Luke Oman, Georgiy Stenchikov and I have completed a paper describing
our first climate model simulations of sulfate aerosol geoengineering,
and you can download it from my web site. The paper describes
the results I have already presented at AGU, AMS, and NCSE conferences.
Comments would be welcome.
Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2008: Regional climate
responses to geoengineering with tropical and arctic SO2 injections.
Submitted to J. Geophys. Res.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR7.pdf
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
Thanks for the quick reading of our paper. Please see my responses
below.
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 Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Alvia Gaskill wrote:
>
> 1. Line 92. The Mt. Laki eruption is probably irrelevant to the
> analysis performed. It mostly involved the troposphere, not the
> stratosphere. A better example of an Arctic eruption would be Katmai.
>
Please read our papers on Katmai and Laki, referenced in this paper and
all available at
http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/#Publications:
Actually, 85% of the Laki emissions went into the stratosphere.
> 2. Lines 96-101. The contribution of Pinatubo to a reduction in
> global precipitation is somewhat controversial. Shouldn't you respond
> to the findings that a significant proportion was due to a concurrent
> El Nino?
>
There are indeed multiple causes of climate change, and just looking at
one case cannot unravel the various contributions. I would not say this
is controversial, however. That is why we do climate model simulations
to be able to control the different factors. In any case, Pinatubo was
a large eruption and produced a large forcing, while the El Niño was
rather ordinary and only produced large effects on precipitation around
the Pacific.
> 3. Line 100 "unbalanced."
>
Thanks for catching this.
> 4. Lines 102-108. What would be the impacts of the increased ozone
> depletion? The reader is left thinking it will be catastrophic.
>
Simone Tilmes and colleagues at NCAR presented model simulations at the
AGU session I organized in December 2007 that were indeed catastrophic.
I understand they are working on a paper on this now. We have not done
ozone calculations.
> 5. Lines 130-143. True that the Brewer Dobson circulation moves the
> aerosol towards the poles, but that doesn't mean that releasing 3,000
> tons of precursor per day at 30N and 3000 tons at 30S will be caught
> by and diluted to a common level with 1000 tons per day released at
> the equator, all releases occurring at the same time. The fact this
> hasn't been observed with previous volcanic eruptions is because there
> hasn't been a case where you had lots of volcanoes erupting at
> different latitudes at the same time. So Teller's idea and mine also
> that a non uniform release latitudinally, longitudinally, vertically
> and temporally has not been voided by this work. (Lines 130-136).
>
I am not familiar with this idea of yours and Teller's. Please send me
the references to your journal articles.
> 6. Lines 187-193. As noted, the models do not consider the
> possibility of an equilibration of the climate with a steady increase
> in aerosol as would actually occur. Thus, the modeling is deficient
> in addressing this important reality.
>
I am not sure what you mean by "important reality." As we point out in
the paper, such scenarios could be investigated, but first you have to
decide on how you want to control the climate. Do you want to keep it
constant? Cool it back to pre-industrial times? Tom Wigley already
used a gradually ramped up aerosol loading in his 2006 Science paper,
and other presented such scenarios at AGU. What we present is the
climate equilibration to a constant SO2 emission and gradually changing
anthropogenic forcing. The results are as interesting as any other
hypothetical forcing scenario.
> 7. Lines 200-201. What was the basis for selecting 3Mt of SO2 (1.5Mt
> S) for the Arctic model? Was that arrived at by running the model to
> see what level would be required to produce a given reduction in solar
> radiation? For just the area from 68N to the pole, that's a lot of
> aerosol. I thought I read where Caldeira and Wood had proposed
> 300,000 tons of SO2.
It was an estimate of what would keep the Arctic from warming,
considering our experience with modeling high latitude eruptions. If
you could confine the sulfate aerosols to just a polar cap you would
need less, but that is not how the atmosphere works. There are no walls
to confine the aerosols over the pole.
>
> 8. Line 210. Although estimates of the Pinatubo eruption vary, I
> think there is now a consensus that while the eruption injected 20MT
> of SO2 into the atmosphere, not all of that made it into the
> stratosphere or stayed there very long and only about 12MT actually
> contributed to the global aerosol clouds.
>
That is not correct. As Bluth et al. [1992] measured with TOMS, about
20 Mt is what the eruption put into the stratosphere.
> 9. Line 215. "lowermost stratosphere."
>
> 10. Lines 216-221. The Arctic injection could be easily accomplished
> using 747's or our soon? to be retired fleet of KC-135's (assuming no
> last minute bidding scandals emerge). Stratospheric balloons and
> military fighters can easily reach the midpoint of the altitudes
> chosen for the global releases (65,000 ft). So the technology to do
> this exists in 2008.
This is not correct. The ceiling for a 747 is only 45,000 ft.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/747.html
The ceiling for the KC-135 is 40,000 ft.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/KC-135/HTML/index.html
Even if you flew all the KC-135s as high as you could as often as you
could, how much mass could you put into that highest layer per year?
How do you define "easily" for balloons? How many would you need and
how many would you need every day? How much would it cost.
Please explain what military fighters you mean that can get to 65,000
ft. Even if they can, they have a tiny payload. How many would you
need and how often would they have to fly? Furthermore, once they have
started an acid cloud, how could subsequent planes safely fly into this
cloud?
For all the airplanes, if they are fully loaded they cannot fly as high,
and the ceiling in the Arctic must be lower, because the air is less
dense at the same height as lower latitudes.
>
> 11. 251-257. I am quite surprised by the hemispheric spread of the
> Arctic generated aerosol, given the low altitudes of its creation. Is
> there evidence from Katmai or other northern eruptions that aerosol at
> 33,000-50,000 ft would flow south so rapidly?
>
We know of no observations of the distribution of the cloud, but would
like to find out. However, the climate response, the same as we
modeled, is clear. The lowest flow in the period 1900-1980 of both the
Niger and Nile Rivers was in 1913, the year after the Katmai eruption,
caused by the impact of the aerosol cloud on the African monsoon. After
that, the Sahel drought caused slightly lower flows, and the Aswan Dam
stopped the Nile record in 1967.
> 12. Line 296, delete "the" at end of line.
>
Thanks.
Thanks for the additional information. We will certainly use these an
other comments to revise our paper before publication.
The ceilings were referring to your suggestion of 65,000 feet, but I now
see that you were referring to the tropics. Yes, the 747 and KC-135
could fly into the Arctic lower stratosphere.
We plan to evaluate many other potential scenarios. We are not out to
prove what can't be done. We are out to evaluate different suggestions
for emission scenarios and we are just beginning.
I was just responding to your use of "catastrophic" for the ozone
effects, and we do not use that word in the paper. We do use the word
for the effect of a large reduction in Asian monsoon rainfall, and will
have to consider whether or not to rephrase it.
I too would advise against the use of the word "catastrophic".
I do not think we know enough about the impacts of any change in
the monsoon (changes in interannual variability may be more
important than changes in the mean) to use any definitive adjective.
This is clearly an area where more research is needed. Peter Webster
has done relevant work.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++
Thanks for your comments. Because of a bug in the JGR system, I am not
completing the paper submission until today, so I changed the manuscript
to fix the typos Alvia found and change the word "catastrophic" to
"serious." The revised manuscript is now posted on my home page at
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR7.pdf
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