Saturday, August 17, 2013

RE: Starting a flood to stop a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation management. David R. Morrow

Thank you Doctor Morrow for sharing your paper with me.


It is very enlightening, I agree with the arguments against the deployment of Solar Radiation Management and against research under the premises you present, they make a lot of sense to me.

As you can see in my profile information, I am opposed to geoengineering the climate, especially by what I deem intrusive means, such as SRM and ocean fertilization. Other forms of GE even though controversial, do not raise the hairs on the back of my neck as these two do.

In relation to my blog entry originally in English:
“Geoengineering self-fulfilling prophesies and other rendered moot arguments against research.”  



Leaving intentionality aside for a moment, I think that a process is already happening with the aviation contrails that is very similar in characteristics to what some conceptual SRM regimes would look like i.e. whitening of the sky, sulfur aerosol seeding of cirrus clouds, etc. I firmly believe that these 'persistent contrails' and cirrus should be studied, under a geoengineering outline to ascertain if they also share with SRM some of its more nefarious consequences i.e. ozone depletion, drought, floods, etc.

I imagine these studies, unlike typical geoengineering, would be based on the premises of ‘curiosity-driven scientific research’, precaution and general investigation. Not with a future deployment, military or commercialization in mind as the eventual goal line.  This would mean no “slippery slope”, "no doing and enabling", or allowing, and no "double effect".

I think both the 'fire and the flood are already going on'. The chances of the 'fat spelunker' were greatly reduced by ignorance.

I have to say that it may be naive to think it. But I do:

“So perhaps those in the GE community who are genuinely opposed to geoengineering should revise their premises and call for research into GE with the purpose of ending this ‘unintended', but failed and still ongoing experiment.”

Best regards,
Oscar Escobar
Lakeland, FL

Starting a flood to stop a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation management
David R. Morrow Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy 
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Some moral constraints on SRM—DRAFT SEP. 2012


Other reading:
Effects of aircraft on aerosol abundance in the upper troposphere 
G.V.Ferry • , R.F.Pueschel •õ , A.W. Strawa • , Y.Kondo 2, S.D.Howard 3, S.Verma 4, M.J.Mahoney 5, T.P.Bui •, J.R. Hannan 6, H.E.Fuelberg 6. 

"Aircraft jet engines directly emit aerosols and condensable gases, such as water vapor (H20) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) which lead to the formation of new liquid (volatile) sulfuric acid (H2SO4), particles in the early plume by gas-to-particle conver- sion (nucleation) processes.
Soot aerosol formed during incom- plete fuel combustion constitutes part of the nonvolatile particle fraction.
The newly formed particles grow by condensation and coagulation amongsthemselves and with the background aero- sol."
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237445161_Effects_of_aircraft_on_aerosol_abundance_in_the_upper_troposphere

An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols
Philip J Rasch1*, Simone Tilmes1, Richard P Turco2, Alan Robock3, Luke Oman4, Chih-Chieh (Jack) Chen1, Georgiy L Stenchikov3 and Rolando R Garcia1

" It is well established that ultrafine sulphate particles are generated copiously in jet exhaust streams during flight (e.g. Fahey et al. 1995). The particles appear to be nucleated by sulphuric acid on ions (hereafter chemiions, e.g. Yu & Turco (1997, 1998b)) formed in the combustion process of jet engines by radical reactions. Sulphuric acid is a by-product of sulphur residues in the fuel (typically less than 1% sulphur by weight); most of this fuel sulphur is emitted as SO2. The fraction emitted as H2SO4 decreases as the fuel sulphur content increases, and accounts for roughly 2 per cent of the total sulphur as the fuel sulphur content approaches approximately 1 per cent."

Geoengineering by stratospheric sulfur injection and volcanic analogs: Applications for a 3-D chemistry-climate model with aerosol microphysics
Debra Weisenstein, AER, Inc.

Added Oct. 18 2013

Soot and Sulfuric Acid Aerosol from Aircraft: Is There Enough to Cause Detrimental Environmental Effects?

02/2004; DOI:10.1016/S0021-8502(98)00192-X
Pueschel, R. F.  (NASA Ames Research Center; Moffett Field, CA, United States);         
Strawa, A. W.    (NASA Ames Research Center; Moffett Field, CA, United States);         
Ferry, G. V.        (NASA Ames Research Center; Moffett Field, CA, United States);         
Howard, S. D.    (NASA Ames Research Center; Moffett Field, CA, United States);         
Verma, S.            (NASA Ames Research Center; Moffett Field, CA, United States)

Abstract:

Aerosol from aircraft can affect the environment in three ways: First, soot aerosol has been implicated to cause Icing-tern ozone depletion at mid-latitudes in the lower stratosphere at a rate of approx. 5% per decade. This effect is in addition and unrelated to the polar ozone holes which are strongly influenced by heterogeneous chemistry on polar stratospheric clouds. Second, the most obvious effect of jet aircraft is the formation of visible contrails in the upper troposphere. The Salt Lake City region experienced an 8% increase in cirrus cloud cover over a 15-year period which covariates with an increase in regional commercial air traffic. If soot particles act as freezing nuclei to cause contrail formation heterogeneously, they would be linked to a secondary effect to cloud modification that very likely is climatologically important. Third, a buildup of soot aerosol could reduce the single scatter albedo of stratospheric aerosol from 0.993+0.004 to 0.98, a critical value that has been postulated to separate stratospheric cooling from warming. Thus arises an important question: Do aircraft emit sufficient amounts of soot to have detrimental effects and warrant emission controls? During the 1996 SUCCESS field campaign, we sampled aerosols in the exhaust wake of a Boeing 757 aircraft and determined emission indices for sulfuric acid (EI(sub H2SO4) = 9.0E-2 and 5.0E-1 g/kg (sub FUEL) for 75 and 675 ppm fuel-sulfur, respectively) and soot aerosol (2.2E-3 less than EI(sub SOOT) = l.lE-2 g/kg (sub FUEL)). The soot particle analysis accounted for their fractal nature, determined electron-microscopically, which enhanced the surface area by a factor of 26 and the volume 11-fold over equivalent-volume spheres. The corresponding fuel-sulfur to H2SO4 conversion efficiency was 10% (for 675 ppmm fuel-S) and 37% (for 75 ppmm fuel-S). Applying the H2SO4 emission index to the 1990 fuel use by the worlds commercial fleets of 1.3E11 kg, a conversion efficiency of 30% of 500 ppmm fuel-S would have led to an annual contribution to the atmospheric sulfur budget by aircraft of 2.E7 kg H2SO4. This is about one part in 1.E4 of anthropogenic sulfate from other sources. The soot emission index given above yielded a 1990 injection of soot aerosol by aircraft of 1.E6 kg. Thus, soot amounts to only five percent of the aerosol generated by aircraft. Its reactivity with ozone would have to be 20 times that of sulfuric acid particles to make it chemically significant. Nevertheless, the findings, of stratospheric soot loadings commensurate with aircraft fuel consumption, based on the emission index given above and the assumption of stratospheric residence times of the order of one year implicate aircraft as stratospheric polluters. A trend similar to soot of H2SO4 aerosol loading could not be deciphered, neither from in situ measurements nor SAGE II satellite extinction, against the "noise" due to volcanic eruptions. Observation of soot particles at 20 km altitude which, if emitted by aircraft were generated at 10-12 km altitude, suggests a displacement of those particles against gravity. Because eddy mixing is virtually absent in the lower stratosphere and isentropic mixing explains lofting to only about 15 km, radiometric forces acting on morphologically and chemically asymmetric soot particles must be considered a possibility. The consequence could be an extended residence time of soot against that of sulfuric acid aerosol that would lower the single scatter albedo with time.

Creative Commons License
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues blog - Geoingeniería by Oscar and Jocelyn Escobar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.Licencia Creative Commons
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues blog por Oscar y Jocelyn Escobar se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.