Emergency vs. Urgency

[Robert Chris]

A quick thought on the difference between our climate situation being an emergency and not being an emergency but requiring urgent action.

Etymology is always fascinating with these Latin derived words.  An 'emergency' is a critical situation that has emerged.  The notion of 'emergence' is that until it has emerged it was unseen, so it's appearance is a surprise.  I wasn't expecting that but now it's happened and it's all hands on deck to sort it out and minimise the harm caused.  We just have to throw everything at it in a hurry.  Think shipwreck, earthquake, hurricane, car crash etc.

'Urgency' comes from the notion of urging action, impressing the importance of acting because in its absence there will be a disaster very soon.  The disaster is foreseen, even if its timing might be uncertain and what we're doing is preparing for soemthing that will happen rather than reacting to something that has already happened.  You don't go to the Emergency Room for a vaccine!

Is our climate situation an emergency or is it urgent that we act?  Clearly for some, for example those in low lying island states, the harms are already happening and it is an emergency.  But most of the world's 8 billion people are not yet so badly afflicted by climate extremes that it would be fair to say for them (us) the harms are already being suffered.  However, for almost all those currently, say, 40 years old or less, those harms are increasingly likely in their lifetimes and virtually certain in their children's lifetimes unless urgent action is taken.

I suggest that references to the 'climate emergency' are counterproductive because for most people it isn't an emergency.  They're lives are not yet badly affected by climate change.  So claiming it to be an emergency when people's lived experience is that it isn't, sends all the wrong messages and probably turns them off from really caring about what's happening.

If OTOH the narrative were reframed around climate change requiring urgent action might that not not only be a more honest representation of the situation, but also be one that allows a more informed and rational debate about what needs to be done by when and by whom.

Just a thought that if it has any merit, needs a lot more work to develop into something useful.

Regards

Robert

[Tim Foresman]

Dear Robert, you raise a cogent thought on how best to communicate to a bell shape (Gaussian) distribution of humans.

Lincoln is quoted regarding fooling people sometimes and all times. It will probably take a decade to level out the terminology for the masses.

I spend energy with youth to tamp down the rhetoric that extinction is imminent, as such sentiments close off progressive thinking.

We are on a long road to adjust the lingua franca for the climate change dialog.

For Earth's sake,  keep up the concern.

Peace, Tim 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 5:12:37 PM
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [HPAC] Emergency vs. Urgency

 

--
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/0c4cda9e-b5e6-44f3-9730-8f06403d62cf%40gmail.com.

[Dana Woods]

Some of us , including educated people ,PHD scientists, etc frankly don't think it's likely at all that life on Earth will make it past next Summer, for reasons I've already stated in other posts nevermind by the time action is taken to avert mass death and suffering everywhere followed soon after by extinction. Idk where you keep getting a decade from Robert.  I'm one of those so it's really beyond an emergency  to me/us . The biggest "emergency" for some of us may be deciding upon and acquiring the best euthanasia to use when we begin to suffer too much and being prepared to use it

Again, in the past 15 months the global temp has risen to 1.5 above pre-industrial and that lasting many months after the El Nino passed. AMOC collapsing is warming things up, reduction of sulfur emissions is warming things up, another  El Nino is predicted to kick in again before next Summer, solar activity will be VERY high in July 2025. Multiple PHD oceanographers (including those from Scripps and Dr Wadhams ) have been saying we could lose the little bit of Arctic ice that's left any year now for several years which will cause a dramatic rise in global temperature, we're losing Antarctica at break neck speed too. AND IF YOU BELIEVE THE SUBSEA METHANE THAT *IS* MOST DEFINITELY IN THE SHALLOW ARCTIC WHERE IT HAS BEEN BEING RELEASED FOR YEARS NOW, ACCORDING TO MEASUREMENTS, WOULD LIKELY START TO COME OUT IN MUCH LARGER QUANTITIES AS THINGS WARN UP, AS DR WADHAMS DOES, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN IT COULD BE TOO LATE TO ACT BY NEXT SUMMER .

Because we've been lucky so far doesn't mean we'll continue to be !!!!!

Also, I don't see how anyone can look at the climate events that have happened in the US this Summer (life threatening heat in Texas and no grid or ac for 10 days TO 2 weeks) and now the second mega hurricane to land in Fla The one from about a week ago not only destroyed homes, highways (did you miss the videos of those being shredded to nothing?) bridges, ect and KILLED many people. Similar weather events have happened in continental Europe with the repeat devastating flooding (in some places post-drought) coming to mind. Then there are the people who've for years now been living their lives on the run from fires and/or in fear of them on the US West Coast at least part of the year, etc, etc

When I have to stop working outdoors and in my barn because of significantly risen & steadily rising  temperatures and massively growing biting insect populations that have given me now PERMANENT rashes on my arms  (rising heat and multiplying biting insects being things everyone here in rural upstate NY are feeling) and i can no longer care for 20 some goats , half of whom I can't sell and may have to call animal control on myself that constitutes an emergency and I'm sure there are other people ceasing to work outdoorsfrank;ly because of the same. When it's dangerously hot for the 1/3 of Americans who work outdoors and they quit , will some people be made into slaves who have to work outdoors? Does that constitute an emergency ?

I was ready to see SRM used YEARS AGO because it was already an emergency , and I'm still ready to see it (provided if it's SAI that it won't, for example destroy the ozone) and anything else that will really make a difference used and paid for - ie methane oxidation , CO2 removal , ocean seeding etc .

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/MN2PR12MB42553C1BFD2CA1B12F123673A57E2%40MN2PR12MB4255.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Robert--A question.

So, Hurricane Helene severely affected some, required a lot of those not so badly affected to volunteer to do a lot of helping of others, has led to the closing of a key manufacturing plant for blood plasma or something similar that over the region is leading to postponement of elective surgery, and the images are being shown all over the country and having a psychological effect as well as leading the political candidates to go to the region. And now we are about to have a second such hurricane that will do lots of damage. Its not clear to me that US society would do well if we start averaging one such huge event (wildfires are another type of such response; vectorborne disease might be another). So, I'm just not convinced were as far from enough disruption to be really serious concern for internal political stability. So, I'd think it really is approaching an emergency situation as far as mental health and stability are concerned. What think you about all this--we are a large nation and the media over whole country convey the situation of the few really hurting in ways that make us all feel it.

Best, Mike

[H simmens]

Hi Robert,

As someone who along with a colleague got our local government of over 1 million people to declare the second climate emergency on the planet in 2017, behind only a small Australian community, and having written as you know a book on Climate language and vocabulary I have thought a whole lot about the framing and consequences of emergency language and emergency action. 

This is not the time to go into detail so I will make just two brief points:

First is that no government or collective enterprise should consider declaring an emergency unless those in charge at the time have a detailed plan explained to their constituents of what they will do, why and for how long under the emergency declaration. it must be time bound as no emergency can be indefinite. 

Even though there are over now 1000 communities, states and even nations covering I believe close to 20% of the worlds population that have declared climate emergencies I doubt whether any more than a tiny proportion of those entities meet that criterion. 

Ideally what I would like to see and I don’t know if it’s happened anywhere in the world is that a government for example would declare a climate emergency for five years during which time it will have given the highest priority attention to achieving its Climate goals- some combination of mitigation,  adaptation and local or even regional cooling. 

After that five year period the climate emergency would transition to a ‘declaration of climate urgency’, after assurance that the programs, budgeting, administrative capacity and all the necessary elements of an ongoing climate program were in place. 

I could say much more but I’ll leave it there. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Oct 8, 2024, at 11:25 PM, 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/d8eae5ae-257a-4ba9-b08e-f3b1e76f5f8f%40comcast.net.

[Doug Grandt]

Good morning, Night Owls!

It seems to me our current thinking is on the wrong track, and like two trains on parallel tracks leaving the station, we are actually heading to the wrong destination unless we change our thinking, and hop onto the open minded critical thinking paradigm. The emergency is in our heads—our ego, conceit, arrogance and hubris.

We need to shake things up so the ones driving the train reassess … REASSESS!

I keep coming back to this …

I’m getting very close to confronting Bill McKibben and his circle of ERA dogma spewers.

Perhaps there is a diplomatic way …

G’nite!

Doug 

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Oct 9, 2024, at 12:26 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Robert,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/C9EFD8AA-96BB-4D7B-AB39-CEDEFAA50ED1%40gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Mike

I think that the media are largely irrelevant in determining whether it's yet a true emergency.  What really matters is people's lived experience and especially the financial impacts they suffer.  A certain amount of inconvenience is OK.  Indeed, if it's suffered by enough people it can even build community spirit.  But once large numbers of homes or livelihoods are threatened that's when it becomes a real emergency.  I'm not even sure that a few deaths from a storm are that critical.  People are dying all the time and it's easy to brush of 100 dead here or there from a hurricane or wildfire as being 'just one of those things'.  It obviously isn't for those directly affected, but they are still tiny in number compared to the total population of the state or nation.  And for those living in so far relatively untouched regions, such as Europe, I see no real evidence of what I'd call a climate emergency.  Lots of media coverage and academic and even political interest, but emergency, I don't think so.

So when you say that the media help the whole country feel the pain being suffered by the few, I wonder whether that's just your personal heightened awareness and humanity misrepresenting the feelings are the great majority, most of whom are too busy with their own lives to give much of thought to any of this, and care about it even less.

I'm sorry, Mike, but if people really did feel it the way you suggest, the political dynamics would be radically different.  It's still all about the economy and and that's all about growth.  Anyone who really believes that we're going to grow our way out of this impending catastrophe, is in cloud cuckoo land.  Only when that penny drops will things really change and I wouldn't place a bet on that happening soon enough to actually avert the catastrophe.

Quite how this advances the emergency vs. urgency point, I'm not sure, but anything that gives me an opportunity express how dire I consider our predicament, makes me feel better even if, as is almost certainly the case, it makes no difference to how events are likely to unfold.

Regards

Robert

[Clive Elsworth]

Robert, Mike, and All

 

In September last year I worked hard – like it was an emergency – to get Franz’s and my submission ready to NASEM for their appraisal of atmospheric removal techniques. Unfortunately, it now appears they completely ignored all the materials I sent them. At the time I thought we finally had a chance for qualified atmospheric chemists to assess our proposals and allocate funding as appropriate, and it would have given our technologies the recognition they deserved. I won’t be doing that again any time soon.

 

We can’t operate in emergency mode all the time. Instead, I think it’s better to see it as a marathon, not a sprint.

 

The important thing for me is plain old scientific understanding, based on reasonably reliable information. For example, does anyone ask why the Chinese don’t use their abundant supplies of solar panels and wind turbines to power the crushing of the millions of tons rock needed to release the metal ores that subsequently need to be refined to produce the copious metals, glass and concrete they need to produce more, plus the batteries and EVs we crave? Why do they instead rely on cheap energy from coal to power that process? Could it be that the much-vaunted energy transition to renewables is just a big fat lie? I suggest the Chinese deploy just enough renewables in China for the marketing needed to set an example to the rest of the world to keep us buying more of the same from them – at their fabulously low prices – that increase CO2 emissions further.

 

I’m not saying renewables don’t have a place, because clearly, they do in some areas. But I don’t see any point in us running round like headless chickens doing things we (humanity) erroneously think will improve the situation, when all we’re doing is making it worse. Bottom line: It’s more important to work smart than work hard. For us in HPAC that would mean promoting and explaining our various cooling solutions and pointing out misinformation and misunderstandings ON A GRAND SCALE, as Wouter has said. For that we clearly need to get better at raising money.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c1bae9e2-cb62-4d02-abf8-d7c9ffa80d9b%40gmail.com.

[Dana Woods]

Robert,

As if highways utterly disintegrating  and 10s of 1000s of (uninsured) homes destroyed or damaged leaving people in a state of extreme trauma isn't an emergency - *So far the death toll from Helene is 227* (that's not "a few" people)  and it's expected to be considerably higher as the search continues

Also, according to this article “Helene may be the largest uninsured loss we have seen from a landfalling hurricane because of the widespread devastation in areas where flood insurance take-up rates are so low,” https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/hurricane/2024/10/07/countless-property-owners-in-helenes-path-likely-to-learn-difference-between-floodare-about-to-learn/75481667007/

You said

I suggest that references to the 'climate emergency' are counterproductive because for most people it isn't an emergency.  They're lives are not yet badly affected by climate change.  So claiming it to be an emergency when people's lived experience is that it isn't, sends all the wrong messages and probably turns them off from really caring about what's happening.

If OTOH the narrative were reframed around climate change requiring urgent action might that not not only be a more honest representation of the situation, but also be one that allows a more informed and rational debate about what needs to be done by when and by whom.

Just a thought that if it has any merit, needs a lot more work to develop into something useful.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that you I or my uncle  claiming the climate is an emergency turns people off from caring about what's happening?
That sounds a bit "Michael Mannish" to me and i don't see him motivating people or governments to take the right action

You say "Just a thought that if it has any merit, needs a lot more work to develop into something useful."

I say - WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME WITH SEMANTICS?

And again, people are not so selfish as you perceive them to be . People in other parts of the country care when people's lives are ruined in other parts, and in other countries *IF* if they're  covered by media they're exposed to, which it typically they're not due to the nature of the mainstream media to fail (purposefully) to cover such things.  Also, for example, on top of that, people here (upstate NY) even see signs of a crisis /when they can't step out their door without being attacked by a cloud of visciously biting insects and when all of a sudden we have a whole Summer of uncomfortably hot days in the 80s and at times up to 90 , when two years ago we had a few days up to 80 (and people were shocked even then) and typically moreso if they're older and don't have as much heat and sun tolerance (ie the present majority of the US population)

Also you're claiming Europe has been largely untouched by the climate crisis ?! Two thirds of Spain alone has been virtually washed away by flooding over the last two years , as well as other countries in continental Europe (I haven't kept up with the all of the exact and countless global manifestations of Hell of Earth the last couple of years ) but here are some articles about it. If I was in the mood to search I'd find the interview with Dr Wadhams last year, replete with footage of the area of Italy he lives in becoming a hell scape with houses and businesses being washed into the river  after severe flooding post a prolonged drought . That was the first interview in which I saw him say, basically that his conclusion is "Well, perhaps the Earth will simply continue to become hotter and hotter such that it can no longer support human life"

I maintain that if  people say they don't see the climate emergency as a priority it's in large part because they're  so busy and stressed struggling to survive week to week in an ever more predatory capitalist society , while the wealthy are temporarily shielded from the consequences , or because they're conservatives with a low IQ some of whom believe the government and wealthy are deliberately causing a climate crisis (not sure how many of those there are but we do have some in the US Congress)

https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2024/europe-saw-widespread-flooding-and-severe-heatwaves-2023-report#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20Europe%20as%20a%20whole%20saw%20around,in%2016%25%2C%20they%20exceeded%20the%20%E2%80%98severe%E2%80%99%20flood%20threshold.

https://wtop.com/europe/2024/09/deadly-flooding-in-central-europe-made-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c1bae9e2-cb62-4d02-abf8-d7c9ffa80d9b%40gmail.com.

[Dana Woods]

Youtube video Peter Wadhams post 2023  flooding in Northern Italy . Watch 'til the end and you'll see him , albeit "cheerfully" and unusually  suggest we simply won't be able to exist beyond a point https://youtu.be/kTfXS047GpU?si=sNcdSXZotlzUNKEI

[Dana Woods]

"Central Italy"

[Robert Chris]

Hi Clive

Do I detect a note of exasperation, perhaps even disillusionment there?  What you're saying, particularly about the canny Chinese, fits the narrative that the only thing that is really valued is economic growth and that obliges us to keep buying more stuff.  Making and distributing, and in many cases using, that stuff requires a lot of manufactured energy.  There is very longstanding correlation between consumption and energy supply.  This correlation survives by accommodating the equally long-standing increases in energy efficiency - there's no escape from Jevons paradox.  Assumptions that we're on the cusp of an extraordinary increase in productivity that will break this long-term correlation and defeat Jevons have so far not been realised.  It isn't clear why they ever will be.

The other trick is to reduce carbon intensity by using less fossil fuel and more renewables.  Well, we know that that transition isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.

So, Clive, the bottom line is, that the only way to reduce fossil fuel consumption is to reduce consumption of goods and services by which I mean reduce absolute consumption.  There are two ways to do that - lower consumption per capita and/or a lot fewer people.  Now who's going to vote for either of those?

The doomster view is that Gaia will sort this out in a way that's not going to be to the liking of most people.  But after the correction, things will stabilise and begin to pick up again, so it's not all bad news.  The Promethean view is that technology will come to our rescue and there'll be no really bad news.

Take your pick.

Regards

Robert

[Robert Chris]

Hi Clive

I should have added that if you really want a sense of how unhinged people have become, have another look at the attachment to my email on 8 Oct subject State of the climate report 2024 sent at 22:58.

Regards

Robert

[Oswald Petersen]

Dear Clive,

 

I had a similar experience with NASEM. Not that I wrote a paper, but I sent them two emails asking to be admitted to their team regarding AMR. They never answered.

 

I asked Rob Jackson why this is the case, and he said that NASEM is really very US focused.

 

This is a strange behavior IMHO.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1a0201db1a8e%245603cf10%24020b6d30%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Oswald Petersen]

Hi Robert,

 

well spoken.

 

You might want to add a sentence regarding distribution of goods. It would probably be about right to say that 90% of the climate crisis is caused by the goods produced for 10% of the global population. Henceforth it would be good to tax consumption of luxury goods (everything but basic food, heating, school, health…) heavily, and funnel the revenue into climate saving technology.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/ae447b4c-68bf-4742-aa16-2a068ee884eb%40gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Hi Robert

 

Yes, I feel exasperation, death of hope, and sour grapes. ☹

 

You give us a difficult choice – the doomster view or the Promethean. Clearly, the doomster view is already coming true, and the Promethean (SRM) is being killed at birth. And yes, those views in your table (attached again here) are not grounded, but no surprise to me.

 

My own view of a sustainable end goal for planet Earth is of taxing the externalities to pay for their clean-up. But obviously there’s a long way to go to get to that, because it would require unprecedented international cooperation to overcome the international tragedy of the commons. The hope I see is of the growing alliance of maritime trading nations forming strong treaties, i.e. with appropriate penalties for violation. (Maritime trading nations = the Western world, including Japan, Australasia etc.) The problem is the other nations, which are either continental empires (Russia, China) or continental tribes and countries that have only ever squabbled.

 

I suggest those of us from the maritime trading nations have somewhere deep in our social DNA the principles of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, i.e. win-win cooperation. Without that, for everyone else, the default is win-lose at best, i.e. life is a zero-sum game. I found this interview of Sarah Paine instructive, in which she explains how negative sum games are common in continental empires, in which it’s best to ensure that the other side loses more:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcVSgYz5SJ8  She is Professor of History and Strategy at the Naval War College. The video comments are adulatory.

