A Stratospheric Gamble

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

The "gamble" sets the anti-geoengineering tone of this article by Douglas Fox in the October issue of Scientific American.  The history has been well researched, and contains most of the usual opinions on stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).  There is a nice depiction of how SAI works at the atomic level.  But there's nothing about the stratospheric air circulation which is crucial for considering the aerosol lifetime.

There is a box showing the three main candidates for cooling intervention: SAI, Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) and Cirrus Cloud Removal (CCR).  In the main text, MCB is mentioned as a possible complement to SAI to provide specific local cooling.  SAI is considered to be the only realistic option.for rapid deployment at a global scale.  

Ken Caldeira (who is responsible for the termination shock idea) is quoted in a separate headline at the top of the third page, in bold letters:

"The most valuable experiment somebody could do now is one showing that there would be really horrible consequences."   

This is enough to scare anyone casually reading the article.

The article mentions some modelling suggesting that, with a quadrupling of CO2, SAI could produce scary changes in precipitation such as to affect the monsoons.  Although nobody in their right mind would suggest we'd ever get near a quadrupling of CO2, this unrealistic modelling is given great credence as showing a real danger from SAI.

SRM is contrasted with CDR. 

"SRM has a much higher chance than carbon removal of causing nightmarish unintended consequences.  Stratospheric injection by any country would affect the entire globe.  Done wrong, they could disrupt weather patterns and the lives of billions of people."

Here goes the scaremongering again.

The main focus of specific objection to SAI seems to be that it would shift the Intertropical Convergence Zone, depicted with a nice diagram.  This zone shifts towards the warmer hemisphere, e.g. northwards during the Northern Hemisphere summer.  SAI would affect this shifting.  But the zone will have shifted northward to the rapid warming of the Arctic; so this might be rectified by refreezing the Arctic.  However this is not mentioned. The idea of high latitude injection is mentioned, but then dismissed by somebody modelling injection at 30N because it might shift monsoons southward by about a hundred miles.  Wow, what a mistake! How misleading can you get!

In fact there is very little about the immediate benefits of SAI for cooling the planet: it could improve the lives of billions of people.  And there is nothing about the extreme urgency for cooling the Arctic due to tipping points there.  Arctic cooling could improve the lives of millions of people suffering from weather extremes!  

Cheers, John

[Gilles de Brouwer]

The article only presents a few options, but this is very simplistic.  A far better strategy might be possible.

It seems SAI Climate Modeling with random genetic algorithm (AKA machine learning) perturbations and rainfall constraints could find the best possible strategy that is much better than human intuitive trial and error...  Has this been attempted?  Here is what I found (still much to do):

Here they argue the same: 

https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/how-ai-can-help-counteract-climate-change/

Work started but still much to do:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stratospheric-Aerosol-Injection-as-a-Deep-Learning-Witt-Hornigold/a1aadd2486d3a9f353ac7efe5ceec15ad92b6163

"Stratospheric Aerosol Injection as a Deep Reinforcement Learning Problem

C. S. D. Witt, Thomas Hornigold
Published 17 May 2019
Environmental Science
ArXiv

TLDR
This work suggests treating SAI as a high-dimensional control problem, with policies trained according to a context-sensitive reward function within the Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) paradigm, which is believed to be the first application of DRL to the climate sciences.
Abstract
As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the use of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a form of solar geoengineering, is increasingly considered in order to artificially mitigate climate change effects. However, initial research in simulation suggests that naive SAI can have catastrophic regional consequences, which may induce serious geostrategic conflicts. Current geo-engineering research treats SAI control in low-dimensional approximation only. We suggest treating SAI as a high-dimensional control problem, with policies trained according to a context-sensitive reward function within the Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) paradigm. In order to facilitate training in simulation, we suggest to emulate HadCM3, a widely used General Circulation Model, using deep learning techniques. We believe this is the first application of DRL to the climate sciences."

https://www.semanticscholar.org/reader/a1aadd2486d3a9f353ac7efe5ceec15ad92b6163

"5. Conclusion and Outlook

We propose the study of optimal SAI control as a high-
dimensional control problem using a fast GCM emulator
and deep reinforcement learning.
We believe that DRL may become an important tool in the
study of SAI and other geoengineering approaches, such as
marine cloud brightening, over the next decade."

If and when an optimal strategy is found the governance can accept to trial, the next step would be scale up with step by step verification before continuing.

Gilles de Brouwer      

--
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/CACS_FxodzQjG%3Dhxtvz4JrWx-%3DpsPTC0beTrz5OY2MbXST-0%3DFg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Gilles,

Could you please briefly describe where we would get the dataset using which to train the AI?  We don't exactly have access to a few hundred Earth-like planets on which to run the experiment and collect the data.

I might be naive but for prediction even AI seems to need access to fundamental scientific mechanistic understanding, engineering process understanding, and climate response data, none of which exists for SAI.

Curiously,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAGQ2tEqymGM1N1mhvUN9VtT9JzxARShQx%3DfAyzDX9ffe3Jzh5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Ye, Gilles,

 

Artificial Intelligence could support a combination of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Marine Cloud Brightening.  Very low dose SAI could be combined with MCB deployed to optimise local weather conditions, cool the planet and learn from experience with AI.  Gradual information from this process, starting with field trials, would create the dataset needed for machine learning, alongside all the data from world meteorology.  MCB can use AI to target how best to cool air rising into the Hadley and Ferrel and Polar Cells - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#Latitudinal_circulation_features

 

Regards, Robert Tulip  

--
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/6ac47443-c2e6-c8d6-7acd-aa52bf91c186%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[daleanne bourjaily]

Hello Oswald,

You are right. Funding is all about risk appetite, whether by public or private parties.  SAI risk is unsellable.

MCB can start modestly. It is further along in development.  Simply grasping the concept of restoring albedo is difficult for policy makers but since the process can be halted it presents a lesser risk. And when proven it can be scaled.

The same can be said of other marine biomimicry initiatives to restore the climate. 

Best,

Dale Anne

Best,

Dale Anne

Op vr 22 sep. 2023 21:21 schreef oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>:

Hello John,

 

I am afraid that SAI will not be implemented the way it is suggested. The main reason is : There is no suggested development path, which starts with a smallscale solution which has some benefits and evolves into something bigger over time until it reaches the SAI scale. No government nor enterprise will start a large, risky climate intervention before such development has taken place and proven that the risks are manageable. Demanding it may even prove counter-productive in that it provokes a complete moratorium.    

 

If albedo management proves at a small scale, then maybe such a development in the direction of SAI can become thinkable. The best would be to support these small MCB ventures at the Great Barrier Reef and go from there, maybe with the concept of Stephen Salter as next step.

 

Just my 2 cents of course

 

Oswald

--

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/CACS_FxodzQjG%3Dhxtvz4JrWx-%3DpsPTC0beTrz5OY2MbXST-0%3DFg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/002401d9ed8a%2404dd44e0%240e97cea0%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Sev Clarke]

Folks,

Rather that either SAI or MCB, AI and modelling might better be used to determine the effects of ocean albedo enhancement (AE) using the ocean brightening effect of my Buoyant Flakes on radiative balance. These would be both more controllable and localisable than either SAI or MCB, and would require much less in the way of specialist shipping, cost and atmospheric particle size observation. Much of the MRV might be done using existing satellite imagery. Scaling up would also be far easier, and the potential criticism that the method did not also address the principal cause (atmospheric CO2 concentrations) would also be largely avoided.

See

[Achim Hoffmann]

Why? Why? Why?

 

Why does everything have to be a competition amongst all these technologies?

I really don’t get this. 

We are a minority amongst minorities.

We all realised climate change is a threat and we want to actively do something about it. – minority.

AND we all have realised that NetZero by itself will not do the trick and we need to actively address the topic of heat imbalance - massive minority amongst minority.

 

There is a lot of cash out there, cash is a commodity. It is not as if we are competing for the same scarce resource.

The fact that you might not be getting cash for it is NOT the fact someone else is telling a better cooling story.

 

It is because you are telling the wrong story to the wrong money sources.

 

A united front to drive the cooling topic, mutual support rather than constantly ripping into each other has a much bigger chance to get us somewhere.

 

All you need to do is to look at it from an investor perspective (yes, I used to be one of them) who reads all of this. They are confused. They are not tech savvy. All they see are mixed messages, a fragmented market. One group giving them a reason why NOT to invest into another group.

 

What they should be hearing is: Cooling is THE urgent solution and why that is, how much it will save. They need to get the point that they ask themselves, “OK, I get it,  how do we do this”. Then you can guide them slowly towards the what.  At the moment they are still stuck at the Why and all they hear are much more compelling stories about NetZero as everybody there is singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

 

 

 

From: 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 1:53 AM
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@gmail.com>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>
Cc: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Professor Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Hans van der Loo <hans.va...@iier.eu>; Wouter van Dieren | Inis Vitrin <wouter.v...@inisvitrin.nl>; Douglas Graham MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; Ellen Haaslahti <el...@operaatioarktis.fi>
Subject: Re: A Stratospheric Gamble

 

Folks,

 

Rather that either SAI or MCB, AI and modelling might better be used to determine the effects of ocean albedo enhancement (AE) using the ocean brightening effect of my Buoyant Flakes on radiative balance. These would be both more controllable and localisable than either SAI or MCB, and would require much less in the way of specialist shipping, cost and atmospheric particle size observation. Much of the MRV might be done using existing satellite imagery. Scaling up would also be far easier, and the potential criticism that the method did not also address the principal cause (atmospheric CO2 concentrations) would also be largely avoided.

See

--

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/22AE6682-8A75-4F16-AF32-B641B08C7291%40icloud.com.

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

 

Early AE pilots might well be included in the experiments being coordinated by Sir David’s CCR in various of the world’s oceans.

 

Cheers,

Sev     

.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0ec401d9ee07%2422fb8130%2468f28390%24%40rtulip.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
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/22AE6682-8A75-4F16-AF32-B641B08C7291%40icloud.com.

[Sev Clarke]

Achim,

The NOAC website we are designing will present most of our cooling technologies in the one place using the same criteria. This should allow potential funders, R&D groups, startups, government agencies and NGOs to assess which meet their requirements best. However, the experiments designed to establish proof of concept, feasibility, scalability, acceptability and potential profitability will all differ with regards to timeliness, cost and other factors. Interested parties should be able to choose which meet their needs best. SAI methods encounter pushback from many sources, so are less likely to receive support. MCB methods, including those of Stephen, myself, Dan Harrison and others are now being evaluated but will likely take more time to develop and deploy than will the several ocean fertilisation methods being considered. That is why some of us are pushing for these to be assessed first. The goal of our groups is the same - climate restoration/regeneration - but an element of competition, as well as cooperation, amongst methods and projects can have their advantages. Moreover, it is likely that we will need several methods to address this wicked problem.

Whilst we should not trash each other’s methods, constructive criticism should be useful before we go public. However, a united voice on the necessity for direct cooling methods is highly desirable, as you say.

Sev  

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/LO6P123MB6613DAA44E53BEBB5EA4DC99BAFDA%40LO6P123MB6613.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Sev, do you think the London Protocol places a higher barrier to entry for Buoyant Flakes or for MCB?  I agree with you that AI should consider all cooling technologies.  That will help measure and define their possible path to market and cooling return on investment.  It is a matter of how long it will take for each method to adequately prove its safety and effectiveness, akin to a pharmaceutical drug trial.  The climate currency should be impact on radiative forcing.  Regards, Robert Tulip

 

From: 'Sev Clarke' via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 10:53 AM
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@gmail.com>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>

--
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/22AE6682-8A75-4F16-AF32-B641B08C7291%40icloud.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Dale Anne,

It is interesting psychology why so many reputable scientists, like Ken Caldeira quoted in the article, seem far more frightened by the possibility of mimicking the cooling of volcanoes than they are by committing the young people of today to a hell of weather extremes, crop failures, and sea level rise. 

Even while presenting themselves as dispassionate scientists, these scientists have a genuine fear of SAI and have convinced themselves that SAI is high risk, without much evidence.  They would love to see evidence of high risk, to rationalise their fear: this is the giveaway of Caldeira which I quoted.   Their fears are unjustified.  As Mike MacCracken said, when HPAC was discussing the Climate Overshoot's Commission report last Thursday: (i) the high risks that they often talk about do not appear when volcanoes inject huge quantities of SO2 into the stratosphere; and (ii) the effect of volcanic SO2 is well treated by climate models.  But nevertheless ozone depletion and monsoon disruption remain legitimate concerns.  Both are addressed by Doug MacMartin in his proposal for SAI injection at 50-60N.

Cheers, John

[Sev Clarke]

Hi Robert,

Chris would know better than me, but I would guess that the LP would place a higher barrier for entry for Buoyant Flakes, though by no means one which is insuperable, particularly if small, gated experiments and progressively larger trials were held in a variety of national and EEZ waters without net harm occurring. Furthermore, MCB by whatever means, would have inherently wider transnational (and possibly far) downwind effects, making possible objections to it, and litigation for cessation or damage (possibly spurious) more likely. With adequate MRV effort, both methods should be able to evidence (rather than prove) their safety and effectiveness within a few months of trials in different locations at increasing scale and intensity. Radiative forcing should be a key factor, but CDR, marine biomass increment and biodiversity, and weather control potential should all be reckoned.

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/129401d9eee3%24cd720990%2468561cb0%24%40rtulip.net.

[John Nissen]

To the editor of the Scientific American

Dear editor,

Douglas Fox talks of a geoengineering gamble.  Meanwhile the climate crisis deepens, with ever worse extremes of heat and precipitation.  The real gamble is in allowing accelerated changes in climate and sea level to continue unabated.  Soon it could be too late to halt the tipping point processes in the Arctic which cause these changes, even using the most powerful means available which is stratospheric aerosol injection.  This is a global emergency.  All efforts should be made to trial and prepare for large-scale deployment of stratospheric aerosols to cool and start refreezing the Arctic. 

The article talks from the point of view of those who believe that stratospheric aerosol deployment is a high risk strategy, whereas it presents little evidence of this high risk, especially when such risk is not apparent from large volcanic eruptions.  The difficulty of finding evidence of high risk is summed up by the quote from Ken Caldeira:

"The most valuable experiment somebody could do now is one showing that there would be really horrible consequences."

To present a balanced view, the article should present some of the huge potential benefits of cooling intervention.  And not just the reduction of tipping point risk.  To date, nearly all the damage to human society and ecosystems has come from excessive heat.  Global and regional cooling interventions can prevent this damage from growing to catastrophic proportions, boosted by tipping point processes.

Yours sincerely, etc.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 4:22 PM oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

« GeoRestoration » as I use it is limited to actions which reduce the stock of GHG accumulated in the past 150 years, or restore albedo where it was lost. The way you describe « Geotherapy » it appears to be an umbrella word for basically all action against climate crisis, including mitigation. GeoRestoration is explicitly not mitigation. So you are right, GT is a larger concept.

 

In result: The two terms do not compete… which is good😊

 

Oswald

 

 

 

Von: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Tom Goreau
Gesendet: Montag, 25. September 2023 17:05
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'John Fitzgerald' <greenkni...@gmail.com>; 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Bruce Parker' <br...@chesdata.com>; noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: Re: A Stratospheric Gamble

 

Geotherapy is a larger concept than Georestoration.

 

Geotherapy includes 1) scientifically sound diagnosis of the problem, 2) prescription of sound course of action to restore health balance, 3) Georestoration is that recommended course of action.

 

Not all Geoengineering is Georestoration………

 

From: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:26 AM
To: oswald....@hispeed.ch <oswald....@hispeed.ch>, 'John Fitzgerald' <greenkni...@gmail.com>, 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Bruce Parker' <br...@chesdata.com>, noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Stratospheric Gamble

SRM for correcting Earth’s temperature is part of a conscious geotherapy prescription for better planetary health, which can include both biological (biogeotherapy, often carbon based) and physics or engineering approaches in the broadest sense.

 

We have let the term geoengineering become defined in an overly narrow way to become a bogeyman for acid spraying the atmosphere, but it connotes MUCH more than that, and we should not let the term be misused (while we abandon nonsensical terms like “negative emissions export”).

 

 

 

From: oswald....@hispeed.ch <oswald....@hispeed.ch>
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:20 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, 'John Fitzgerald' <greenkni...@gmail.com>, 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Bruce Parker' <br...@chesdata.com>, noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: A Stratospheric Gamble

Dear Tom,

 

is in this case GeoTherapy is another term for SRM?

 

GeoRestoration is in fact a term for GHG Removal. The climate crisis is not caused by increased solar radiation, and restoring the climate works not by « cooling the patient’s temperature » but by removing the cause of the problem.

 

I prefer not to use medical analogies, because in medicine there is a risk that the patient dies, whereas our planet as well as humans will certainly survive the climate crisis.

 

Regards

 

Oswald

 

Von: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Gesendet: Montag, 25. September 2023 12:10
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'John Fitzgerald' <greenkni...@gmail.com>; 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Bruce Parker' <br...@chesdata.com>; noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: Re: A Stratospheric Gamble

 

Wrong, Geotherapy is an evolutionary medical analogy (not a psychiatric one), the Earth is very sick from humans, its temperature is steadily rising towards severe heatstroke, and the first thing to do is stabilize the patient’s temperature while restoring the patient’s own temperature control mechanisms.

 

From: oswald....@hispeed.ch <oswald....@hispeed.ch>
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:02 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, 'John Fitzgerald' <greenkni...@gmail.com>, 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Bruce Parker' <br...@chesdata.com>, noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: A Stratospheric Gamble

Dear Tom,

 

we are not in a psychiatrist’s office and earth is not a patient.

The term «therapy» resonates with the wrong associations…

 

Regards

 

Oswald

Von: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Gesendet: Montag, 25. September 2023 11:49
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'John Fitzgerald' <greenkni...@gmail.com>; 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Bruce Parker' <br...@chesdata.com>; noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: Re: A Stratospheric Gamble

 

There’s a word for this already!

 

Geotherapy has been the term used for more than 30 years for restoration of preindustrial climate.

 

It includes both BioGeotherapy (enhancing natural biogeochemical controls on climate, commonly called Nature Based Solutions, which is three words instead of one) and GeoEngineering (or physics-based solutions, which include all earth engineering, as well as SRM and SAI (which has mistakenly monopolized the term).

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

From: oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:17 AM
To: 'John Fitzgerald' <greenkni...@gmail.com>, 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Bruce Parker' <br...@chesdata.com>, noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: A Stratospheric Gamble

Dear John,

 

we all agree about this bad connotation. It is exactly why I try to find a new term for all GE methods which restore the climate and ocean. At the same time, my intention is to weaken the «moral hazard» argument, which is so often used against GE.

 

Peter F. calls it « climate restoration », other people e.g. IPCC talk about « negative emissions » but all of these cannot conceil the fact that EAMO, CDR and EW (…), even reforestation, are in fact GeoEngineering methods, if we like it or not.  

 

Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.

 

The term Georestoration is meant to solve this very problem.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

 

Von: John Fitzgerald <greenkni...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 25. September 2023 10:52
An: Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Cc: oswald....@hispeed.ch; Bruce Parker <br...@chesdata.com>; noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: Re: A Stratospheric Gamble

 

Hello Oswald, et al.,

 

As Renaud points out, the term "geo-engineering" has such negative connotations that some people close their minds to further inquiry about anything with such a label.  Some people in important positions with the capacity to advance research and development across a wide range of interventions have heard only about one or two kinds of climate interventions, and assume those are the only ways of solving the problem. That is why CIEIF (https://cieif.org) sent the attached letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Given that the National Academy of Sciences has already recommended further research on several methods of carbon sequestration and will shortly host another two day session on methane removal, (October 17-18), the OSTP should have known better than to report on only one method when Congress directed them to report on a wide range of methods.  It will take more than one letter to educate decision-makers and we need to avoid triggering the "fight or flight" fear response that a misunderstood label can provoke.

 

Thank you,

 

John Fitzgerald

 

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 4:30 AM Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oswald,

As a matter of fact, as the term geoengineering has bad connotation, the startups and the scientists working on CDR and on GHG-Removal (GGR) try to make a distinction. And the IPCC reports also differentiate them at list since AR4.

Bw

R

 

Le lun. 25 sept. 2023 à 10:23, oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> a écrit :

Hello Bruce,

 

there are some interesting thoughts in this, thank you.

 

I am wondering why the paper, which ist called «Geoengineering» (GE), looks exclusively at variations of albedo enhancement (AE).

No CDR, no atmospheric methane reduction, no enhanced weathering… all these other GE methods are missing. This could be repaired by calling the paper «Solar Geoengineering» or adding the missing options.

 

I enclose my paper on Georestoration to counterbalance it… 😊

 

regards

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

 

Von: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Bruce Parker
Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. September 2023 22:15
An: noac-m...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: FW: A Stratospheric Gamble

 

There have been a lot of email discussions recently on specific “climate change” topics.  I thought it might be useful to the group to have a series of documents that consolidates many of the comment and that would also provide a “handy reference”.  Since many of the documents will be quite lengthy, it might make sense to eventually turn them into “searchable” web pages.  I have attached a very rough draft for one on geoengineering.  Any thoughts?

 

Bruce

--
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/CACS_FxodzQjG%3Dhxtvz4JrWx-%3DpsPTC0beTrz5OY2MbXST-0%3DFg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/010b01d9ef23%24d0c5d460%2472517d20%24%40chesdata.com.

--
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/002701d9ef89%249bce5910%24d36b0b30%24%40hispeed.ch.

--
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/CAHodn9-4xkfmQpRwaFg5XwBtU3VciLEpPT88a8gsY%2BzceKr6rg%40mail.gmail.com.

 

--

John M. Fitzgerald

73 Bear Head Road

Sedgwick, Maine 04676

 

M) 202-288-0231

 

Member of the District of Columbia Bar

--
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/003501d9ef91%2401f85a90%2405e90fb0%24%40hispeed.ch.

--
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/BY3PR13MB4994794A51DE0D5BEE43961EDDFCA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

--
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/004501d9efc4%2425cfe3b0%24716fab10%24%40hispeed.ch.