Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[trichrider]

Tennessee is definitely the Mid-West

The Midwest, as defined by the federal government, comprises the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

U.S. National Climate Assessment: Midwest Technical Input Report:

Historical Climate Sector White Paper

As noted earlier, Midwestern climate conditions are largely determined by the region’s location in the center of the North American continent. The generic Modified Koeppen classifications for the region range from Mesothermal, humid subtropical (Cwa) across far southern sections of the region to Microthermal humid continental hot summer (Dfa) across central sections to Microthermal humid continental mild summer (Dfb) across northern sections. Average annual temperature varies by about 20°F across the region (Figure 1) from less than 38°F in northern Minnesota to more than 60°F in the Missouri Bootheel. Seasonally, the greatest range in temperature across the region occurs during winter (December-February) with the least during the summer months (June-August). Seasonally, mean temperatures across the region typically peak in late July or early August and reach minima during late January or early February. Coldest overall temperatures tend to be observed in northern interior sections away from the lakes (Figure 2). Base 50°F seasonal growing degree day totals, a temperature-derived index of time spent above the 50 degree threshold, range from around 2000 in far northern Michigan and northeastern Minnesota to over 4000 in southern Missouri and Illinois.


https://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/NCA/MTIT_Historical.pdf

 

[ESTERCHASER]

im sick of car emmisions

 

[trichrider]

im sick of car emmisions

so am i
they smell bad.




Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

January 12, 2020 •

The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.


Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”


The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.


As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures

This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.


That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.”



It states:
Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.


Burn all the oil you want, in other words, and it’s still just a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun and other cosmic influences. All the fossil fuel consumption in the world barely contributes anything to actual global temperatures, the researchers confirmed.


As they explain, the IPCC’s climate models are wildly overestimating the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures:


…the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
The entire “climate change” hoax is a fraud

Carbon dioxide, in other words, isn’t the “pollutant” that climate change alarmists have long claimed it to be. CO2 won’t destroy the planet and barely has any effect on global temperatures (the IPCC’s estimate of its effect is, according to Finnish researchers, about one order of magnitude too large, or ten times the actual amount).


In fact, NASA was forced to recently admit that carbon dioxide is re-greening the Earth on a massive scale by supporting the growth of rainforests, trees and grasslands. See these maps showing the increase in green plant life, thanks to rising CO2:

Importantly, reducing our global consumption of fossil fuels will have virtually no impact on global temperatures. The far bigger governor of climate and temperatures is the strength and configuration of Earth’s magnetosphere, which has always been in flux since the formation of the planet billions of years ago. The weaker the magnetosphere, the more cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere, resulting in the generation of clouds, which shield the planet’s surface from the sun. Thus, a weaker magnetosphere causes global cooling, while a stronger magnetosphere results in global warming, according to this research. This phenomenon is called the “Svensmark Effect.”


As reported by Science Daily:


This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal — evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay — this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.
The “war on carbon” is derived from sheer stupidity, arrogance and scientific illiteracy

The extreme alarmism of climate change lunatics — best personified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ insistence that humanity will be destroyed in 12 years if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels — is all based on nothing but fearmongering media propaganda and faked science. (The IPCC and NOAA both routinely fudge temperature data to try to create a warming “trend” where none exists.)


It’s all a massive, coordinated fraud, and the mainstream media deliberately lies to the public about climate change to push anti-free market schemes that would destroy the U.S. economy while transferring literally trillions of dollars into the pockets of wealthy globalists as part of a “carbon tax” scheme.


Yet carbon isn’t the problem at all. And the “war on carbon” is a stupid, senseless policy created by idiots, given that humans are carbon-based lifeforms, meaning that any “war on carbon” is a war on humanity.


https://www.3ccorp.net/2020/01/12/c...rtually-zero-impact-on-global-temperatures-2/

 

[CosmicCharlie]

Yeah, you must not be from the USA...

Pretty much it’s the East and West Coasts and everything else is considered the Mid-West lol.

Regardless of what any Geography Maps say that is how most people that live in the USA view things lol...

 

[hard rain]

You just posted a hoax paper. Well done again, Trich.

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.

As the scientists who examined this claim explained, the document relies on circular reasoning to claim that cloud cover and relative humidity have caused the change in global temperature, and ignores many additional factors affecting global temperature—including aerosol pollution, volcanic eruptions, and natural ocean oscillations. The published, peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic clearly shows that human activities are responsible for climate change.

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
The unpublished paper by Kauppinen & Malmi is deeply flawed and the claims that (1) CO2 has caused only 0.1 degC of warming and that (2) only 10% (0.01 degC) of this warming is from human activity are both unsupported claims.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

and here
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/clouds-and-climate-change/

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Tennessee is the south.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Tennessee is the south.

in an odd position here. TN sees KY as "yankees". folks in 'bama see TN as "yankees". but most people see the Mason-Dixon line as the dividing line. TN sided with the south during the civil war as a STATE, but many citizens fought for the north. west TN had many slaves because they raised cotton. not much use for them further east. there were slaves here in east, just not as numerous.