 

Clive

[Tom Goreau]

Tax destructive “bads” to pay for essential “goods”: that the basis of the original carbon tax proposal (attached):

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/005701db1adc%248f2f9870%24ad8ec950%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Robert Chris]

Tom

You're absolutely right that the externalisation of environmental costs in the price of fossil fuel energy needs to be rectified.  However they key questions are what might trigger the political moves necessary to achieve that and then, what might ensure that the funds raised are directed towards environmentally sound tropical development.

What makes this all especially challenging is that apart from political myopia, there is an inconvenient inconsistency at the heart of such moves.  If the FF tax is effective, it will reduce the amount of FF consumed and that will reduce the tax yield.  Redirecting the tax funds to tropical environmental development will deny those funds to other parts of the economy.  It cannot be assumed that the contraction this would cause would be offset by the growth in tropical environmental development.  Indeed, it seems likely that it wouldn't and therefore the FF tax would result in lower economic growth.  This will trigger negative sentiment in capital markets that will depress asset values, deter investment, increase unemployment and calls on social welfare.  This leads to a negative feedback in public finances that causes a lot of pain in a lot of places.  The higher the FF tax and the more effective it is in reducing FF consumption, the more the feedback pain.  That's why it isn't going to happen.

Any environmentally sound action that might negatively impact economic growth will not be taken by democratically elected politicians. (Note 'might', it doesn't need to, the fear that it might is enough.)  Arguments that investment in that environmental action are necessary to maintain the ecosystems on which Earth-bound life depends, will continue to be largely ignored until their negative consequences have been registered in significant and sustained loss of value in capital markets.  It will also depend on the widespread daily lived experience in the developed nations already having deteriorated sufficiently (food shortages, power outages, and general reduction in the quality and reliability of publicly financed services etc.) that people recognise that this isn't just another passing hurricane or wildfire, this is now a permanent diminution in living standards and growing uncertainty about how and when things might recover.

Those of us in this bubble might find this lack of engagement totally incomprehensible but you only need to look in two places to understand how rare we are.  These two place are election rhetoric and the popular press and news media.  How big a deal is climate change in any major election?  There are almost no votes in climate change because any sane climate change policy regime would entail some really unpopular actions.  In the popular press, while there might be increasing coverage of the storms and wildfires, this just illustrates the first law of the news media that sensationalism sells.  Where's the coverage of what needs to be done to stop it all getting a lot worse and pressure to bring that about?

Finally, despite this bleak outlook, we have to keep plugging away, doing what we can to raise awareness and provide alternative pathways.  Miracles do happen, but they often need a helping hand.

Regards

Robert

[Anderson, Paul]

To get into the media,  “Sensationalism sells”.   Perhaps we need to be sensational.   

 

In politics, “Talk about me, good or bad, talk about me” .   Refreeze the arctic.    Avoid the pain of fossil fuel taxes/changes.   

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud     Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Website:    https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.                       

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of 'Robert Chris'
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 7:39 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk; 'Michael MacCracken' <mmac...@comcast.net>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Emergency vs. Urgency

 

This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/d8b04480-fd6a-4558-91c3-ee865f9a25b1%40gmail.com.

[Dana Woods]

Clive ,

Did the National Academies respond to you at all ?

I wonder what it took and how long it took for them to recommend research of SRM. Did David Keith et al/The Keith Group  approach them to ask them to do so? (I'm guessing yes. All 3 of the the specific things  recommended be studied are things the Keith Group are studying/ have studied/are now promoting ) and if so do you know or can you find out how long it took NASEM to respond by recommending to the US government that money be allocated for their study?

Maybe this is a dumb question but does the political climate in the US have any bearing on what NASEM does? eg would they think that US involvement and money spending in the war in Ukraine and then in Gaza would leave little energy and funding for science funding and therefore be waiting for a better time to advocate for yet more study of geoengineering?

Also why do you say SRM is dead before it's been born ? Maybe it needs more proof of popular support before governments will act on it (though I do think funding the military industrial complex may be one barrier to funding geoengineering the way it needs to be funded). Even an online petition asking for funding of either types , signed by even few 100 Americans might help

(?) I think there are a lot more average Americans who would support more study and field testing of both than Americans on city councils in places like Alameda Ca (and Alameda County for example, where simple testing of MCB was nixed by the city council  (I actually sort of know who "runs" Alameda County ,or I did five or six years ago when I lived in Ca and was in touch with "Bernie Sanders people" and/or post Bernie Sanders people, and had them on my facebook friends list, at least some of the most active people in the Democratic Party there and I can tell you they're rather  "stayed" leftists, seemingly some with quite stubborn personalities and not necessarily very open-minded (or hearted) people (I hope they don't see this, lol) .....They are not the average American nor, probably, even the average Ca Bay area person .

I saw recently, by the way, David Keith say somewhere that in the future they'd simply have to be less open about (obviously harmless) field testing

I should ask him, I suppose, but Peter Feikowsky stated that it was a given that neither the government nor the public would pay for the technologies you both support. Does he expect wealthy people to fund them and if so does he expect them to fund them indefinitely?. He maintained that wealthy people were just "waiting for cover" from other people before they made large donations to his work /foundation..

Thanks for your efforts !

Regards, Dana

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB5932385E19DDAE4300B76608DB782%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Dana Woods]

ps please forgive my abuse of commas

[Dana Woods]

And "Friends of the Earth" should get letters too, to the effect that "I used to support you and even made donations to you but due to your destructive and egregious stand against solar energy management (or is it all geoengineering) I can no longer do so"

[Sev Clarke]

Robert C,

Regarding your sentence below that I have bolded, good policy and actions may not be as unlikely or as unpopular as you suppose - once good advocacy and research makes their costs and risk:risk effects clear and once the costs of further ineffective action have been appreciated by those stressed by even more global warming. This nursery rhyme on indifference may be instructive https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/4779/what-was-the-origin-of-the-nursery-rhyme-dont-care-was-made-to-care . Consider these four of my contributions to our 14 proposed DCC methods.

Buoyant Flakes are presently under investigation and testing by five international research groups with early lab results that look most prospective. Small, gated trials might be conducted or governed by several coastal states in their oligotrophic EEZ waters with transparent, public scrutiny by way of independent MRV scientists and the new PACE satellites, see https://pace.gsfc.nasa.gov/ . Once key publics and decision-makers were sufficiently convinced of the extent of the albedo cooling and marine biomass regeneration caused at each experimental site by the additional phytoplankton, and of the safety, sustainability and low cost of flake application, extending the use of the method might be expected to occur, if with caution and further optimisation.

 

Assuming that the Fiztop method of introducing long-lived (months) nanobubbles into the sea surface microlayer could be shown to be techno-economically feasible, tests might then show the cumulative amount of extra solar radiation energy that could be reflected back into space by the brightened water per year by a typical Fiztop unit in tropical waters. The down-current albedo effects might extend hundreds of kilometres. As complementary method benefits would be important, it should be noted that the surfactants released by the additional concentrations of flake-nutriated phytoplankton would substantially extend the life of the Fiztop nanobubbles, whilst the additional ocean oxygenation provided by the bubbles would help marine life. Note, that nanobubbles are already present in the ocean from breaking waves and that laboratory tests have shown them to be net beneficial to marine life.

Seatomiser action, when tested locally for techno-economic net benefits, would serve to cool, overheated surface ocean waters by evaporation by increasing the surface area of the ocean by several orders of magnitude (hence reducing extreme weather events, coral bleaching and ocean stratification), whilst the additional cloud cover generated by the humidified and nucleated air should provide albedo increments and a modicum of precipitation control far downwind - the benefits of which might extend to regenerating tropical forests and their wondrous, evapotranspiration effects. Atmospheric methane removal by sublimated iron salt aerosols (ISA) might be another desirable co-benefit, and one which was, perhaps, more easily quantifiable and thus remunerated, by the use of methane-sensing satellites.

Testing how rapidly sea-ice could be thickened using the Ice Shields method might readily be done economically, and in parallel with, other methods now being tested by our scientific colleagues. Scaling up to testing using power to a floating, satellite pumping station would take a little more effort; whilst using a cold-adapted, floating wind turbine to provide the power might cost several million dollars. Whilst the main objective of such a method is to increase planetary albedo by refreezing much of the polar and some sub-polar regions, a full techno-socio-econo-ecological assessment would be a major undertaking, so numerous are the prospective opportunities and effects.     

Sev 

thy-planet-ac...@googlegroups.com>

unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/d8b04480-fd6a-4558-91c3-ee865f9a25b1%40gmail.com.

[Dr. Robert Chris]

Hi Sev

I agree but they are two seriously big prior conditions.  At the moment SRM technologies are seen as solutions looking for a problem.  It is simply not accepted that SRM is necessary because, it is argued, we have decarbonisation, and that done at sufficient scale and speed renders SRM redundant.  There will be no change in that perception of any form of SRM intervention until the penny drops that decarbonisation isn't a viable solution.  That penny will not drop any sooner by virtue of all the wondrous potential SRM technologies.  Their existence doesn't make decarbonisation any more or less effective.  Decarbonisation has to fail on its own merits before there'll be any enthusiasm for any kind of SRM.  Then the SRM floodgates will open, but not before.  The big question is whether that will all happen soon enough that SRM will by then still be a viable solution.  There will come a time when unabate climate change will have achieved such momentum that all the SRM we could manage won't be sufficient to stop or reverse it.

Regards

Robert

[Dana Woods]

I bet a WHOLE LOT of people think , at this point , already think  that decarbonization isn't going to happen in time, if at all  (my opinion , which I realize is irrelevant to some though not all of you), THAT probably would and does have an effect on people's attitude towards MCB, SAI, methane oxidation, etc etc . As I've said when I talk to people face to face , from Republicans to progressives about MCB and SAI (a couple even work for the Nature Conservancy) they're open to them, and I'm not the type of person people falsely "yes."  I typically mention there are questions that need to be answered , such as, for me,  would SAI affect the ozone layer and how? and would either SAI or MCB affect primary production and I say that developers are also concerned about doing things safely.

I do think those questions need to be answered, if possible, BEFORE we appeal to the public at large and we all need to be aware of the answers . I know SAI developers don't believe it would hurt the ozone but I , for example, personally need to see published science convincing me of that, and any there may be about photosynthesis. The most common negative reaction on the internet to SRM is "But it will block the sun and crops/food wont grow ! " It's a legit concern and we should all be able to respond .

How many and which environmental groups are opposed to SRM or geoengineering and/or study or field testing of anyway? and of those how many would *actively* oppose at least simple field experiments? I thought I had read over a year ago that Union of Concerned Scientists was pro-studying SRM but can't find that now, but instead , arguments for "public debate" before even field testing is done written in 2020 and nothing after that

Again, I'm glad that some developers apparently now plan on doing basic field testing without making it public !!

Cheers, Dana

--
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/8c7ec307-d3ff-4e87-b6ab-f33c965c4501%40gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Dana

 

I don’t know the answers to your questions.

 

And I probably should not have said SRM is being killed at birth, because I don’t have eyes on every single project and government or scientific paper on the subject. Forgive me, it was a knee jerk response to the onslaught of reports from opposition groups, who are busy banning well-meaning planetary cooling interventions.

 

I’m left wondering is if these groups feel any responsibility for the 100s of people killed in the two hurricanes to hit Florida recently. $50 billion is the estimated cost of Milton alone (FT, today). And these are only the climate impacts that have received airtime. What about the ecosystem destruction? And what about all the other climate impacts over the rest of the world this year?

 

I’d say the impact of these anti-geoengineering idealists (f***wits) –  who deliberately inflict a chilling effect on the already underfunded efforts of innumerable scientists and engineers – is comparable to Putin’s effect on the world. In the end, it’ll immeasurably worse if self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms take the system out of our control.

 

But I hope you are right, along with the encouraging statements made by others in this group – that many ordinary folk around the world are open to the idea of restoring the Earth’s natural level of sun reflectivity (Rebrightening the Earth), and even enhancing it, while economically viable mechanisms to achieve net-zero are developed and enacted.

 

Clive

[Dana Woods]

Clive,

No apology necessary . I was being honest but also trying to lift your spirits. I've said before I believe that tragically we may possibly not have time left to save life on Earth but we may not be and  anyone who's trying to do so is much appreciated by me , especially if they're going beyond emissions reduction as a strategy

I was wondering, too, how much people in environmental groups opposing even small SRM field trials actually care about the people already suffering a  lot from global warming & climate change. Maybe asking that question in some venue (ideas anyone? letters to editors? ) would be a good response to Friends of the Earth's recent stated position . Some of these groups, and most definitely Friends of the Earth , who's internet page I was just skimming, maintains that it's main climate issue is "climate justice" and whoever is making their decisions is claiming to care the most about the least enfranchised people in the world.... and in this case that would be people in the tropics and the global South in general who are, in fact, dying of heat alone in 100s of 1000s , per year now ...

I'm also curious about exactly who makes policy for most environmental groups and if they typically include atmospheric scientists , oceanographers, physicists of any kind etc.maybe evolutionary biologists etc, or are the people making their decisions more just activist and maybe social sciences type people (?) I wonder, if they're not being guided much at all by the types of scientists who can understand the whole picture, could and should that be a point of argument for groups such as HPAC and/or developers ?

I know that Union of Concerned Scientists was founded by actual scientists and science students and  I assume they're still the active experts and  policy makers though I don't actually know . It seems odd I  can't find anything post 2020 from them about SRM (at which time they were asking for large global public debate before even small field tests were done :sigh:)

[Sev Clarke]

Hi Robert,

There is force in your observations, but I do believe that we can make headway with scientific TRM, SRM and CDR experiments, with cautiously scaling up field trials, and with less than global approvals. 

As this is a restricted audience, I feel free to bring up some of the hurdles I attribute to some of our DCC approaches - as well as some of our recent advances. We know that five research organisations are investigating the Buoyant Flakes method with early promising results. Ice thickening experiments are being conducted and the experimenters may soon be convinced that flood pumping, under-ice thickening, and yearly renewals or relocations of on-ice pump location throughout the Arctic have better alternatives. Similar recognitions might be made regarding the use of existing assets or proven designs for MCB, SAI and AMR, rather than requiring whole new fleets of unproven-design, ships or aircraft to carry out the tasks. 

Regarding local and regional approvals, the way has already been shown by ice thickening activities dating back to the sixties; with some of the new, satellite-based methods for independent and transparent MVR; by Dr. Dan Harrison’s group using seawater atomisation to try to prevent coral reef bleaching, and for bubble generators now improving maritime vessel efficiency and, possibly, with application as nanobubbles to ocean albedo enhancement and health. We can build on these and similar projects to gain groundswell social approval within existing laws, treaties and regulations. I suspect that once several such experiments and trials are seen to be successful, and without major and unmitigatable adverse side-effects, that even the COP will be persuaded to support them - particularly when no other option offers us haven.

Regards,

Sev

--
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/8c7ec307-d3ff-4e87-b6ab-f33c965c4501%40gmail.com.

[Oswald Petersen]

Hello Dana,

 

I think you are right in many ways.

 

IMHO SAI produces fear in people, just like myself, because it involves technology which emulates volcano eruptions. Who would want a constant volcano eruption? Now the Pro SAI people say: This is better than emission reduction alone (ERA). They may be right, but as you know by now there is a third alternative.

 

Regards

 

Oswald

Von: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Dana Woods
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Oktober 2024 22:33
An: Dr. Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>; Dr. Thomas Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [HPAC] Emergency vs. Urgency

 

I bet a WHOLE LOT of people think , at this point , already think  that decarbonization isn't going to happen in time, if at all  (my opinion , which I realize is irrelevant to some though not all of you), THAT probably would and does have an effect on people's attitude towards MCB, SAI, methane oxidation, etc etc . As I've said when I talk to people face to face , from Republicans to progressives about MCB and SAI (a couple even work for the Nature Conservancy) they're open to them, and I'm not the type of person people falsely "yes."  I typically mention there are questions that need to be answered , such as, for me,  would SAI affect the ozone layer and how? and would either SAI or MCB affect primary production and I say that developers are also concerned about doing things safely.

Cheers, Dana

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKum48vXuW1gULhBRKLV25L4OFyc0da2NNs_daDG93%3DLRL59wg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk]

Dana

 

Our main fear of SAI (Franz, me and Oswald) is its effect on tropospheric oxidation. We all take it for granted that when we open a window fresh air comes in. The Earth has an unusually high concentration of oxygen in its atmosphere, which means UV creates oxidative radicals that oxidise all kinds of substances such as dimethyl sulphide from phytoplankton (the smell of the sea), sulphur dioxide, NOx (comes from Lightning Strikes and combustion), methane, carbon monoxide and smoke particles which come from forest fires, hydrogen sulphide (putrid smelling and highly poisonous) which comes from microbes on submerged rotting material. H2S is a constant problem for oilmen because it’s contained in crude oil and is corrosive.

 

What we fear is that the partial blocking of UV by a long-term SAI intervention would reduce the removal of these substances from the troposphere, most of which are warming agents.

 

oxidation also converts the smell of vegetation, mainly Isoprene but also Pinetene the smell of pine Forrest into secondary organic aerosol particles, which are major CCN for terrestrial cloud formation. Would an SAI intervention make darker terrestrial clouds? Would rainfall patterns be affected? I don’t know.

 

We are not convinced that sufficient work has been carried out to ensure that the oxidative capacity of the troposphere would be minimally affected by an SAI intervention.

 

Clive 

[Oswald Petersen]

Hi Clive, Dana,

 

that’s exactly right.

 

I also fear that SAI would cause considerable political upheaval. Darkening the sun is something many people feel strongly against.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

Von: Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Oktober 2024 12:55
An: Dana Woods <danaj...@gmail.com>; Dr. Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>; Dr. Thomas Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [HPAC] Emergency vs. Urgency

 

Dana

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Oswald--A 1% change (equivalent to half a CO2 doubling) would be very hard to discern given the variability through the day, weather, season, etc. We've had reductions of that amount by volcanic eruptions that no one has noticed. What on might notice is a bit more colorful sunrises and sunsets, but given the range of what can happen with the weather that also would likely be hard for people to notice.

Mike

[Tom Goreau]

It already happened due to air pollution from fossil fuels!

 

It reduced surface pan evaporation measurements made at every meteorological station globally.

 

It’s called global dimming.

[Oswald Petersen]

Hi Mike,

 

I absolutely agree. The political upheaval I refer to will however com BEFORE any real change occurs. People will try all they can to prevent SAI from happening.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2b0faf26-652b-4f33-a6b6-83fdc48ef65d%40comcast.net.

[David Price]

Hi Folks - including Dana Woods

To add to Mike’s comments, I am keen to correct the apparent common misperception that a minuscule reduction in solar radiation due to wide-scale SAI would negatively affect plant productivity. 

The rate of photosynthesis at the top of any vegetation canopy is dependant on both direct “beam” radiation (from the solar disk) and on “diffuse” radiation (from the sky—including transmission through and between clouds). It is well known (and should be obvious) that plants still grow quite happily on cloudy days — when the ratio of diffuse to beam radiation is much higher than it is on clear sunny days.

In fact under some conditions plant productivity will be higher on cloudy days! There are two reasons for this. One is that cloud cover reduces surface heating, including the heating of exposed foliage. The lower temperature reduces respiratory losses from leaves, roots and branches—all of which release CO2 due to metabolism—plant respiration approximately doubles with a 10 C temperature increase. 

The second (less obvious) effect is that diffuse radiation penetrates deeper into plant (and) crop canopies where it is received by leaves that are partially or even completely shaded from the direct beam radiation. Even on sunny days some direct radiation is transmitted and reflected by the foliage — creating diffuse light deeper in the canopy. But cloudy conditions increase the average amount that penetrates below the top of the canopy. 

The overall impact of a slight reduction in direct solar radiation and a slight boost in the diffuse component, coupled with the general cooling effect, all due to SAI, would have a negligible effect on plant productivity — but it is quite possible that it would cause a slight increase in global annual primary production.

David 

From my cellphone

I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional Territory 

of the Secwépemc People

On Oct 12, 2024, at 8:36 AM, 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



[Dana Woods]

Hello all , I'm responding in order of comments and questions -

Greg - I don't remember where I saw that comment from David Keith about doing things less publicly but I don't talk to David (though I tried to ask him a bunch of questions about SAI years ago now which he didn't have time to answer) And it wasn't a comment made privately to someone else either. It was in some public or relatively public venue (and not in this group) I'm pretty sure he was talking about doing basic testing that wouldn't actually affect any living thing. Imo the opposition to such , and now having been directred against simple MCB field testing also, is extremely ignorant and dangerous so I'm all for it .

Oswald  , Mike ,Clive ,Tom and David (because it's easier to address you all at once) -I never said, Oswald, that *I* think SAI equates with "darkening the sun" nor even that *most* people would actually assume that, unless they're simple minded and/or take sensationalist media for granted  but photosynthesis is a legit concern - However with an adequate response such as that that Mike offered, and elaborated upon (and I think that Doug Mcmartin also offered an explanation that I can't remember well) any fears re photosynthesis can seemingly be put aside . As I said when I talk directly to people about SAI they are interested, not afraid, but Oswald, If I had your approach and told people ,erroneously , that it was going to block out the sun I'm sure I'd get a different response.

However an actual , apparently real and significant concern is that which Clive expressed about SAI interfering with oxidation (and that would as I understand include deliberate attempts to oxidize Methane which if that works in the Arctic especially, might possibly keep us from passing more tipping point and/or extinction if done in time) . What do SAI developers and supporters  have to say about this ??? Mike? Tom? David? Are you reading Doug M?

Thanks for the explanations everyone.

David would this explanation about sunlight apply as well to Marine Cloud Brightening also?  (I seem to remember comments from someone from many months ago from someone that MCB could harm photosynthesis whereas SAI wouldn't )

Any thoughts on the potential effect on the ozone layer ???

Tom are you arguing that SAI would have no more effect on oxidation , as described by Clive, than aerosols already in the atmosphere from industrial emissions ? or only  that it would have little effect on appearance of sunlight and the sky and on photosynthesis ?

I used to be strictly supportive of MCB but claims by some folks, especially John Nissan, that MCB isn't strong enough to do what needs to be done affected me and made me feel I should potentially be more open to SAI. I know that when Stephen Salter was still with us he tried very hard to make the argument that MCB could be sufficient . He was even so kind as to send me some personal emails to attempt to explain this, but having negligible math and science education I was unable to understand the debate and his emails .

I know too that there are other reasons why *if* SAI were safe for the ozone and didn't interfere with the things Clive mentioned it might be preferable because it could much more easily be used on a global scale (or so I've understood so far) and thus done so that it wouldn't cause extreme weather events in places it isn't being done

With MCB it seems there would be the question of how opposition to radiative forcing in a given part of the globe only would affect other parts of the globe

I'm sure African countries are afraid that selfish "westerners" /the global north would use any SRM to benefit only themselves, as basically been suggested by most media that's "covered" it , and is why they tend to be opposed to SRM

 

[Michael MacCracken]

A lot of questions here--this responds to only one:

There was an excellent talk yesterday (October 11) by Dr. Kelsey Roberts of LSU (Louisiana State University) in the NCAR Virtual Symposium on the effects of SAI (and some of CDR) on their effects and benefits on the marine environment; it was the first half of the hour long symposium. It is not yet posted, but I expect that it will be posted at https://sites.google.com/view/solargeo-symposium/home in the near future.

Mike MacCracken

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Dana--As a general response, the questions such as you raised are getting addressed as part of various GeoMIP studies and other studies, etc. And there is also research being done by those in African nations, etc. Getting into detailed and authoritative back and forths on all of this here is really asking a lot more than is likely possible and more appropriate for official assessment processes.

Mike MacCracken

On 10/12/24 5:36 PM, Dana Woods wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKum48ucc_fNOxeRoXmqBEefod1ELLQPydTd3UPoC6FwezXL8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dana Woods]

Thanks for responding Mike. I'm glad to hear that these questions are being researched and it's great that African nations are doing research. I just want to be as educated as I can be about these basic questions, partly so that if I or someone else brings up SRM topics and there are serious legit concerns about the technologies I can respond (ie to the best of my ability without understanding science and math language , which the average person likely isn't any more familiar with though some most definitely are)

And thanks for the link . I'll watch that when it's available

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Dana--If you want to read about some of the leading research, the other videos at that site might well also be of interest.

Mike

[Dana Woods]

PS Greg, I'm almost certain that comment by David Keith was made post the blocking of the MCB experiment by the Alameda Ca City Council and was in a publicly accessible media source.

It may likely have been in an article about  the blocking of the MCB test . I had been googling a lot about that when I found his comment.

[David Price]

HI Dana

I quick response to your question about MCB. Yes cloud formed by MCB would boost the ratio of diffuse to beam radiation, but I am sure the overall interception of incoming solar would be much greater at the local scale (100s of square kilometers?) than would occur with SAI spread over an entire hemisphere. However here are couple of caveats.

1. I was thinking about effects of SAI at global scale on terrestrial vegetation. As MCB would take place mainly over open ocean and some distance from continental coastlines, it would have minimal effect on photosynthesis of terrestrial ecosystems.

2. I don't claim any expertise on ocean photosynthetic primary production. However, I know it occurs mainly in surface waters and that globally it is a relatively small fraction of terrestrial primary production. Moreover, within open ocean, I am pretty sure the primary producers are almost exclusively phytoplankton (if and when they are present in large quantities). SAI or MCB might have some impact on the quantity of light entering the ocean water surface, but the attenuation of solar radiation within the water is similar to the attenuation of light in a forest canopy -- except that most of the attenuation will be due to solid particles in the water (including any planktonic organisms). My suspicion is that from the viewpoint of an average phytoplankton "individual" getting cast around in turbulent surface waters, the reduction in solar radiation arriving at the ocean surface due to MCB (or SAI) would be completely swamped by the major reduction in radiation intensity that occurs within the top 20 metres or so of seawater. I.e., zero perceptible impact. I'd be interested to see if anyone disagrees with me.

Regards

David

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

I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional
Territory of the Secwépemc People

"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'.
It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting
them [the answers!] to a reality-check, thus avoiding the
human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
Terry Pratchett.

The wrath of God will destroy those who destroy the Earth. Rev. 11:18

[Clive Elsworth]

Mike

 

Regarding suppressing the atmosphere’s oxidative capacity to remove methane and other short-lived climate forcers it’s UV decreases of up to 40% that scare us, as indicated in this paper:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/9/11/432#:~:text=UVI%20decreased%20by%2019%25%20to%2020%25%20at%2030%20N%20and%2023%25%20to%2026%25%20at%2070%20N%3B%20and%20jO1D%20decreased%20by%2022%25%20to%2024%25%20at%2030%20N%20and%2035%25%20to%2040%25%20at%2070%20N

 

Clive

[Roger Arnold]

A 40% decrease in UV intensity in the lower troposphere -- if that's indeed what SAI at levels needed to limit global warming to a 2020 baseline as the study suggests -- certainly does sound scary. It's at least a yellow warning flag to proceed with caution. But it doesn't, by itself, disqualify SAI as a safe and effective cooling strategy. It's conceivable that a 40% reduction of UV flux in the lower troposphere might even be good. Past concerns about ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere that led to the banning of CFC refrigerants centered on fears of increased skin cancer rates due to increased levels of UV radiation. One of the results presented in the referenced analysis of SAI was that it would reduce the intensity of UV radiation in frequencies that can damage DNA. Giving the planet a thin, low SPF layer of sunscreen, maybe?

That's not to say that production of hydroxyl radicals and other oxidative species in the lower atmosphere isn't vitally important for cleansing the atmosphere of methane and other short term greenhouse gasses that would otherwise accumulate. And it's true that production of oxidative radicals is a photochemical process of UV light interacting with precursor species. But is the availability of UV photons the rate limiting factor? Or is it the availability of the precursor species? Or maybe something else? I don't know, but I do know that getting solid answers requires non-trivial research and modeling.

An analogy that might be easier to grasp for those not familiar with atmospheric chemistry and chemical engineering is plant fertilization. Farmers and serious gardeners understand that feeding a plant more of a particular nutrient with which it is already adequately supplied will not improve plant growth. Likewise, reducing the supply of a nutrient with which the plant is already oversupplied will not harm its growth. If 99.9% of UV photons are absorbed by something other than a reaction with a precursor that produces an oxidative radical, then reducing the UV flux by 40% is not going to have a noticeable effect. The availability of precursor species, not the availability of UV photons, will be the limiting factor for production of oxidative radicals.

Please note that I'm not asserting that the capacity of the atmosphere to oxidize short term greenhouse gases (e.g, methane) would not, in practice, be affected by a 40% reduction in the flux of UV radiation. Just saying that I don't think it's possible to know without rigorous modeling in a good atmospheric chemistry simulator. Maybe that's already been done. "What's already been done" is a vast field about which I know very little.

- Roger

--

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/074e01db1dac%24123c6550%2436b52ff0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Tom Goreau]

I’m pretty certain you can find all this in the literature, MANY complex chemical feedbacks have been extensively modelled.

 

Whether UV flux or chemical reactants are limiting factors depends on the elevation, chemical reaction, and the wavelength.

 

My PhD was on biogeochemical regulation of the ozone layer, but I’ve not worked in atmospheric chemistry research for decades and not up on current modeling, but gas-aerosol physical chemistry is more complicated than anybody can imagine, and new limiting reactions are constantly being proposed!

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Roger--Thanks for sending the article along. I did note they are running the high emissions scenario (RCP8.5) and aiming to offset all temperature increase starting from 2020 to 2080 (or something like that). Well, if we end up following the RCP8.5 scenario, we'll be in trouble for lots of reasons, not just reduced oxidative capacity. The Triad approach of HPAC argues also for accelerated mitigation--I don't think any of us support the notion of doing everything with climate intervention, no matter what type it is.

Best, Mike

[Michael MacCracken]

In that volcanic eruptions have been up more sulfur than is proposed I wonder what the effect has been of the reduced oxidative capacity. Has that been looked at? Does the methane concentration kick up after volcanic eruptions (at least in the hemisphere of the eruption)?

Best, Mike

On 10/13/24 6:55 PM, Roger Arnold wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAN%3D9PgmybR0i35dKNMTPrm45LNwnDcqEr6Giozjb14qww12myQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Good question Mike. Google AI says yes, by a small amount:

 

 

But tropospheric photochemistry would soon have recovered. What we fear is that after a large investment to produce aircraft capable of flying to the appropriate height in the stratosphere, that investors would lobby to see a return on their investment, and so methane levels (and other SLFCs) would continue to increase. Then when they realise it’s not working there would be no way (or very difficult) to avoid a catastrophic termination shock.

 

Franz suggests that this is what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction. A huge amount of soot and other material entered the atmosphere from vast coal seam fires ignited by the Siberian Trapps eruptions. That would have cooled the Earth but not catastrophically, because methane levels would have risen high. Then when the coal fires eventually burned out, the high methane levels would have warmed up the atmosphere and caused forest fires all over the globe. That interpretation is consistent with the geological record.

 

Roger – good point about precursors. The main precursor of ·OH radicals is supposed to be tropospheric ozone (O₃) and water vapour:

O₃ + hv  à  O₂ + ·O

·O + H₂O  à 2·OH

We have been suggesting that sub-micron cloud droplets are also a major source of ·OH radicals, but that remains to be measured, and then the influence of UV on that process also ought to be be measured.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1705fb19-001f-46e1-abfe-84ccb5475335%40comcast.net.