Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Ron Baiman]

Colleagues

This is the podcast I've been talking about to some of you recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ship-tracks-termination-shock-simons/id1529459393?i=1000550593731

Here's their  draft paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356378673_Climate_Impact_of_Decreasing_Atmospheric_Sulphate_Aerosols_and_the_Risk_of_a_Termination_Shock

When Simon et al (presumably) get some version of this paper published, it could be the centerpiece of, for example,  strong support for MCB to offset the sulfur with benign sea salt aerosols, as it would provide direct evidence of the impact of warming/cooling effect of marine cloud brightening from aerosols.  It also, needless to say, highlights the need for any and all other types of direct cooling intervention.

Best,

Ron

 

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Ron-

Just so you know-When looking through a climate restoration lens, with CO2 below 300 ppm by 2050, termination shock doesn't happen. This is because CO2 is back to pre-industrial levels by 2050, and therefore forcing is too. SRM or SAI would only be needed for 15 years between 2030 and 2045. 

It might be useful starting now, but politically, there is no justification for it because it doesn't benefit the UN net-zero goal.

You can read more about climate restoration in my book coming out in April. The summary chapter is available for free now on my website: PeterFiekowsky.com 

All the processes for climate restoration are now getting underway, and don't require government assistance.

BR

Peter

--
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/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Peter Fiekowsky

Foundation for Climate Restoration Founder and Chairman Emeritus

Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021 Book summary

(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Peter.   Unfortunately, the paper and podcast are referring to a termination shock that is potentially happening right now due to a well-intentioned regulation to cut the sulfur content of cargo ships from a prior average of 3.5% sulfur to 0.5% (https://www.joc.com/special-topics/low-sulfur-fuel-rule ) that became fully effective Jan. 2020. Using ocean water surface temperature measurement and satellite atmospheric albedo measurements,  for the north atlantic and north pacific major shipping lanes, they estimate (still in process of verification) up to (at the maximal estimate) a 50% jump in global warming (as I recall from the podcast), from the time this regulation became fully effective compared to prior years, as a direct result of the loss of sulfur emissions across these (very large) ocean regions.

Best,

Ron

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Interesting. I remember that Michael Mann wrote a Scientific American article about 1999, telling us to expect 0.5C warming when we eliminate the sulfates. We knew it would happen, and it's happening. Maybe it's not so shocking.

Does anyone know how much sulfates still come from coal plants? Back in 1999 that was the big source, I think.

This could be an argument to pursue climate restoration, restoring CO2 below 300 ppm, to cool the planet.

Peter

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Ye- 

What does carbon capture have to do with climate restoration?

Carbon capture is for enhanced oil recovery and for selling expensive carbon offsets.

We're interested in carbon sequestration at the 50 Gt/year scale, such as with synthetic limestone, plankton, kelp.

Peter

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:59 AM Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

No Peter, this is not argument for restoring CO2 below 300ppm; lack of a logical connection notwithstanding, carbon capture at scale simply infeasible before we are all fried.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Now we’re acting! 

Who would we propose it to? Said another way-Who would we invite to do that, whom we would support?

Peter 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2022, at 9:03 PM, Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com> wrote:



The Australian government could be invited to investigate international agreement for marine cloud brightening in the Southern Ocean to cool Antarctica.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 3:22 pm, Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert-

It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and probably everyone on this list agrees with you that SRM right now would be smart, even moral.

I, and probably you and everyone on this list is working on this in order to leave a world our children and grandchildren can flourish in--obviously including our Holocene ecosystems.

As far as I can tell we've been in agreement for ten or fifteen years. Has that agreement changed the planet?

I'd say no. I don't think the physical world responds much to the brain patterns in my head, or the ones in your head which we call agreement.

What's needed is action that will restore the climate. Let's get action going. Physical action. How do we do that?

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:22 PM Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Low albedo is dangerous and can only be mitigated by oceanic  and atmospheric technology. Solar radiation management systems are needed to increase planetary albedo and mitigate the economic and social and ecological harms of climate change by limiting extreme weather events. The benefits of regulating planetary weather far far outweigh the risks and costs of neglecting work to stabilise the climate. This is a major and serious moral problem regarding whether humanity can take action to prevent and reverse the worst effects of climate change in this decade.

Robert Tulip

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 2:06 pm, Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert-

SRM is a logical top priority. 

Who will pay for it?

How will those doing it avoid assassination? (Moral or physical)

Peter 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2022, at 6:50 PM, Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com> wrote:



Peter

To answer your question, carbon  capture can collect CO2 to transform it into stable valuable commodities. But CO2 storage is wrong and useless for climate restoration. Chemical and photosynthetic use of CO2 as feedstock to produce biomass and materials needs to replace the CCS paradigm. First though we need to increase albedo as the emergency security response against extreme weather.

Regards 

Robert 🌷 

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/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

[Michael MacCracken]

Just to note that way back in 2010 when we organized the Asilomar Conference on geoengineering, the State of Victoria in Australia was a co-sponsor of the meeting.

And just to note that it is really not clear that use of MCB to address some of the impacts affecting Australia (Great Barrier Reef, shifting of the storm track) might not have influences much further away than New Zealand and so not really clear would need full international participation in the primary analysis. So, yes, Australia could, in my view, well lead consideration on getting started on such an approach for certain types of applications.

Mike MacCracken

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6A078F89-7D4F-4F13-84B3-346D69680541%40gmail.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Anton-

Ye has been saying that there isn't peer reviewed literature confirming that CDR at scale is practical, and that he believes the peer reviewed literature. He has provided compelling evidence to back up those two assertions.

He is entitled to believe whatever he wants, as are you and I...as well as any professor or priest.

If Ye were in charge of a trillion dollar budget, I believe he would institute his mirrors, not CDR. As a professor at Harvard, I argue that would be the appropriate and justifiable thing for him to do.

The things that you and I know from personal experience may be or not be true in the physical world, but in the academic world they're only true while confirmed by peer reviewed literature. 

To my knowledge Ye does not have a large budget to allocate, so let's support Ye in believing and espousing the literature, and carry on with our various projects in partnership and even joy. We're all on the same team here, seeing the world through the lenses of our personal experience.

Peter

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 12:54 AM Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

Anton,

Please then kindly share papers and data showing otherwise that also take into account time, energy, and material limitations.

I have been requesting such info from the group with no relevant response.  The NAS report recently came out, confirming my own interpretation of the primary literature.

Looking forward to a proper reply.

Ye

On 3/2/2022 10:22 PM, Anton Alferness wrote:

Ye

You are fundamentally incorrect in your assertion. 

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022, 7:05 AM Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

Peter,

There is zero evidence to support that any combination of existing artificial, nature-based, or hybrid carbon capture/sequestration methods, at global implementation scale and using all of humanities resources, could achieve even 10% of the fantastical net 50 Gt (C or CO2) /year number you take on faith.

If you disagree, please refer back to the discuss thread we had on this topic a couple of weeks ago and contribute with a properly cited, evidence-based response.

Ye

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" 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/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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/56383bbd-4825-3700-f93c-1165426c1d23%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[SALTER Stephen]

Hi All

 

The present environmental regulations for geoengineering (not totally ratified) were framed at a time when we were dumping nuclear waste, unexploded munitions and even poison gas into the sea.  They essentially meant ‘no new chemicals’.

Marine cloud brightening uses material that is already there and is already being thrown up in quantities hundreds of times greater by breaking waves. Energy comes from the wind so we are not even burning fuel. It would be an interesting legal exercise to separate spray vessels from paddling children splashing one another.

The difference is that the size of spray is carefully chosen to suit Köhler nucleation which also happens to be in the Greenfield gap where there is an abnormally low concentration of natural aerosol between Aitken and accumulation modes.    We can choose exactly when and where we want to release spray. Initially this could be aimed at getting sea surface temperatures back to where they used to be.  However we may be able to learn to get an even more benign result to counteract hot blobs and El Niño events.  We can moderate hurricanes and typhoons, restore ice or coral and adjust the temperature gradient across the Indian Ocean.  Operating anywhere at any time will eventually (~30 years) reverse sea level rise with an enormous benefit-to-cost ratio.  Spray can be stopped with a single mouse click and the effects cancelled at the next rain shower.  Spraying can change results far from the spray release point, even in the opposite hemisphere, but we should be able to get an everywhere-to-everywhere season by season transfer function of what these distant results are and use them to advantage.

 

Breathe safely

 

Stephen Salter

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design

School of Engineering

Mayfield Road

Edinburgh EH9 3DW

0131 650 5704

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0h14RFq4M&t=155s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BBVTStBrhw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8

 

 

 

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:49 PM
To: pfi...@gmail.com; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; hpac-steer...@googlegroups.com; noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

 

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e767ecd9-3fd1-3942-e86f-78a03bb11b5d%40comcast.net.

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.

[H simmens]

Hi Stephen,

In addition to the remarkable MCB characteristics you describe the study you posted earlier today

[SALTER Stephen]

Hi Herb

You mention a benefit-to-cost ratio of only 5000 to 1 for marine cloud brightening.

I attach some calculations about its use for sea level rise. The cost and effort needed depends on initial concentration of condensation nuclei, the height of the turbulent marine boundary layer, the cloud fraction and the lifetime of the spray.  All of these are variable and perhaps not well known.  I can easily adjust the figures I have used in the attached note to ones that you suggest.  Perhaps the cost of the damage caused by rising sea levels may be even more difficult because of its subjective nature and steeply non-linear effects.

I will soon have adequate engineering drawings for parts of spray vessels to get commercial cost estimates.

Breathe safely

 

Stephen Salter

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design

School of Engineering

Mayfield Road

Edinburgh EH9 3DW

0131 650 5704

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0h14RFq4M&t=155s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BBVTStBrhw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8

 

 

 

From: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 2:50 PM
To: SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: mmac...@comcast.net; pfi...@gmail.com; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; hpac-steer...@googlegroups.com; noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

 

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.

Hi Stephen,

 

In addition to the remarkable MCB characteristics you describe the study you posted earlier today

 

 

estimated a benefit/cost ratio of 5000 to 1 for cloud albedo enhancement (vs 25 to 1 for SAI…still not bad..)

 

In decades of reading cost benefit analyses of various sorts I’ve never even remotely seen such a stratospherically high benefit/cost ratio. 

 

What has to happen next to move MCB towards deployment? 

 

Herb

 

 

 

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens

On Mar 3, 2022, at 9:35 AM, SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" 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/DB7PR05MB56920B36F7ECD27CF3716B64A7049%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Robert-

It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and probably everyone on this list agrees with you that SRM right now would be smart, even moral.

I, and probably you and everyone on this list is working on this in order to leave a world our children and grandchildren can flourish in--obviously including our Holocene ecosystems.

As far as I can tell we've been in agreement for ten or fifteen years. Has that agreement changed the planet?

I'd say no. I don't think the physical world responds much to the brain patterns in my head, or the ones in your head which we call agreement.

What's needed is action that will restore the climate. Let's get action going. Physical action. How do we do that?

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:22 PM Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Low albedo is dangerous and can only be mitigated by oceanic  and atmospheric technology. Solar radiation management systems are needed to increase planetary albedo and mitigate the economic and social and ecological harms of climate change by limiting extreme weather events. The benefits of regulating planetary weather far far outweigh the risks and costs of neglecting work to stabilise the climate. This is a major and serious moral problem regarding whether humanity can take action to prevent and reverse the worst effects of climate change in this decade.

Robert Tulip

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 2:06 pm, Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com> wrote: