hypothetical question: maintaining Chinese radiative forcing while reducing pollution
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Ken Caldeira
Nov 14, 2009, 10:56:28 AM11/14/09
to geoengineering
If tropospheric sulfur emissions from power plants were stopped today, we would get something like 1 W / m2 of additional radiative forcing, which might heat things up another 0.7 K ( +/- factor of two ).
Of course, all of this tropospheric sulfur is adding to acid rain, health problems, etc, yet the cooling effect of this sulfur might be regarded as a positive thing. Certainly cleaning up these emissions will further threaten the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, Siberian methane, etc.
Hypothetical question:
If China, for example, were to say, "We will put sulfur scrubbers on our dirty coal plants to eliminate tropospheric sulfur emissions, but to avoid a shock to the climate system, for each scrubber we install, we will put a few per cent of the sulfur into the stratosphere. In this way, we will reduce out sulfur pollution by well over 95%, without diminishing the cooling effect of our sulfur emissions."
Would we look on this as a good thing or a bad thing?
If China were to decide to do this, would any government really want to take measures to stop them, or really want to stop them?
I think this example throws into doubt a lot of assumptions people have been making about governance, conditions under which we could imagine "solar radiation management" being deployed, and so on.
[ Oliver Morton suggested a similar replacement of sulfur-induced cargo ship contrails with cargo ships carrying Latham-Salter devices to produce more benign sea-salt contrails. ]
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
Of course, all of this tropospheric sulfur is adding to acid rain, health problems, etc, yet the cooling effect of this sulfur might be regarded as a positive thing. Certainly cleaning up these emissions will further threaten the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, Siberian methane, etc.
Hypothetical question:
If China, for example, were to say, "We will put sulfur scrubbers on our dirty coal plants to eliminate tropospheric sulfur emissions, but to avoid a shock to the climate system, for each scrubber we install, we will put a few per cent of the sulfur into the stratosphere. In this way, we will reduce out sulfur pollution by well over 95%, without diminishing the cooling effect of our sulfur emissions."
Would we look on this as a good thing or a bad thing?
If China were to decide to do this, would any government really want to take measures to stop them, or really want to stop them?
I think this example throws into doubt a lot of assumptions people have been making about governance, conditions under which we could imagine "solar radiation management" being deployed, and so on.
[ Oliver Morton suggested a similar replacement of sulfur-induced cargo ship contrails with cargo ships carrying Latham-Salter devices to produce more benign sea-salt contrails. ]
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
Alan Robock
Nov 14, 2009, 11:05:58 AM11/14/09
to KCal...@gmail.com, geoengineering
Dear Ken,
This goes back to my most recent posting. The answer is that we don't
know and we need more research on it. You are suggesting that without
any more knowledge we sanction stratospheric global geoengineering. You
are suggesting that we move from a regional pollution problem over China
to global climate control. Of course other governments would want to
stop them without an evaluation of all the potential consequences.
How about if China offers to put CO2 and SO2 scrubbers on so that the
radiative forcing from removing each just cancels? That is a win-win
situation.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +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 Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Ken Caldeira wrote:
> If tropospheric sulfur emissions from power plants were stopped today, we
> would get something like 1 W / m2 of additional radiative forcing, which
> might heat things up another 0.7 K ( +/- factor of two ).
>
> Of course, all of this tropospheric sulfur is adding to acid rain, health
> problems, etc, yet the cooling effect of this sulfur might be regarded as a
> positive thing. Certainly cleaning up these emissions will further threaten
> the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, Siberian methane, etc.
>
> *Hypothetical question:
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>
>
>
This goes back to my most recent posting. The answer is that we don't
know and we need more research on it. You are suggesting that without
any more knowledge we sanction stratospheric global geoengineering. You
are suggesting that we move from a regional pollution problem over China
to global climate control. Of course other governments would want to
stop them without an evaluation of all the potential consequences.
How about if China offers to put CO2 and SO2 scrubbers on so that the
radiative forcing from removing each just cancels? That is a win-win
situation.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +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 Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Ken Caldeira wrote:
> If tropospheric sulfur emissions from power plants were stopped today, we
> would get something like 1 W / m2 of additional radiative forcing, which
> might heat things up another 0.7 K ( +/- factor of two ).
>
> Of course, all of this tropospheric sulfur is adding to acid rain, health
> problems, etc, yet the cooling effect of this sulfur might be regarded as a
> positive thing. Certainly cleaning up these emissions will further threaten
> the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, Siberian methane, etc.
>
>
> If China, for example, were to say, "We will put sulfur scrubbers on our
> dirty coal plants to eliminate tropospheric sulfur emissions, but to avoid a
> shock to the climate system, for each scrubber we install, we will put a few
> per cent of the sulfur into the stratosphere. In this way, we will reduce
> out sulfur pollution by well over 95%, without diminishing the cooling
> effect of our sulfur emissions."
>
> Would we look on this as a good thing or a bad thing?
> *
> If China, for example, were to say, "We will put sulfur scrubbers on our
> dirty coal plants to eliminate tropospheric sulfur emissions, but to avoid a
> shock to the climate system, for each scrubber we install, we will put a few
> per cent of the sulfur into the stratosphere. In this way, we will reduce
> out sulfur pollution by well over 95%, without diminishing the cooling
> effect of our sulfur emissions."
>
> Would we look on this as a good thing or a bad thing?
> If China were to decide to do this, would any government really want to take
> measures to stop them, or really want to stop them?
>
> I think this example throws into doubt a lot of assumptions people have been
> making about governance, conditions under which we could imagine "solar
> radiation management" being deployed, and so on.
>
>
> [ Oliver Morton suggested a similar replacement of sulfur-induced cargo ship
> contrails with cargo ships carrying Latham-Salter devices to produce more
> benign sea-salt contrails. ]
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
> --
> measures to stop them, or really want to stop them?
>
> I think this example throws into doubt a lot of assumptions people have been
> making about governance, conditions under which we could imagine "solar
> radiation management" being deployed, and so on.
>
>
> [ Oliver Morton suggested a similar replacement of sulfur-induced cargo ship
> contrails with cargo ships carrying Latham-Salter devices to produce more
> benign sea-salt contrails. ]
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>
>
>
Tom Wigley
Nov 14, 2009, 11:17:53 AM11/14/09
to KCal...@gmail.com, geoengineering
Dear all,
This relates to the bounce back effect that I noted back in 1991,
and which comes out clearly in the attached paper.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Caldeira wrote:
> If tropospheric sulfur emissions from power plants were stopped today,
> we would get something like 1 W / m2 of additional radiative forcing,
> which might heat things up another 0.7 K ( +/- factor of two ).
>
> Of course, all of this tropospheric sulfur is adding to acid rain,
> health problems, etc, yet the cooling effect of this sulfur might be
> regarded as a positive thing. Certainly cleaning up these emissions will
> further threaten the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, Siberian
> methane, etc.
>
> /*Hypothetical question:
> *
> <mailto:kcal...@stanford.edu>
This relates to the bounce back effect that I noted back in 1991,
and which comes out clearly in the attached paper.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Caldeira wrote:
> If tropospheric sulfur emissions from power plants were stopped today,
> we would get something like 1 W / m2 of additional radiative forcing,
> which might heat things up another 0.7 K ( +/- factor of two ).
>
> Of course, all of this tropospheric sulfur is adding to acid rain,
> health problems, etc, yet the cooling effect of this sulfur might be
> regarded as a positive thing. Certainly cleaning up these emissions will
> further threaten the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, Siberian
> methane, etc.
>
> *
> If China, for example, were to say, "We will put sulfur scrubbers on our
> dirty coal plants to eliminate tropospheric sulfur emissions, but to
> avoid a shock to the climate system, for each scrubber we install, we
> will put a few per cent of the sulfur into the stratosphere. In this
> way, we will reduce out sulfur pollution by well over 95%, without
> diminishing the cooling effect of our sulfur emissions."
>
> Would we look on this as a good thing or a bad thing?
> /
> dirty coal plants to eliminate tropospheric sulfur emissions, but to
> avoid a shock to the climate system, for each scrubber we install, we
> will put a few per cent of the sulfur into the stratosphere. In this
> way, we will reduce out sulfur pollution by well over 95%, without
> diminishing the cooling effect of our sulfur emissions."
>
> Would we look on this as a good thing or a bad thing?
> If China were to decide to do this, would any government really want to
> take measures to stop them, or really want to stop them?
>
> I think this example throws into doubt a lot of assumptions people have
> been making about governance, conditions under which we could imagine
> "solar radiation management" being deployed, and so on.
>
>
> [ Oliver Morton suggested a similar replacement of sulfur-induced cargo
> ship contrails with cargo ships carrying Latham-Salter devices to
> produce more benign sea-salt contrails. ]
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> kcal...@ciw.edu <mailto:kcal...@ciw.edu>; kcal...@stanford.edu
> take measures to stop them, or really want to stop them?
>
> I think this example throws into doubt a lot of assumptions people have
> been making about governance, conditions under which we could imagine
> "solar radiation management" being deployed, and so on.
>
>
> [ Oliver Morton suggested a similar replacement of sulfur-induced cargo
> ship contrails with cargo ships carrying Latham-Salter devices to
> produce more benign sea-salt contrails. ]
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> <mailto:kcal...@stanford.edu>
Ken Caldeira
Nov 14, 2009, 11:55:47 AM11/14/09
to Alan Robock, geoengineering
Alan,
I am not suggesting anything. All I did was ask a question.
Best,
Ken
I am not suggesting anything. All I did was ask a question.
Best,
Ken
Mike MacCracken
Nov 14, 2009, 12:41:29 PM11/14/09
to Ken Caldeira, Geoengineering
Ken et al.—In my view, as laid out in my recent ERL paper, an alternative approach to stratospheric offset would be to take a (likely small) fraction of the scrubbed sulfur and emit it so as to re-create the sulfur offset out over the Pacific and Indian Oceans (so, a small influence over a large area, and one would aim mostly for the unpopulated locations, to replace a large influence over a limited area). The sulfate would both brighten clouds and have a clear sky effect and I would think it would be easier to emit from a few elevated sites in the region rather than to loft to the stratosphere. One would also do this in areas where the Sun is high to get the maximum effect and would most certainly not emit along with soot particles (or for trajectories when the material would be quickly rained out) and so I would think one could get a comparable effect to the present aerosol effect with only a fraction of the current emissions. And I would think the more regional nature of the influence, while it might affect atmospheric (and oceanic circulation—and even marine life a little) might well involve fewer side effects than for stratospheric aerosols.
I would also note that there are at least two other alternatives to stratospheric aerosols (which might also be used in combination): (1) the Salter and Latham cloud brightening proposal (which focuses the change only in areas with marine stratus), and (2) the Russell Seitz ocean brightening proposal (which focuses the effect only in clear sky areas over the ocean). Again, both would be more regional in their alterations of forcing than stratospheric aerosols, but would seem to me likely to have fewer side effects. I would add that, for all three of the tropospheric/surface ideas, further adroit adjustment and combination of the ideas (i.e., a bit of engineering), might well lead to approaches that would have even fewer side effects—and I don’t think any of these would be much different in cost than stratospheric injection.
Thus, I’d like to see in the discussion a bit more inclusion of possible alternative approaches to going straight to stratospheric aerosols.
Mike
PS—And Alan, I don’t think it would be possible to cut CO2 emissions fast enough and far enough to offset the cut in SO2 emissions that is coming (to clean up air pollution and as coal plants are phased out). The sulfate effect occurs in a week—the CO2 effect is much delayed. While I would certainly like the cut in CO2 emissions, Calculations I have done with Wigley’s MAGICC make clear that one would have to offset sulfate with reductions in short-lived species—so offset with reductions in black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone precursors, and reversing deforestation—which is again what is laid out as an approach to breaking the deadlock in the negotiations in recent papers of mine (I've attached the one submitted to the Erice proceedings as one analysis of the situation).
I would also note that there are at least two other alternatives to stratospheric aerosols (which might also be used in combination): (1) the Salter and Latham cloud brightening proposal (which focuses the change only in areas with marine stratus), and (2) the Russell Seitz ocean brightening proposal (which focuses the effect only in clear sky areas over the ocean). Again, both would be more regional in their alterations of forcing than stratospheric aerosols, but would seem to me likely to have fewer side effects. I would add that, for all three of the tropospheric/surface ideas, further adroit adjustment and combination of the ideas (i.e., a bit of engineering), might well lead to approaches that would have even fewer side effects—and I don’t think any of these would be much different in cost than stratospheric injection.
Thus, I’d like to see in the discussion a bit more inclusion of possible alternative approaches to going straight to stratospheric aerosols.
Mike
PS—And Alan, I don’t think it would be possible to cut CO2 emissions fast enough and far enough to offset the cut in SO2 emissions that is coming (to clean up air pollution and as coal plants are phased out). The sulfate effect occurs in a week—the CO2 effect is much delayed. While I would certainly like the cut in CO2 emissions, Calculations I have done with Wigley’s MAGICC make clear that one would have to offset sulfate with reductions in short-lived species—so offset with reductions in black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone precursors, and reversing deforestation—which is again what is laid out as an approach to breaking the deadlock in the negotiations in recent papers of mine (I've attached the one submitted to the Erice proceedings as one analysis of the situation).
Alan Robock
Nov 14, 2009, 12:42:36 PM11/14/09
to Andrew Revkin, geoengineering
Dear Andy,
It depends on what fraction of the CO2 and what fraction of the SO2 is
taken out, and on the lifetime and local loading of sulfate aerosol.
Just like CO2, if sulfate is injected into a very polluted atmosphere,
the relative forcing of an additional molecule will be less than if into
a pristine atmosphere.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +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 Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Andrew Revkin wrote:
> but presumably the co2 scrub would be, in terms of overall forcing from
> global co2, a miniscule thing compared to the short-term sulfur impact, no?
>
> i'd love to post on Ken's 'thought experiment' on dot earth (ken, you okay
> with that? it's all public now in any case...
>
> this tension between need to do conventional air pollution cleanup and
> climate issue is real, and needs airing (so to speak).
>
> i don't think this will disturb rush limbaugh nearly as much as my
> population thought experiment did.. ; )
>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
It depends on what fraction of the CO2 and what fraction of the SO2 is
taken out, and on the lifetime and local loading of sulfate aerosol.
Just like CO2, if sulfate is injected into a very polluted atmosphere,
the relative forcing of an additional molecule will be less than if into
a pristine atmosphere.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +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
> but presumably the co2 scrub would be, in terms of overall forcing from
> global co2, a miniscule thing compared to the short-term sulfur impact, no?
>
> i'd love to post on Ken's 'thought experiment' on dot earth (ken, you okay
> with that? it's all public now in any case...
>
> this tension between need to do conventional air pollution cleanup and
> climate issue is real, and needs airing (so to speak).
>
> i don't think this will disturb rush limbaugh nearly as much as my
> population thought experiment did.. ; )
>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
John Nissen
Nov 14, 2009, 5:39:38 PM11/14/09
to Ken Caldeira, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, Andrew Revkin, geoengineering
Hi Ken,
Your hypothetical question deserves an answer. But first may I quote UNFCCC Article 3.3 [1]:
"The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties."
I would regard your hypothetical Chinese action as a good thing. The Chinese would be justified on the strength of Article 3.3. The removal of SO2 from emissions would almost certainly cause an increase in global warming, hence desertification and sea level rise. Chinese could reasonably argue that countering the removal of SO2 by putting a relatively small amount in the stratosphere would be a precautionary measure to minimise this "cause of climate change". Not only that, the UNCCC demands that they should do so - "they should take precautionary measures". They would be acting morally to protect their own civilians, especially because desertification and sea level rise could be disastrous for many of them.
Would any government would have a leg to stand on if they wanted to stop them? I think not. Not unless it can be shown with reasonable scientific certainty that the aerosol is liable to do more harm than good. This is unlikely. [2]
Furthermore, if the Chinese would to put this SO2 into the Arctic stratosphere, this would be a precautionary measure to anticipate two extreme adverse effects of regional warming in the Arctic, namely massive methane release and Greenland ice sheet disintegration. This would be a very good thing to consider, see the argument here [3].
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
P.S. Why don't we suggest it to the Chinese?
[1] UNFCCC Article 3:
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1355.php
[2] Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering:
http://www.mail-archive.com/geoengi...@googlegroups.com/msg01704.html
[3] Simple argument for SRM geoengineering:
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/8ea4216310ec8f1d
---
Alan Robock wrote:
. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
Peter Read
Nov 14, 2009, 6:56:37 PM11/14/09
to rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, KCal...@gmail.com, geoengineering
Re
It would cost a lot more money
Any sign of Copenhagen delivering CCS technology to developing countries
free (or even free of IP royalties, etc?)
And just cancelling out is not win-win, just not losing so fast. Getting
forcing down is needed.
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2502 - Release Date: 11/14/09
07:43:00
"> How about if China offers to put CO2 and SO2 scrubbers on so that the
> radiative forcing from removing each just cancels? That is a win-win
> situation." ?
> radiative forcing from removing each just cancels? That is a win-win
It would cost a lot more money
Any sign of Copenhagen delivering CCS technology to developing countries
free (or even free of IP royalties, etc?)
And just cancelling out is not win-win, just not losing so fast. Getting
forcing down is needed.
Peter
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2502 - Release Date: 11/14/09
07:43:00
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages