PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

Our fortnightly meeting is next Monday, 31st July, at 9 pm UK time.  Robert T will send us the zoom link.  All are welcome.

I've not come across any burning issues for discussion at the meeting, so suggestions are welcome.  However, at last someone in authority, namely the UN Secretary General, Guterres, has declared that we are facing extremely dangerous climate change.  This has never been acknowledged by IPCC, who are supposed to be preventing dangerous climate change: it is in their terms of reference.  How should we react?  How can we take advantage of this turn of events?  On another thread ("Radical thinking") I posited this:

As a society "we" have indeed failed, because we've relied on the IPCC and their emissions reduction only strategy.  We have believed that geoengineering was intrinsically dangerous and not worth the risk.  We have believed that global warming and sea level rise could be kept within reasonably safe limits, so geoengineering was not necessary.  We have been told that keeping below 1.5C was desirable to prevent the activation of tipping points, yet IPCC kept quiet about tipping points having already been activated.  We have been lulled into a false sense of security.  The fossil fuel industry must be partly to blame: they wanted to maintain the status quo, and this is what they have done remarkably successfully, leaning on governments when necessary.  Human nature also comes into it, with wishful thinking superseding rational argument.

So now "we", as a group of individuals in PRAG and HPAC, have some messages to get across to society:

• global warming is much more dangerous than had been realised;
• global warming and climate change could be reversed with a determined effort;
• reversal may take time and may not be entirely successful, so society will still have to prepare for continued warming, climate change and sea level rise, together with the disruption that these will cause (as Robert points out).
  

This reversal involves geoengineering, hitherto widely considered as a last resort.  But the required geoengineering techniques are essentially benign and their cooling effects have all round benefits for ecosystems as well as humanity (at least I believe that is true for mid to high latitude SAI).

BTW, the deadline for submissions for AGU 2023 is next Tuesday I believe.  I am wondering whether to submit a risk analysis to compare geoengineering with not geoengineering; but time is short and I don't feel inspired.  As usual there is a session at the AGU on climate intervention, with a request for submissions.  Monica might have suggestions.

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Hi Monica,

 

I have an idea for an abstract for AGU 2023 as follows (283 words) with the title heading “Reducing extremes of heat and flooding in the Northern Hemisphere”:

 

We argue that the observed trend towards ever more extreme heat and flood events in the Northern Hemisphere is due to a combination of an increasingly immobile polar jet stream with the rise in global temperature and humidity.  This trend affects economies, health and food production, and, without intervention, could lead to widespread conflict, famine and mass migration.

 

While attribution of extremes to global warming is now generally accepted, there seems to be hesitancy to combine that attribution with the sticking jet stream phenomenon.  The tendency for the jet stream to get stuck for longer periods is arguably due to the reduced energy for the eastward movement of the Rossby wave as the Arctic-to-tropics temperature gradient reduces.  The Arctic has been warming at about four times the speed of global warming since 1980, which also saw the beginning of an exponential decline in sea ice volume.  The albedo positive feedback as snow and sea ice retreat has led to the Arctic amplification of global warming. This suggests that cooling and refreezing the Arctic would have an excellent chance of reducing extremes of weather in the Northern Hemisphere.  It would also slow sea level rise from ice sheet meltwater and reduce the methane emissions from thawing permafrost.

 

The cooling sufficient to refreeze the Arctic could be produced by SO2 injection into the stratosphere from locations between 40N and 60N.  The lifetime of SO2 injected at such latitudes would be only a few months due to the Brewer-Dobson circulation; therefore if there were any serious adverse effects, the deployment could be stopped relatively quickly.  Other less controversial methods of cooling the Arctic will also be considered, with estimates of their cooling power, relative advantages and drawbacks.

 

Cheers, John

 

On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 11:46 PM Monica Morrison <moni...@ucar.edu> wrote:

Hi John,

Thanks for including me in your email list. I am glad to receive updates from your efforts. I will try to join on Monday but recently began a new job and am already behind on a couple of deadlines. 

I think you should submit to our session. For the abstract I don't think there is a need to have something long and formal. You are welcome to send me some text for the abstract and I can take a look at it to help prepare it for submission. 

I am pretty inspired to have as many people from as many backgrounds, disciplinary perspectives, experiential standpoints, cultures, etc. to join this conversation. I think that having a community focused on responding to the challenge is the way we get traction and attention, and move things forward so the worst possibilities for the future aren't realized. And we appreciate having you as part of this conversation. 

Best,

Monica 

--

Dr. Monica Ainhorn Morrison

Philosophy PhD | Program Specialist III: Scientific Convergence Manager 

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory | National Center for Atmospheric Research

Boulder County sits upon the traditional territories of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Ute Nations.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89101098507?pwd=TlhaVFgvR2RKbk1HRU1wd254cXBSZz09 

9pm Monday UK = 1pm Pacific = 6am Tuesday AEST Australia

 

Recording of last meeting: https://youtu.be/gHxc1w73UvU

 

Regards

Robert Tulip

[Stephen Salter]

John

You write below that the required geoengineering techniques are essentially benign . . . . at least for mid to high latitude stratospheric aerosol. This could imply to our semi-technical leaders  that tropospheric sea salt was not benign. Is this what you intended?

Stephen

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: 31 July 2023 06:22
To: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Monica Morrison' <moni...@ucar.edu>
Subject: RE: PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[Douglas Grandt]

John and Robert et al.

I was on holiday at the time of the July 17 PRAG zoom and just now have watched the recording. I would like to rebut incorrect statements and misunderstandings.

(BTW, my circadian cycle is way off due to having contracted a debilitating flu 11 days ago and now being treated for pneumonia.)

My concerns regarding dispersal drone operations were misrepresented, and I hope there will be time today’s PRAG zoom to go over them and make some important decisions in that regard.

The following July 3rd email in response to Rebecca’s recap of the MCB Soros funding zoom meeting clearly stated my concerns were operations-related, not in any way related to dispersal drone “design flaws.”

Some time before July 3rd (and multiple occasions since), I expressed concerns that a service vessel would have difficulty transferring crew onto a drone on the high seas, and suggested that an operating plan be researched and put to the test in what naval architects refer to as a “tank test”—and “sea trials” I would now add.

The assumption seems to be that the autonomous drone vessels will operate flawlessly in perpetuity—no need to access for servicing, maintenance and repairs.

Ironically, Stephen has quipped that the Royal Navy could use disabled drones for target practice.

On multiple occasions, Robert has quashed discussion on the need for operation plan research and testing priority equal to nozzle research, initially in either an email or a version of the “pitch deck,” and most recently as a verbal pronouncement and again in this July 17 PRAG recording.

On this, we disagree, and I believe it is in the best interest of Stephen’s successful and expeditious deployment that both aspects be given equal urgent priority. 

What would George Soros demand?

Best regards,

Doug

Responding to Robert at 1:02:18

Responding to Stephen at 1:03:23 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Date: July 3, 2023 at 2:16:12 PM EDT
To: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>, Brian von Herzen <br...@climatefoundation.org>, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>, Alan Gadian <ala...@gmail.com>, Daniel Kieve <dki...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MCB Draft Investment Proposal

Rebs,

No, sorry to say you missed the points, and I am not sure how the final paragraph pertaining to "the extra $US2m is for planning of logistics & monitoring” is attributable as “one of my main issues.”  It sounds like a good idea, but I have not suggested it.

My main issues are the apparent lack of documentation of an operating plan, as well as contingency plans for repairman crew to access vessels for maintenance, repairs to wayward, rogue, malfunctioning, damaged and capsized vessels, and consideration for scuttling irretrievable drones.  Until Stephen’s vision is  explained, I cannot see how a rescue vessel and crew would tend to drones in distress on the high seas.  

To me, these considerations are equal to or exceed nozzle design research priority.  Robert has summarily rejected my perspective as you know.

Cheers,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

=============================

On Jul 31, 2023, at 1:22 AM, Rob...@rtulip.net wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.

[John Nissen]

Hi Stephen,

No.  I did not mean to imply that other techniques such as MCB might not be benign.  I think I had better mention MCB and sea ice thickening explicitly.

Cheers, John

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/PAXPR05MB80480209D25D36CF184CB9D0A705A%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Doug

 

Thanks for raising your concerns.  Your suggestion to seek funding to research MCB delivery technology at the same time as research for aerosol generation makes a lot of sense.  If we were confident of raising the funds easily I would completely support you.  The problem is that we are still not sure that we can generate submicron monodisperse salt water spray mist at scale.  That is a vital proof of concept requirement for the feasibility of MCB that has to be established as an initial step along the critical engineering path.  If it is successful I am sure follow up funds will be found to design delivery methods.   There could be a whole series of intermediate steps before Stephen Salter’s autonomous spray vessel design can be tested.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip  

 

 

From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:53 PM
To: Rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Monica Morrison <moni...@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

 

John and Robert et al.

 

I was on holiday at the time of the July 17 PRAG zoom and just now have watched the recording. I would like to rebut incorrect statements and misunderstandings.

 

(BTW, my circadian cycle is way off due to having contracted a debilitating flu 11 days ago and now being treated for pneumonia.)

 

My concerns regarding dispersal drone operations were misrepresented, and I hope there will be time today’s PRAG zoom to go over them and make some important decisions in that regard.

 

The following July 3rd email in response to Rebecca’s recap of the MCB Soros funding zoom meeting clearly stated my concerns were operations-related, not in any way related to dispersal drone “design flaws.”

 

Some time before July 3rd (and multiple occasions since), I expressed concerns that a service vessel would have difficulty transferring crew onto a drone on the high seas, and suggested that an operating plan be researched and put to the test in what naval architects refer to as a “tank test”—and “sea trials” I would now add.

 

The assumption seems to be that the autonomous drone vessels will operate flawlessly in perpetuity—no need to access for servicing, maintenance and repairs.

 

Ironically, Stephen has quipped that the Royal Navy could use disabled drones for target practice.

 

On multiple occasions, Robert has quashed discussion on the need for operation plan research and testing priority equal to nozzle research, initially in either an email or a version of the “pitch deck,” and most recently as a verbal pronouncement and again in this July 17 PRAG recording.

 

On this, we disagree, and I believe it is in the best interest of Stephen’s successful and expeditious deployment that both aspects be given equal urgent priority. 

 

What would George Soros demand?

 

Best regards,

Doug

 

Responding to Robert at 1:02:18

Responding to Stephen at 1:03:23 

 

1.       global warming is much more dangerous than had been realised;

2.       global warming and climate change could be reversed with a determined effort;

3.       reversal may take time and may not be entirely successful, so society will still have to prepare for continued warming, climate change and sea level rise, together with the disruption that these will cause (as Robert points out).

This reversal involves geoengineering, hitherto widely considered as a last resort.  But the required geoengineering techniques are essentially benign and their cooling effects have all round benefits for ecosystems as well as humanity (at least I believe that is true for mid to high latitude SAI).

 

BTW, the deadline for submissions for AGU 2023 is next Tuesday I believe.  I am wondering whether to submit a risk analysis to compare geoengineering with not geoengineering; but time is short and I don't feel inspired.  As usual there is a session at the AGU on climate intervention, with a request for submissions.  Monica might have suggestions.

 

Cheers, John

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3F2E6C5B-E273-4A69-839C-117F48D0396D%40mac.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

Robert, 

You wrote:

 Your suggestion to seek funding to research MCB delivery technology at the same time as research for aerosol generation …

That is not true.  This is my concern:

My main issues are the apparent lack of documentation of an operating plan, as well as contingency plans for repairman crew to access vessels for maintenance, repairs to wayward, rogue, malfunctioning, damaged and capsized vessels, and consideration for scuttling irretrievable drones.  Until Stephen’s vision is  explained, I cannot see how a rescue vessel and crew would tend to drones in distress on the high seas. 

To me, these considerations are equal to or exceed nozzle design research priority. 

No mention of Soros’ funding of nozzle or drone technology or construction of a prototype or beta test fleet.

When Rebecca engaged me in daily WhatsApp conversations aimed at soliciting Soros to fund £26million, it was for island-based ISO ocean containerized units and extensive scientific satellite observation to verify the MCB validity and effectiveness once CCR’s and Stephen’s perfection of nozzle and filtration.

No intention of requesting Soros’ financial support until completion of those tasks.

During one of those WhatsApp calls, I expressed concern as to whether the drones could be brought alongside a service vessel for maintenance and repair—it seemed to be a potential show stopper.

How could we dare approach Soros for £26million without having the slightest clue whether such operational challenges and conundrums at least explained to us by Stephen. 

That was when you were heading to Edinburgh and I expressed to Rebecca my expectation you would come away with answers. 

Later, I asked Stephen myself and failed to glean how he envisioned servicing malfunctioning and damaged vessels.

My request has simply been to ponder—not to seek funding—real life scenarios on the high seas that would give Soros confidence that £26million would be well spent on a well-thought operation.  I certainly expect Soros—any critical thinking investor for that matter—to ask tough questions, and to expect convincing answers.

So sorry for your misunderstanding.

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Jul 31, 2023, at 9:25 AM, Rob...@rtulip.net wrote:



Hi Doug

 

Thanks for raising your concerns.  Your suggestion to seek funding to research MCB delivery technology at the same time as research for aerosol generation makes a lot of sense.  If we were confident of raising the funds easily I would completely support you.  The problem is that we are still not sure that we can generate submicron monodisperse salt water spray mist at scale.  That is a vital proof of concept requirement for the feasibility of MCB that has to be established as an initial step along the critical engineering path.  If it is successful I am sure follow up funds will be found to design delivery methods.   There could be a whole series of intermediate steps before Stephen Salter’s autonomous spray vessel design can be tested.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip  

 

 

From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:53 PM
To: Rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Monica Morrison <moni...@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

 

John and Robert et al.

 

I was on holiday at the time of the July 17 PRAG zoom and just now have watched the recording. I would like to rebut incorrect statements and misunderstandings.

 

(BTW, my circadian cycle is way off due to having contracted a debilitating flu 11 days ago and now being treated for pneumonia.)

 

My concerns regarding dispersal drone operations were misrepresented, and I hope there will be time today’s PRAG zoom to go over them and make some important decisions in that regard.

 

The following July 3rd email in response to Rebecca’s recap of the MCB Soros funding zoom meeting clearly stated my concerns were operations-related, not in any way related to dispersal drone “design flaws.”

 

Some time before July 3rd (and multiple occasions since), I expressed concerns that a service vessel would have difficulty transferring crew onto a drone on the high seas, and suggested that an operating plan be researched and put to the test in what naval architects refer to as a “tank test”—and “sea trials” I would now add.

 

The assumption seems to be that the autonomous drone vessels will operate flawlessly in perpetuity—no need to access for servicing, maintenance and repairs.

 

Ironically, Stephen has quipped that the Royal Navy could use disabled drones for target practice.

 

On multiple occasions, Robert has quashed discussion on the need for operation plan research and testing priority equal to nozzle research, initially in either an email or a version of the “pitch deck,” and most recently as a verbal pronouncement and again in this July 17 PRAG recording.

 

On this, we disagree, and I believe it is in the best interest of Stephen’s successful and expeditious deployment that both aspects be given equal urgent priority. 

 

What would George Soros demand?

 

Best regards,

Doug

 

Responding to Robert at 1:02:18

Responding to Stephen at 1:03:23 

 

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

Here are some topics which we might discuss at the meeting later today.

Dangerous climate change

"The era of global boiling has arrived and it is terrifying".  How true.  Average temperatures are rising precipitously globally as well as in the Arctic.  Tipping processes have no chance of halting, let alone reversing, without extremely rapid intervention.  That has to be our plea to leaders.  The emissions reduction strategy has failed dismally to avoid the immediate crisis now confronting us.

Yet the 1.5C Paris target is still being discussed as if it were possible to keep global warming below this temperature.  So there is still huge denial of what is happening in front of our eyes.  The only hope of keeping to 1.5C is through cooling intervention, yet this is never mentioned by scientists in the media.  Net zero is insufficient, yet the MCB intervention suggested by Shaun in "The Briefing Room" on BBC Radio 4 [1] wasn't picked up by the presenter as being relevant for the current crisis.

Stratospheric aerosol injection

SAi is the obvious candidate for cooling, since it could be rapidly deployed at comparatively low cost and it is scalable.  So why the hesitation?

I did a google search on pro-geoengineering and all the articles I was given were about scientists against it.  Then when I did a search on stratospheric aerosol injection, I was shocked to receive a definitive message that SAI is extremely dangerous: no ifs or buts.  Thus if the public do any research they will have the idea cemented that this is the case.  Yet my own research suggests that actually SAI is essentially benign.  There has been every possible downside suggested since SAI was first mooted by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Laureate in chemistry; but only a couple of downsides stand up to any scrutiny.  These known downsides are negligible compared to the positive effect of cooling to avert major global catastrophe.  Unknown unknowns can be dealt with by halting SAI deployment if and when they appear.  For SAI between 40 and 60 degrees latitude (north or south), the aerosol has a lifetime of a few months.  

The general public looks to scientists to be responsible about identifying risks, but scientists have let down the public by failing to establish the essentially benign nature of stratospheric aerosol injection, especially at mid to high latitude.

Estimating SO2 cooling

One of the actions from the last meeting was to ponder the unexpectedly sudden global warming.  There hasn't been a sudden increase in CO2 or methane, but there might have been a quite sudden decline in SO2.  Hansen says that the effect of SO2 has been underestimated by IPCC.  

Undoubtedly some of SO2's cooling effect is from cloud brightening.  Twomey noted satellite images of tracks of cloud banks where ships had been.  Satellites can now quantify albedo change.  The effect of tropospheric SO2 could be estimated by having tanks of different grade fuel in ships, and switching to low grade for defined periods of a ship's voyage. If satellite images show this up, the cooling effect could be estimated, both from increased cloud and from increased brightness of existing cloud above the ship's path.  This would be a good test to do before embarking on MCB using saltwater spray.  

A similar experiment could be performed for SO2 in the stratosphere.  Aircraft could switch tanks to lower grade fuel for periods of their flight through the stratosphere at high latitudes.  Observations from satellites could show whether the contrails from lower grade fuel were brighter or longer lasting.  If so, the cooling effect could be estimated.

Wildfires

Another reason for unexpectedly sudden global warming could be from wildfires.  Do we have any research on this?  Whether or not, wildfires have become an increasing menace especially in tundra because of the blackening of snow and ice caused.  A rapid-response international firefighting force could be set up, akin to the task-forces for dealing with earthquakes.

Cheers, John

[1] The Briefing Room: can we meet the net zero challenge?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001p20w

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

 

We all know that cloudy nights are warmer than clear ones.  Both stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brightening will warm the Arctic for nine months of the year.  Marine cloud spraying can be stopped with one mouse click and salt removed at the next rain or snow shower. The removal of sulphur from the stratosphere will depend on how the vertical component of Brewer-Dobson is affected by the vertical turbulence of the horizontal velocities of the jet stream in the stratosphere.

 

The brown patches at the lower corners of the figure below from Russotto and Ackerman 2018  show warming in all 11 climate  models resulting from the G1 experiment of the GeoMIP series where they assume an abrupt increase of CO2 by a factor of 4 and then reduced the solar input to keep the top of atmosphere energy the same.  John Nissen has to show that the everything gets everywhere theory will not interfere with his choice of spray position.

 

 

The everything-gets-everywhere idea is supported by CFCs released mainly in the Northern hemisphere producing ozone holes over the Antarctic many years later.

 

Stephen

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Further to the arguments at yesterday’s meeting I wish to make it clear that rather than attacking stratospheric aerosol I am trying to defend marine cloud brightening against the attacks made by John Nissen.

 

It is important to understand Brewer Dobson. The descent of aerosol from the stratosphere is not like the movement of a block of train passengers as they  arrive at rail terminus. It is more like the movement of pedestrians after they leave it. A single spot value can be calculated  but there is a spread to either side .

 

The paper by Flury at https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/4563/2013/   explains how the Brewer Dobson velocity is measured. The movement of air from high over the equator has randomly variable amounts of water vapour and other species.  You could think of this as different colours and weights of a line of road vehicles.  If they are moving past road-works with no overtaking, the random pattern could act like a morse-code signal.   If we later detected the same pattern further down the road we could calculate the speed of the vehicle group.  The signal-to-noise ratio of the estimate would steadily reduce past the road works if vehicles are allowed to overtake one another.

 

The patterns of variability of humidity in the stratosphere will lose their detectability when the air moves into the troposphere. But just because we cannot measure the velocity does not mean that it is zero. For every molecule that comes north, one will go south. Reflective material that the air contains will fall downwards with the still-air Stokes velocity and southwards with the remaining but not easily measured Brewer Dobson velocity and sometimes further combined with very much higher random turbulence velocities in all directions if it goes near the jet stream. If the vertical components are small, quite a lot of material will go in the opposite direction and some round the circuit again.

 

If the Flury et al. figure of 1.15 metres per second for the horizontal north-going component applies to the south-going part, the round trip period over the full pole-to-equator-to-pole distance is 0.55 years. The paper does not give a figure for the descent at the polar end but if it is the same as the 0.2 mm per second ascent at the equator then the time to fall 12 km is nearly 2 years.  An interesting question is how CFCs, much of which are released into the bottom of the troposphere from air conditioning plant in hot places, can get up to the ozone layer of the Antarctic.

 

The loops in the Wikipedia figure below convey a gross distortion of the vertical to horizontal distances. It is more like two, very thin playing cards sliding against each other. What goes one way must eventually come back.

 

Knowing how much stratospheric aerosol will remain over the polar winter when it will reflect outgoing longwave radiation back down like a cloudy night is not an easy question but getting it wrong could be serious because it will stay wrong for many months or even a few years.  Jan-Egil Kristjansson showed that spray from marine cloud brightening in winter would do the same but it can be stopped with a single mouse click and will be completely forgotten in a few days. I much prefer driving without the steering locked.

 

The key figure from Flury is below showing that at the equator the vertical upwards velocity and may allow an estimate of what happens later. We might also get an insight by adding cream to coffee and stirring.

 

 

 

John’s criticism of marine cloud brightening would be stronger if he could provide references to the table below to contradict the ones I have given.

 

Nissen 1 May email pasting	Contradicting evidence	error
MCB would be used to cool the Atlantic and Pacific surface water flowing into the Arctic by brightening clouds over perhaps a maximum of 10% of the world's ocean.	Charlson and Lovelock at https://doi.org/10.1038/326655a0 write that low but not high clouds are found over 18% of the oceans. High clouds will reduce the Twomey effect but not to zero.	1.8
. . . solar radiation of 300 w	NASA data of solar input as a function of latitude and season shows > 450 watts per square metre.	1.5
Cloud albedo might be increased by 0.05 reflecting an extra 5%	Schwartz and Slingo showed that double the initial concentration of condensation nuclei increases reflection by 5.8% and that quadruple by 11.6% .  Quadruple is possible in clean regions.	1.16 To 2.32
Suppose suitable cloud cover for brightening is 20% and that it can be fully brightened for 50% of the time	From   Y. Liu et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 124 (2012) 159–173   give Arctic cloud fraction	4 x 2

 

All John’s  mistakes are in the same direction. The cumulative product is between 25 and 50.

 

Stephen

 

Ocean Cooling Technology Ltd.

Unit 3 Edgefield Industrial Estate

EH20 9TB

Scotland

S.Sa...@oceancooling.org

0131 662 1180

 

 

[Tom Goreau]

You say presciently:

 

“We might also get an insight by adding cream to coffee and stirring”:

 

Photo 1937 by Fritz Goreau, coffee and cream after stirring, showing intricate vortex sheet mixing before homogenization.

 

These motions are not easy to model, especially on large scales!

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer

 

 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/PAXPR05MB80489B50DE1D5C52487B1DA3A70AA%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.