 

[igrowone]

December 2019

December 2019

as we say goodbye to the decade, lets go out with a bang
it's really getting warm

The December 2019 global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average, resulting in the second highest December temperature departure from average in the 140-year record. Only December 2015 was warmer at +1.16°C (+2.09°F). The last six years (2014–2019) were all among the six warmest Decembers on record. Decembers 2015 and 2019 both had a temperature departure from average above 1.0°C (1.8°F). Compared to all months, the December 2019 value was also the eighth highest global land and ocean monthly temperature departure from average for any month on record (1680 months). The 10 highest monthly temperature departures from average have all occurred since 2015 and all have a temperature departure from average above 1.00°C (1.80°F). December 2019 also marked the 35th consecutive December and the 420th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average. The Northern and Southern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperatures were also the second highest on record, also trailing behind December 2015.

 

[trichrider]

You just posted a hoax paper. Well done again, Trich.

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.

As the scientists who examined this claim explained, the document relies on circular reasoning to claim that cloud cover and relative humidity have caused the change in global temperature, and ignores many additional factors affecting global temperature—including aerosol pollution, volcanic eruptions, and natural ocean oscillations. The published, peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic clearly shows that human activities are responsible for climate change.

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
The unpublished paper by Kauppinen & Malmi is deeply flawed and the claims that (1) CO2 has caused only 0.1 degC of warming and that (2) only 10% (0.01 degC) of this warming is from human activity are both unsupported claims.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

and here
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/clouds-and-climate-change/

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds

Henrik Svensmark,1Torsten Bondo,1and Jacob Svensmark1Received 31 March 2009; revised 1 June 2009; accepted 17 June 2009; published 1 August 2009.
[1] Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth’s surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I)reaches a minimum7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols,and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.

Citation:Sve nsmark, H., T. Bondo, a nd J. Svensmark(2009), Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett.,36, L15101, doi:10.1029/2009GL038429.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009GL038429

Midlatitude cooling caused by geomagnetic field minimum during polarity reversal

Ikuko Kitaba, Masayuki Hyodo, Shigehiro Katoh, David L. Dettman, and Hiroshi Sato
PNAS January 22, 2013 110 (4) 1215-1220;
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213389110
Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved December 12, 2012 (received for review August 2, 2012)


Abstract
The climatic effects of cloud formation induced by galactic cosmic rays (CRs) has recently become a topic of much discussion. The CR–cloud connection suggests that variations in geomagnetic field intensity could change climate through modulation of CR flux. This hypothesis, however, is not well-tested using robust geological evidence. Here we present paleoclimate and paleoenvironment records of five interglacial periods that include two geomagnetic polarity reversals. Marine oxygen isotope stages 19 and 31 contain both anomalous cooling intervals during the sea-level highstands and the Matuyama–Brunhes and Lower Jaramillo reversals, respectively. This contrasts strongly with the typical interglacial climate that has the temperature maximum at the sea-level peak. The cooling occurred when the field intensity dropped to <40% of its present value, for which we estimate >40% increase in CR flux. The climate warmed rapidly when field intensity recovered. We suggest that geomagnetic field intensity can influence global climate through the modulation of CR flux.

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1215


Global Change, Space Weather,and Climate
Eigil Friis-Christensen

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316761489.005



GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS – CLOUDS EFFECT AND BIFURCATION MODEL OF THE EARTH GLOBAL CLIMATE. PART 1. THEORY

1Vitaliy D. Rusov a,bc, Alexandr V. Glushkov d, Vladimir N. Vaschenko c , Оksana T. Mykhalus a, Yuriy A. Bondartchuk a, Vladimir P. Smolyar a, Elena P. Linnik a, Strachimir Cht. Mavrodiev e, Boyko I. Vachev e a Odessa National Polytechnic University, Shevchenko av. 1, Odessa, 65044 Ukraine b Bielefeld University, 25, University Str., Bielefeld, 33615 Germany c Ukrainian National Antarctic Center, 16, Tarasa Schevchenko Blvd., Kiev, 01601 Ukraine d Odessa State Environmental University, Odessa, Ukraine, 15, Lvivska str.,Odessa, 65105 Ukraine Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 72, Tsarigradsko shaussee blvd. 1784, Sofia, Bulgaria

Published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol. 72 (2010) p. 398-408

Abstract

Based on theoretical and experimental consideration of the first (the Twomey effect) and second indirect aerosol effects the quasi-analytic description of physical connection between the galactic cosmic rays intensity and the Earth’s cloud cover is obtained. It is shown that the basic equation of the Earth’s climate energy-balance model is described by the bifurcation equation (with respect to the temperature of the Earth’s surface) in the form of assembly-type catastrophe with the two governing parameters defining the variations of insolation and Earth’s magnetic field (or the galactic cosmic rays intensity in the atmosphere), respectively. The principle of hierarchical climatic models construction, which consists in the structural invariance of balance equations of these models evolving on different time scales, is described.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.2765.pdf

COSMIC RAYS,CLOUDS AND CLIMATE FEATURES

1 Cosmic rays consist mainly of protons with energies in the range 106 -1018 e V. Th e relevant energies for climate are in the range 109 -1011 eV. Such cosmic rays are accelerated in shock fronts of supernovae.
2 Aerosols are 0.001–1 μm diameter particles of liquid or solid suspended in the air. Aerosol concentrations vary typically from ~100 cm-3 in maritime air to ~1000 cm-3 in unpolluted air over landmasses, but there are large variations from these values. Aerosols larger than ~0.05 μm can serve as cloud condensation nuclei.

