seem to be an unreasonable amount of emissions given
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
w
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 o
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 impact
23 matches
Mail list logo