Sun climate link
In 1996 the unexpected discovery was announced that the intensity of Galactic cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s atmosphere correlates closely with variations of global cloud cover [1].

It was suggested that this connection could be responsible for the observed correlations between variations in solar activity and climate. In fact there is plenty of empirical evidence of a link between solar activity and Earth’s climate. One of the more beautiful results is the multi-millennial correlation between the temperature of the Indian Ocean as mirrored in the ratio between different oxygen isotopes in stalagmites in a cave in Oman, and solar activity, as reflected in the cosmogenic carbon 14 isotope [2].

In 2008 Shaviv quantified the solar climate link. Using the oceans as a calorimeter the solar forcing over the (~11 year) solar cycle was estimated to be in the range 1.0 -1.5 W/m2. This value is 5-7 times larger than the forcing from solar irradiance alone, and points to an amplification mechanism, that may well involve clouds [3].

So the question is, what mechanism could be respon-sible for a cosmic ray - cloud correlation? The ideas soon focused on the formation of aerosols and subsequently growth to CCN, as a possible explanation. The idea could be tested experimentally and in 2006 the first results were published, which demonstrated that when ionization is increased the number of small aerosols (3 nm) increased as well [4].

The immediate reactions to these results were that, although we see 3 nm aerosol particles formed in the experiment, they would be unimportant in the real atmosphere as there are a sufficient number of CCN already. That ions are unimportant in CCN formation, found further support when a number of numerical simulations of the prevailing theory pointed to a failure of growth to CCN (e.g. [5]).

If true the cosmic ray – cloud idea would be dead.Fortunately the theory could be tested experimentally, as was done with SKY2, the chamber of which holds 8 m3 of air and traces of other gases. One series of experiments confirmed the unfavorable prediction that the new clusters would fail to grow sufficiently to be influential for clouds. But another series of experiments, using ionizing gamma rays, gave a very different result. In this case all the additional formed small aerosols (3nm) grew to CCN sizes, contradicting the numerical simulations of aerosol formation and growth [6].
Here, the surprising answer about those never ending natural changes of climate is that galactic cosmic rays, atomic particles coming from the supernova remnants left by exploded stars, appear to play a major part. By ionizing the air, cosmic rays help to form aerosols that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), required for water droplets to condense and create low-altitude clouds. As these exert a strong cooling effect, increases or decreases in the cosmic ray influx and in cloudiness can significantly lower or raise the world’s mean temperature. This is the central hypothesis.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/svensmarkepn_46-2-2_2015.pdf

New perspectives in the study of the Earth’s magnetic field and climate connection: The use of transfer entropy


S. A. Campuzano , A. De Santis, F. J. Pavón-Carrasco, M. L. Osete, E. Qamili

• Published: November 15, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207270

Abstract

The debated question on the possible relation between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate has been usually focused on direct correlations between different time series representing both systems. However, the physical mechanism able to potentially explain this connection is still an open issue. Finding hints about how this connection could work would suppose an important advance in the search of an adequate physical mechanism. Here, we propose an innovative information-theoretic tool, i.e. the transfer entropy, as a good candidate for this scope because is able to determine, not simply the possible existence of a connection, but even the direction in which the link is produced. We have applied this new methodology to two real time series, the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) area extent at the Earth’s surface (representing the geomagnetic field system) and the Global Sea Level (GSL) rise (for the climate system) for the last 300 years, to measure the possible information flow and sense between them. This connection was previously suggested considering only the long-term trend while now we study this possibility also in shorter scales. The new results seem to support this hypothesis, with more information transferred from the SAA to the GSL time series, with about 90% of confidence level. This result provides new clues on the existence of a link between the geomagnetic field and the Earth’s climate in the past and on the physical mechanism involved because, thanks to the application of the transfer entropy, we have determined that the sense of the connection seems to go from the system that produces geomagnetic field to the climate system. Of course, the connection does not mean that the geomagnetic field is fully responsible for the climate changes, rather that it is an important driving component to the variations of the climate.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207270

 

[trichrider]

interesting that this is also not addressed in the UN reports...


20 January 2020
Ozone-depleting gases might have driven extreme Arctic warming

The far north is heating up twice as fast as the global average.
Giuliana Viglione

Gases that deplete the ozone layer could be responsible for up to half of the effects of climate change observed in the Arctic from 1955 to 2005.
The finding could help to explain the disproportionate toll of climate change on the region, which has long puzzled scientists. The Arctic is warming at more than twice the average rate of the rest of the globe — a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification — and it is losing sea ice at a staggering pace.
Ozone-depleting substances, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), are known to warm the atmosphere thousands of times more efficiently than carbon dioxide. But most of the research on these chemicals has focused on their effects on the planet’s protective ozone layer — especially over the Southern Hemisphere, where they are responsible for the formation of the Antarctic ozone hole, says Mark England, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. He co-authored the study, published on 20 January in Nature Climate Change1, which he says is “really reframing a lot of the discussion on a more global basis”.
England and his colleagues compared climate simulations both with and without the mass emission of CFCs that began in the 1950s. Without CFCs, the simulations showed an average Arctic warming of 0.82 °C. When the presence of ozone-depleting compounds was factored in, that number jumped to 1.59 °C. The researchers saw similarly dramatic changes in sea-ice coverage between the two sets of model simulations. By running the models with fixed CFC concentrations while varying the thickness of the ozone layer, the team was able to attribute the warming directly to the chemicals — rather than changes these substances caused in the ozone layer.
England’s team has “done a careful study in a single model”, says Marika Holland, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. “I think that it makes a lot of sense.” She says that the warming effect of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere is a well-documented phenomenon. However, she notes, the complexities of climate models make it hard to say for certain what the exact magnitude of the effect on the Arctic is.
Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, says that the work is “interesting and provocative”, but she is not yet convinced of its conclusions. A stronger argument could be made, she continues, if the team had been able to provide a clear physical explanation for the modelled amplification.
Both Strahan and Cecilia Bitz, a climate scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, say that replicating these results in multiple climate models will be crucial for improving estimates of just how much responsibility CFCs bear for heating the Arctic.
Global CFC concentrations have been on the decline since the turn of the millennium, following the 1989 adoption of the Montreal Protocol, which called for a phase-out of the substances. Although many other factors contribute to Arctic amplification, the result suggests that Arctic warming and sea-ice melt might be tempered in the future as ozone-depleting substances continue to leave the atmosphere, Bitz says. “It’s a very important paper because it has a little shred of optimism.”

doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00108-2
References

1. 1.Polvani, L. M., Previdi, M., England, M. R., Chiodo, G. & Smith, K. L. Nature Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0677-4 (2020).

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00108-2


Jan. 21, 2020





NASA Sounding Rocket Observing Nitric Oxide in Polar Night



Aurora, also known as the northern lights, are a sight to behold as they dance across the sky when solar winds collide with the Earth’s atmosphere.
However, they also contribute to a process that has an adverse impact on the Earth’s ozone as nitric oxide is created during the auroral light show.
To better understand the abundance of nitric oxide in the polar atmosphere, NASA will launch the Polar Night Nitric Oxide or PolarNOx experiment from the Poker Flat Research Range operated by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
PolarNOx will fly on a NASA Black Brant IX suborbital sounding rocket between 8:04 and 9:04 a.m. EST (4:04 and 5:04 a.m. AST) on Jan. 26, 2020. The launch window runs through Feb. 8 and opens 3 – 4 minutes earlier each day.
Scott Bailey, PolarNOx principal investigator from Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, said, “The aurora creates nitric oxide (NO), but in the polar night, unlike the sunlit atmosphere, there is no significant process for destroying the nitric oxide. We believe it builds up to large concentrations. The purpose of our rocket is to measure the abundance and especially the altitude of peak abundance for the nitric oxide. We don’t know the altitude at which the nitric oxide settles.”

Bill McClintock, PolarNOx co-investigator, monitors a payload test at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility.
Credits: NASA/Berit Bland


“Nitric oxide under appropriate conditions can be transported to the stratosphere where it will catalytically destroy ozone,” Bailey said. “Those changes in ozone can lead to changes in stratospheric temperature and wind and may even impact the circulation near Earth’s surface.”
Nitric oxide in the northern regions exists between 53 and 93 miles altitude. During the rocket flight a star tracker will lock on to the star Gamma Pegasi.
“PolarNOx will observe starlight with a high spectral resolution UV spectrograph operating near 215 nanometers. Attenuation of the starlight by NO is used to obtain an NO altitude profile," said Bill McClintock, co-investigator and lead instrument scientist from the Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado in Boulder.

Nitric Oxide transport in Earth’s polar region.
Credits: Cora Randall/Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado and Bailey.


“The payload with the spectrograph is targeted to fly to an altitude of 161 miles. The goal is to get the most time possible observing both the star brightness above the nitric oxide and where the peak NO exists between 62 and 68 miles altitude,” McClintock said.
This is the second flight of PolarNOx from Poker Flat. “In 2017 we experienced an electronics failure during the flight. While we did get the important part of the data, the mission wasn’t a total success. We did upgrade the electronics for this reflight so we look forward to a much more successful mission,” Bailey said.
The University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute has established a subscription-based text messaging service for anyone interested in receiving updates and links to launch range communications or stream broadcasts. Subscribers also will be notified when the count drops below T-10 minutes, at which time a launch is likely to occur. To subscribe to the messaging service text PFRRLAUNCHES to 33222.
PolarNOx is supported through NASA's Sounding Rocket Program at the agency's Wallops Flight Facility at Wallops Island, Virginia, which is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. NASA's Heliophysics Division manages the sounding-rocket program for the agency.
By Keith Koehler
NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/wallops/2020/nasa-sounding-
rocket-observing-nitric-oxide-in-the-polar-night


nor is this:


Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering Could Alter the High‐Latitude Seasonal Cycle
Jiu Jiang
Long Cao
Douglas G. MacMartin
Isla R. Simpson
Ben Kravitz
Wei Cheng
Daniele Visioni
Simone Tilmes
Jadwiga H. Richter
Michael J. Mills



First published: 03 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085758

Read the full text

PDF
Tools
Share


Abstract

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) has been proposed to reduce some impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Previous studies examined annual mean climate responses to SAG. Here we use the Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble simulations to explore the effects of SAG on the seasonal cycle of climate change. Simulations show that relative to the present‐day climate, SAG diminishes the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of temperature at many high‐latitude locations, with warmer winters and cooler summers. The seasonal temperature shift significantly influences the seasonal cycle of snow depth and sea ice, with Arctic sea ice recovery overcompensated in summer by 52% and undercompensated in winter by 8%. We identify that both the dynamic effects of aerosol‐induced stratospheric heating and seasonal variations of sunlight contribute to the shifts in seasonal cycle. Shifts in the seasonal cycle have important ecological and environmental implications, which should be considered in geoengineering impact analysis.

Plain Language Summary

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, by releasing sulfate aerosol particles or their precursors (SO2) into the stratosphere to scatter more sunlight back to space, is a potential climate intervention option to counteract anthropogenic global warming. Previous studies focused on the effect of aerosol injection on annual mean climate change. Here we assess seasonal climate shifts in response to aerosol injection using a large ensemble of sophisticated climate model simulations. Relative to the high‐CO2 scenario, stratospheric aerosol injection can stabilize many aspects of climate change on the annual mean basis including global mean temperature, interhemispheric temperature gradient, and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradient. However, we find that injection of SO2 into the stratosphere would substantially alter the high‐latitude seasonal cycle. Relative to the present‐day climate, in a high‐CO2 world with additional aerosols in the stratosphere, many high‐latitude locations are warmer in winter and cooler in summer. Meanwhile, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering overcompensated Arctic sea ice extent recovery in summer and undercompensated it in winter. These seasonal climate shifts have important ecological, economic, and aesthetic implications for a full assessment of benefits and risks of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085758


and...
https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-scientists-want-to-dim-the-sun-to-curb-global-warming-2019-3


https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2019/03/finding-right-dose-solar-geoengineering


https://www.wired.com/story/more-scientists-now-think-geoengineering-may-be-essential/


http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/...hat-is-geoengineering/what-is-geoengineering/


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...al-geoengineering-approach-may-be-overstated/

 

[TheForgotten]

.
Yeah, chemtrails aren't real....






























tongueincheekattemptathumorpleasedon'tstringmeupjustyet....

 

[TheForgotten]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpSRp_R0J9A

 

[Frosty Nuggets]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpSRp_R0J9A

Lol, explain how they switch the trail on and off mid flight.


Contrails disappear within a few plane lengths, they are not persistent.
Chemtrails are persistent and spread out covering the sky.


You can find photos of the planes with the spray nozzles attached to the body and wings.


Go on, keep drinking the Koolaid.

 

[TheForgotten]

Go on, keep drinking the Koolaid.

Seebottonsentebceoffirstpost,inlettersthissmall....

.


tongueincheekattemptathumorpleasedon'tstringmeupjustyet....

 

[Capra ibex]

So if 'they' are spraying humans with chemtrails, how do 'they' stay immune to the sprays?

I assume 'they' is the 'deep state'?

 

[therevverend]

Ha ha. When they spray the evil weather dominating, mind control shit you don't see it. Only the 3rd rate shitty governments like North Korea and and Laos are still using the old fashioned, contrail-forming shit..

 

[TheForgotten]

So if 'they' are spraying humans with chemtrails, how do 'they' stay immune to the sprays?

I assume 'they' is the 'deep state'?

Chemtrails aren't for killing, they're for weather control and attempting to cool the planet.
However, as with any covert activity (it used to be anyway) the nefarious factions get their fingers in the pie, and all of a sudden there's a recurrence of a particular malady, say, Shingles, and boom, there's a vaccine available all of a sudden and it makes billions of dollars... well maybe someone figured how to get some virus into those chemtrails....


inserttinfoilhathere,eitheronyourheadorupyourass....

 

[trichrider]

Radiative effects of daily cycle of cloud frequency in past and future climates

Abstract

The daily cloud cycle or diurnal cloud cycle (DCC) and its response to global warming are critical to the Earth’s energy budget, but their radiative effects have not been systematically quantified. Toward this goal, here we analyze the radiation at the top of the atmosphere and propose a measure of the DCC radiative effect (DCCRE) as the difference between the total radiative fluxes with the full cloud cycle and its uniformly distributed cloud counterpart. When applied to the frequency of cloud occurrence, DCCRE is linked to the covariance between DCC and cloud radiative effects. Satellite observations show that the daily cloud cycle is strongly linked to pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and climate hiatus, revealing its potential role in controlling climate variability. Climate model outputs show large inter-model spreads of DCCRE, accounting for approximately 20% inter-model spread of the cloud radiative effects. Climate models also suggest that while DCCRE is not sensitive to rising temperatures at the global scale, it can be important in certain regions. Such a framework can be used to conduct a more systematic evaluation of the DCC in climate models and observations with the goal to understand climate variability and reduce uncertainty in climate projections.


https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05077-5



full paper:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05077-5

 

[trichrider]

Reinforcement of Climate Hiatus by Decadal Modulation of Daily Cloud Cycle
Jun Yin1,2, Amilcare Porporato1,2*

1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
2Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.*Correspondence to: aporpora@princeton.edu



Based on observations and climate model results, it has been suggested that the recent slowdown of global warming trends(climate hiatus),which took place in the early 2000s, might be due to enhanced ocean heat uptake1–8.

Here we suggest an alternative hypothesis which,at least in part, would relate such slowdown to unaccounted energy reflected or re-emitted by clouds. We show that thedailycloud cycle is strongly linked to pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)and that its decadal variations during the climate hiatus have an overall cooling effect. Such an effect may have partially, and temporarily, counteracted the greenhouse warming trends.

full paper:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1803/1803.01752.pdf

 

[trichrider]

First sun-dimming experiment will test a way to cool Earth

Researchers plan to spray sunlight-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, an approach that could ultimately be used to quickly lower the planet’s temperature.


Jeff Tollefson
PDF version

Zhen Dai holds up a small glass tube coated with a white powder: calcium carbonate, a ubiquitous compound used in everything from paper and cement to toothpaste and cake mixes. Plop a tablet of it into water, and the result is a fizzy antacid that calms the stomach. The question for Dai, a doctoral candidate at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and her colleagues is whether this innocuous substance could also help humanity to relieve the ultimate case of indigestion: global warming caused by greenhouse-gas pollution.


The idea is simple: spray a bunch of particles into the stratosphere, and they will cool the planet by reflecting some of the Sun’s rays back into space. Scientists have already witnessed the principle in action. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it injected an estimated 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere — the atmospheric layer that stretches from about 10 to 50 kilometres above Earth's surface. The eruption created a haze of sulfate particles that cooled the planet by around 0.5 °C. For about 18 months, Earth’s average temperature returned to what it was before the arrival of the steam engine.


The idea that humans might turn down Earth’s thermostat by similar, artificial means is several decades old. It fits into a broader class of planet-cooling schemes known as geoengineering that have long generated intense debate and, in some cases, fear.
Researchers have largely restricted their work on such tactics to computer models. Among the concerns is that dimming the Sun could backfire, or at least strongly disadvantage some areas of the world by, for example, robbing crops of sunlight and shifting rain patterns.



But as emissions continue to rise and climate projections remain dire, conversations about geoengineering research are starting to gain more traction among scientists, policymakers and some environmentalists. That’s because many researchers have come to the alarming conclusion that the only way to prevent the severe impacts of global warming will be either to suck massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or to cool the planet artificially. Or, perhaps more likely, both.


If all goes as planned, the Harvard team will be the first in the world to move solar geoengineering out of the lab and into the stratosphere, with a project called the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). The first phase — a US$3-million test involving two flights of a steerable balloon 20 kilometres above the southwest United States — could launch as early as the first half of 2019. Once in place, the experiment would release small plumes of calcium carbonate, each of around 100 grams, roughly equivalent to the amount found in an average bottle of off-the-shelf antacid. The balloon would then turn around to observe how the particles disperse.


The test itself is extremely modest. Dai, whose doctoral work over the past four years has involved building a tabletop device to simulate and measure chemical reactions in the stratosphere in advance of the experiment, does not stress about concerns over such research. “I’m studying a chemical substance,” she says. “It’s not like it’s a nuclear bomb.”


Nevertheless, the experiment will be the first to fly under the banner of solar geoengineering. And so it is under intense scrutiny, including from some environmental groups, who say such efforts are a dangerous distraction from addressing the only permanent solution to climate change: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The scientific outcome of SCoPEx doesn’t really matter, says Jim Thomas, co-executive director of the ETC Group, an environmental advocacy organization in Val-David, near Montreal, Canada, that opposes geoengineering: “This is as much an experiment in changing social norms and crossing a line as it is a science experiment.”


Aware of this attention, the team is moving slowly and is working to set up clear oversight for the experiment, in the form of an external advisory committee to review the project. Some say that such a framework, which could pave the way for future experiments, is even more important than the results of this one test. “SCoPEx is the first out of the gate, and it is triggering an important conversation about what independent guidance, advice and oversight should look like,” says Peter Frumhoff, chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of an independent panel that has been charged with selecting the head of the advisory committee. “Getting it done right is far more important than getting it done quickly.”


Joining forces

In many ways, the stratosphere is an ideal place to try to make the atmosphere more reflective. Small particles injected there can spread around the globe and stay aloft for two years or more. If placed strategically and regularly in both hemispheres, they could create a relatively uniform blanket that would shield the entire planet (see ‘Global intervention’). The process does not have to be wildly expensive; in a report last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that a fleet of high-flying aircraft could deposit enough sulfur to offset roughly 1.5 °C of warming for around $1 billion to $10 billion per year1.

Most of the solar geoengineering research so far has focused on sulfur dioxide, the same substance released by Mount Pinatubo. But sulfur might not be the best candidate. In addition to cooling the planet, the aerosols generated in that eruption sped up the rate at which chlorofluorocarbons deplete the ozone layer, which shields the planet from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. Sulfate aerosols are also warmed by the Sun, enough to potentially affect the movement of moisture and even alter the jet stream. “There are all of these downstream effects that we don’t fully understand,” says Frank Keutsch, an atmospheric chemist at Harvard and SCoPEx’s principal investigator.


The SCoPEx team’s initial stratospheric experiments will focus on calcium carbonate, which is expected to absorb less heat than sulfates and to have less impact on ozone. But textbook answers — and even Dai’s tabletop device — can’t capture the full picture. “We actually don’t know what it would do, because it doesn’t exist in the stratosphere,” Keutsch says. “That sets up a red flag.”
SCoPEx aims to gather real-world data to sort this out. The experiment began as a partnership between atmospheric chemist James Anderson of Harvard and experimental physicist David Keith, who moved to the university in 2011. Keith has been investigating a variety of geoengineering options off and on for more than 25 years. In 2009, while at the University of Calgary in Canada, he founded the company Carbon Engineering, in Squamish, which is working to commercialize technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. After joining Harvard, Keith used research funding he had received from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, to begin planning the experiment.
Keutsch, who got involved later, is not a climate scientist and is at best a reluctant geoengineer. But he worries about where humanity is heading, and what that means for his children’s future. When he saw Keith talk about the SCoPEx idea at a conference after starting at Harvard in 2015, he says his initial reaction was that the idea was “totally insane”. Then he decided it was time to engage. “I asked myself, an atmospheric chemist, what can I do?” He joined forces with Keith and Anderson, and has since taken the lead on the experimental work.


An eye on the sky

Already, SCoPEx has moved farther along than earlier solar geoengineering efforts. The UK Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering experiment, which sought to spray water 1 kilometre into the atmosphere, was cancelled in 2012 in part because scientists had applied for patents on an apparatus that could ultimately affect every human on the planet. (Keith says there will be no patents on any technologies involved in the SCoPEx project.) And US researchers with the Marine Cloud Brightening Project, which aims to spray saltwater droplets into the lower atmosphere to increase the reflectivity of ocean clouds, have been trying to raise money for the project for nearly a decade.

Although SCoPEx could be the first solar geoengineering experiment to fly, Keith says other projects that have not branded themselves as such have already provided useful data. In 2011, for example, the Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment pumped smoke into the lower atmosphere to mimic pollution from ships, which can cause clouds to brighten by capturing more water vapour. The test was used to study the effect on marine clouds, but the results had a direct bearing on geoengineering science: the brighter clouds produced a cooling effect 50 times greater than the warming effect of the carbon emissions from the researchers’ ship2.


Keith says that the Harvard team has yet to encounter public protests or any direct opposition — aside from the occasional conspiracy theorist. The challenge facing researchers, he says, stems more from a fear among science-funding agencies that investing in geoengineering will lead to protests by environmentalists.


To help advance the field, Keith set a goal in 2016 of raising $20 million to support a formal research programme that would cover not just the experimental work, but also research into modelling, governance and ethics. He has raised around $12 million so far, mostly from philanthropic sources such as Gates; the pot provides funding to dozens of people, largely on a part-time basis.
Keith and Keutsch also want an external advisory committee to review SCoPEx before it flies. The committee, which is still to be selected, will report to the dean of engineering and the vice-provost for research at Harvard. “We see this as part of a process to build broader support for research on this topic,” Keith says.
Keutsch is looking forward to having the guidance of an external group, and hopes that it can provide clarity on how tests such as his should proceed. “This is a much more politically challenging experiment than I had anticipated,” he says. “I was a little naive.”
SCoPEx faces technical challenges, too. It must spray particles of the right size: the team calculates that those with a diameter of about 0.5 micrometres should disperse and reflect sunlight well. The balloon must also be able to reverse its course in the thin air so that it can pass through its own wake. Assuming the team is able to find the calcium carbonate plume — and there is no guarantee that they can — SCoPEx needs instruments that can analyse the particles and, it is hoped, carry samples back to Earth.
“It’s going to be a hard experiment, and it may not work,” says David Fahey, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado. In the hope that it will, Fahey’s team has provided SCoPEx with a lightweight instrument that can reliably measure the size and number of particles that are released. The balloon will also be equipped with a laser device that can monitor the plume from afar. Other equipment that could collect information on the level of moisture and ozone in the stratosphere could fly on the balloon as well.


Up to the stratosphere

Keutsch and Keith are still working out some of the technical details. Plans with one balloon company fell through, so they are now working with a second. And an independent team of engineers in California is working on options for the sprayer. To simplify things, the SCoPEx group plans to fly the balloon during the spring or autumn, when stratospheric winds shift direction and — for a brief period — calm down, which will make it easier to track the plume.


For all of these reasons, Keutsch characterizes the first flight as an engineering test, mainly intended to demonstrate that everything works as it should. The team is ready to spray calcium carbonate particles, but could instead use salt water to test the sprayer if the advisory committee objects.


Keith still thinks that sulfate aerosols might ultimately be the best choice for solar geoengineering, if only because there has been more research about their impact. He says that the possibility of sulfates enhancing ozone depletion should become less of a concern in the future, as efforts to restore the ozone layer through pollutant reductions continue. Nevertheless, his main hope is to establish an experimental programme in which scientists can explore different aspects of solar geoengineering.


There are a lot of outstanding questions. Some researchers have suggested that solar geoengineering could alter precipitation patterns and even lead to more droughts in some regions. Others warn that one of the possible benefits of solar geoengineering — maintaining crop yields by protecting them from heat stress — might not come to pass. In a study published in August, researchers found that yields of maize (corn), soya, rice and wheat3 fell after two volcanic eruptions, Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichón in Mexico in 1982, dimmed the skies. Such reductions could be enough to cancel out any potential gains in the future.


Keith says the science so far suggests that the benefits could well outweigh the potential negative consequences, particularly compared with a world in which warming goes unchecked. The commonly cited drawback is that shielding the Sun doesn’t affect emissions, so greenhouse-gas levels would continue to rise and the ocean would grow even more acidic. But he suggests that solar geoengineering could reduce the amount of carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere, including by minimizing the loss of permafrost, promoting forest growth and reducing the need to cool buildings. In an as-yet-unpublished analysis of precipitation and temperature extremes using a high-resolution climate model, Keith and others found that nearly all regions of the world would benefit from a moderate solar geoengineering programme. “Despite all of the concerns, we can’t find any areas that would be definitely worse off,” he says. “If solar geoengineering is as good as what is shown in these models, it would be crazy not to take it seriously.”


There is still widespread uncertainty about the state of the science and the assumptions in the models — including the idea that humanity could come together to establish, maintain and then eventually dismantle a well-designed geoengineering programme while tackling the underlying problem of emissions. Still, prominent organizations, including the UK Royal Society and the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, have called for more research. In October, the academies launched a project that will attempt to provide a blueprint for such a programme.


Some organizations are already trying to promote discussions among policymakers and government officials at the international level. The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative is holding workshops across the global south, for instance. And Janos Pasztor, who handled climate issues under former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, has been talking to high-level government officials around the world in his role as head of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, a non-profit organization based in New York. “Governments need to engage in this discussion and to understand these issues,” Pasztor says. “They need to understand the risks — not just the risks of doing it, but also the risks of not understanding and not knowing.”
One concern is that governments might one day panic over the consequences of global warming and rush forward with a haphazard solar-geoengineering programme, a distinct possibility given that the costs are cheap enough that many countries, and perhaps even a few individuals, could probably afford to go it alone. These and other questions arose earlier this month in Quito, Ecuador, at the annual summit of the Montreal Protocol, which governs chemicals that damage the stratospheric ozone layer. Several countries called for a scientific assessment of the potential effects that solar geoengineering could have on the ozone layer, and on the stratosphere more broadly.



If the world gets serious about geoengineering, Fahey says that there are plenty of sophisticated experiments that researchers could do using satellites and high-flying aircraft. But for now, he says, SCoPEx will be valuable — if only because it pushes the conversation forward. “Not talking about geoengineering is the greatest mistake we can make right now.”

Nature 563, 613-615 (2018)
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07533-4


Updates & Corrections
Correction 30 November 2018: An earlier version of this story said that David Keith received money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but that money came directly from Bill Gates.



https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4


Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment

Wake Smith1 and Gernot Wagner2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6059-0688
Published 23 November 2018 • © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 13, Number 12
Download Article PDF Article information Abstract

We review the capabilities and costs of various lofting methods intended to deliver sulfates into the lower stratosphere. We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing beginning 15 years hence, by deploying material to altitudes as high as ~20 km. After surveying an exhaustive list of potential deployment techniques, we settle upon an aircraft-based delivery system. Unlike the one prior comprehensive study on the topic (McClellan et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034019), we conclude that no existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill this mission. However, we also conclude that developing a new, purpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive. We calculate early-year costs of ~$1500 ton−1 of material deployed, resulting in average costs of ~$2.25 billion yr−1 over the first 15 years of deployment. We further calculate the number of flights at ~4000 in year one, linearly increasing by ~4000 yr−1. We conclude by arguing that, while cheap, such an aircraft-based program would unlikely be a secret, given the need for thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases.


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/meta


Effects of sea salt aerosol emissions for Marine Cloud Brightening on atmospheric chemistry: Implications for radiative forcing

Hannah M. Horowitz
Christopher Holmes
Alicia Wright
Tomás Sherwen
Xuan Wang
Mat Evans
Jiayue Huang
Lyatt Jaeglé
Qianjie Chen
Shuting Zhai
Becky Alexander



First published: 29 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085838





PDF




Abstract

Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is proposed to offset global warming by emitting sea salt aerosols to the tropical marine boundary layer, which increases aerosol and cloud albedo. Sea salt aerosol is the main source of tropospheric reactive chlorine (Cly) and bromine (Bry). The effects of additional sea salt on atmospheric chemistry have not been explored. We simulate sea salt aerosol injections for MCB under two scenarios (212‐569 Tg a‐1) in the GEOS‐Chem global chemical transport model, only considering their impacts as a halogen source. Globally, tropospheric Cly and Bry increase (20‐40%), leading to decreased ozone (‐3 to ‐6%). Consequently, OH decreases (‐3 to ‐5%), which increases the methane lifetime (3‐6%). Our results suggest that the chemistry of the additional sea salt leads to minor total radiative forcing compared to that of the sea salt aerosol itself (~2%), but may have potential implications for surface ozone pollution in tropical coastal regions.

Plain Language Summary

In light of global warming, hypothetical geoengineering methods have been proposed to try to counteract rising temperatures. One involves spraying sea salt particles into the air above the oceans in the tropics. This would reduce temperatures by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth. Sea salt particles can also release halogens to the air. Their resulting chemical reactions affect the amount of ozone and methane, both greenhouse gases, which may further impact temperatures. We investigate this for the first time using a computer model of the atmosphere and its chemistry. We find that additional sea salt for geoengineering would reduce ozone, especially at the surface where it is an air pollutant, while increasing methane. Overall, these results suggest that the net effect of the sea salt chemistry on the energy balance of the Earth is near‐zero, but it may have potential implications for air quality.


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085838