The Need for Geoengineering
rob...@rtulip.net
This sets out my understanding. I have not previously shared this and would welcome discussion.
The Need For Geoengineering
Robert Tulip
A false consensus in the climate policy community holds that the world should decarbonise as fast as possible, with net zero emissions as the main climate priority. This widely held opinion allows the avoidable catastrophic risk of climate collapse, and therefore lacks a sound ethical and empirical basis in science, politics and economics. Reversing global warming in the short term requires the current focus on greenhouse gases to be combined with a focus on increasing planetary brightness to restore lost albedo as the top priority. Direct climate cooling can reflect more sunlight back to space and rebrighten the world, commonly known as solar geoengineering. This need for sunlight reflection methods to restore albedo is a complex and sometimes counter-intuitive argument, but one that needs to be understood and debated in academia, mass media and politics, overturning the current near total absence of public discussion, let alone advocacy.
To change the world requires a robust scientific and political realism. That is largely missing from the climate debate, which operates in a fantasy world. Warming is ignored by denialists and misunderstood by decarbonists. Neither denial nor decarbonisation offers a realistic short-term strategy. Realism is about seeing the desirable in the context of the possible. Advocacy will fail unless its goals are politically and technically possible. The question of what is politically possible has to be grounded in scientific realism, combined with complex social judgement to assess alternative scenarios. This lack of political and economic judgement is where the climate debate is deficient, dominated by impossible goals such as the IPCC call to halve emissions by 2030.
In climate policy, the most desirable goals should be about what sort of world we want to have in the future, allied to a realistic path to achievement. Key objectives should include peace, prosperity, stability, rationality, equality, cooperation and biodiversity. Climate policies should be seen as ways to achieve those ethical goals, which are all made more difficult by the systemic disruption from heating. The problem is that it may turn out that none of these high moral goals are actually helped by efforts to speed up the move away from fossil fuels. Theories of change require practical causal logic, but this is missing in climate policy.
To illustrate the delusional rhetoric of progressive climate consensus, consider this recent typical policy statement from a national climate organisation, the Uniting Climate Action Network in Australia: “the solutions we need to solve climate change are in reach, we just need to build a powerful force to urge the government to implement bold, decisive action to phase out fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to a clean energy future.”
Sadly, while politically attractive for building an oppositional movement, and for mobilising government subsidies for renewable energy, this statement lacks any scientific credibility or practicality. The attractions of fossil fuels are far stronger than any potential “powerful force”. Cutting emissions is not a “solution” in the absence of action to increase planetary albedo. It is not “in reach”, especially as the only thing “we just need”. And the “energy transition” does nothing about the committed warming from past emissions which is the main cause of climate change, or about the rapid physical darkening of the world that is now causing a rapid spike in global warming.
At every point, this statement displays the psychological triumph of hope over observation, generating a tactically and strategically disastrous ideology. This statement is typical of sentiments that are widely endorsed and rarely challenged within progressive echo chambers, with challenge often simply dismissed as denial. But who are the real deniers?
Emission reduction is far too small, slow, contested, difficult and expensive to make any difference to temperature in the short term. And unless we can control temperature rise in the short term, all other political goals are impossible. This is a matter of causal sequence. The systemic disruption of higher temperature, if allowed to occur, will undermine all discussion of critical issues such as justice, ecology, welfare and stability.
The energy shift to renewables is a longer-term problem. Trying to make carbon policy the sole climate policy is causing immense economic, ecological and social disruption, cost and risk, without offering any prospect of actually mitigating climate change. Rejecting efforts to increase albedo simply means that warming will swamp all efforts to cut emissions. And this progressive consensus then has the effrontery to falsely insist that “mitigation” means emissions reduction alone, even though cutting emissions actually can do nothing to mitigate climate change except as part of a systematic scientific long term vision. The IPCC traditional usage of mitigation as a synonym for emission reduction is obsolete and wrong and political, and should be discarded.
Net zero emissions by 2050 as a short-term goal is a fantasy, a dangerous myth, a delusional strategy. Net zero emissions should be abandoned as a short-term goal on the moral grounds that it creates high risk of social and economic and ecological collapse, and that a much better alternative policy is available, focused on rebrightening the planet. Net zero emissions should be replaced by the realistic immediate goal of net zero heating, using geoengineering to cool the planet to balance the warming from greenhouse gases. This argument opens up the moral case for stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB) and other geoengineering technologies, although it does not prove these technologies are feasible.
In the short term, over the next decade, the most realistic climate policy is to switch the primary focus from carbon to albedo, aiming to reflect more sunlight to space.
The 2009 UK Royal Society report Geoengineering the Climate estimated (Table 3.6) that rebrightening the planet using MCB and SAI would have climate impacts that are 1000 times better value for money than decarbonisation. This is an amazing statistic that we should all seek to understand. The extremity of this difference, 1000 to 1, and the fact that so little heed is paid to it, need serious attention. Meanwhile, an academic paper (AR Harding et al, value of information) estimated the cost of a full scientific assessment of geoengineering at 0.02% of the likely economic costs of not conducting such an assessment, a cost benefit ratio of 5000 to 1. The costs of extreme weather, sea level rise, biodiversity loss and systemic disruption without geoengineering will be catastrophic.
IPCC consensus supports action that is one thousand times worse value for money than geoengineering. In view of this shocking discrepancy between reality and their policy, IPCC failed to mention geoengineering in the AR6 Summary for Policymakers. This is very bad. It reflects a pathological mass psychology, an irrational and incoherent belief system. At the heart of this mass delusion is the false hope that reliance on the energy shift can be the primary climate policy. World leaders ignore clear scientific evidence while hypocritically claiming to rely on science. Creating false hope is morally odious.
The argument that albedo cannot substitute for carbon as a climate policy focus serves as a method of political intimidation, with no factual basis. This substitution is urgently needed. Efforts to accelerate decarbonisation cannot help to restore the climate except over the long term, for both political and scientific reasons. A decisive switch away from an emission reduction alone focus is needed to preserve a liveable climate. Action to cut emissions cannot mitigate the existential risks of catastrophic climate change, whereas the extreme risks of accelerating warming can be reduced by higher albedo.
This analysis is all acutely embarrassing and unacceptable to the climate establishment, and to its supporting political tribe. They have placed their entire credibility on the claim that cutting emissions is the only way to mitigate climate risk, and then falsely asserting that this delusional policy is scientific. This consensus mainstream argument is false. The claim that cutting emissions alone could slow climate change is a myth.
However, decarbonisation has such popular and institutional and political and economic momentum and inertia as a source of tribal hope that people are unwilling to study the simple refutation of its claims. As a result, few public platforms have been available for advocacy of immediate geoengineering deployment, especially in mass media. This situation is now changing under the pressure of the failure of current policy, but misinformation from the IPCC and its supporters continues to deceive the public. Leaving climate policy to the IPCC is a recipe for earth system collapse.
Emission reduction alone has become a sort of religious mantra within mainstream climate policy circles. Any questioning of this dogma is shunned and misrepresented, as we see in the recent baseless criticism of James Hansen by Michael Mann. As Leon Simons observed in conversation with leading climate interviewer Dan Miller, Mann attacked Hansen without engaging on facts. That is unscientific and unscholarly. The climate mainstream arguments presented by Mann treat emission reduction as an article of faith, wrongly alleging that the so-called “zero emission commitment” is scientific consensus. By not applying the required scientific scrutiny to the problem, climate policy is grounded more in emotion than in reason. Part of their mythology is the assertion that emission cuts are mandated by science as the only way to address climate change. This assertion is clearly false.
Increasing albedo is a far faster, cheaper, safer and more effective and acceptable strategy. The only barrier at this point is the false claims that have deceived public opinion. A major international scientific research and governance program is urgently needed to safely test and deploy climate cooling technologies.
Putting all our climate eggs in the emission reduction basket is leading to economic collapse. The fragility of the world economy means that risks of systemic collapse are high, especially in view of the crazy decision to ban sulphur in shipping fuel by the International Maritime Organisation, removing the masking that shipping aerosols previously provided to slow the rate of warming.
The most urgent need is to restore planetary albedo as fast as possible. The current albedo collapse is nearly 1% per decade. Planetary reflection is now measured by NASA at 98 w/m2 compared to 100 w/m2 in 2001. This darkening of the world has the warming effect of five decades of emissions, according to James Hansen.
Restoring albedo is by far the most tractable lever available to cut radiative forcing, acting to reduce the amount of light entering the Earth System rather than to increase the amount of heat leaving.
Few people want to cut emissions as fast as possible if it causes extreme side effects such as war, poverty, extinction, etc. We have to redefine “possible”. Exactly what ‘possible’ means is far from clear. If “possible” meant redirecting public funds from spending that meets objectives to areas that obviously don’t, most people would not agree this is sensible or good. The principle here is that public funds should be allocated on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, against clearly defined objectives.
My simplified understanding is as follows. These are my own calculations so I would appreciate if others could check my numbers. I have not found a source that sets out all these numbers in this simple way. These simple numbers support the argument for scenarios over the next decade to switch focus to albedo. This is my own analysis, as I could not find these facts presented in this clear and simple way in other literature. If I have any mistakes please study it carefully and let me know.
- Cutting emissions by itself cannot possibly cut temperature, as a simple matter of arithmetic that gets ignored.
- James Hansen et al have partly explained this problem in the Global Warming in the Pipeline article, noting the importance of considering past geological precedent.
- Humans have added more than 3.2 trillion tonnes of GHGs to the air, about two thirds as CO2, but also including other GHGs such as methane, based on 100-year CO2 equivalence, according to https://worldemissions.io/.
- About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 has dissolved in the oceans so will re-gas when CO2 is removed from the air.
- Of the >425 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, >145 ppm is anthropogenic.
- Each ppm weighs 7.72 Gt, so the current atmospheric excess CO2 weighs about 1150 Gt.
- For reference, one gigatonne (Gt) is one cubic kilometre of water.
- To that we have to add the 570 Gt in the ocean, so over 1600 Gt CO2 would have to be removed to restore the Holocene CO2 level.
- As well, methane and other GHGs add 50% to the radiative forcing from CO2, indicating a total problem of roughly 2400 Gt CO2 equivalent.
- Methane radiative forcing is calculated by IPCC on its century-long effect, which is less than one third of its immediate warming effect.
- The direct radiative forcing from this total excess GHG amount, plus the related loss of planetary albedo, are the main causes of committed warming.
- Emissions reduction does nothing about committed warming from past emissions.
- The consensus argument about a Zero Emission Commitment after Net Zero Emissions wrongly claims that this 2400 Gt CO2 excess would gradually disappear by itself, mainly by photosynthesis.
- Fully restoring Holocene temperature stability would mean converting about 2400 Gt CO2e into non-warming form, whether by some sort of CO2 storage or by finding practical uses such as soil and infrastructure.
- That will take decades, time that we do not have due to the risk of tipping points.
- The system disruption from tipping elements would completely swamp all efforts to deal with the carbon problem in the absence of higher albedo.
- The last time the atmosphere had this much CO2, the sea was something like 20 metres higher and the world was about four degrees C hotter.
- Earth System Equilibrium will eventually create similar conditions to these geological precedents unless there is some drastic change.
- The unprecedented nature of our planetary CO2 dumping experiment means there is major risk that catastrophic climate change could occur much faster than is generally imagined.
- The Earth may be more fragile and sensitive than accepted models indicate.
- Committed warming, together with loss of cooling aerosols, is creating conditions incompatible with human civilization.
- Annual CO2e emissions are 59 billion tonnes. Decarbonisation is failing to dent the increase, which has powerful social and economic drivers.
- For emissions reduction to slow the annual increase by 10% would be hugely expensive, difficult, risky and contested, but would only marginally delay radical climate disruption.
- If the world managed to cut emissions in half by 2030, emitting only 29.5 Gt CO2e in 2030, the total difference would be that instead of adding 354 Gt CO2e between 2024 and 2030, the world would add two thirds as much, 236 Gt CO2e. That would require annual CO2 cuts of 4.2 Gt.
- Slowing the rate of CO2e increase by 10% (6 Gt per year) would address about 0.3% of the estimated 2400 Gt of remaining anthropogenic GHGs each year.
- A 1% slowdown in the increase in radiative forcing is functionally less than zero, ie an acceleration, because the remaining 99% of GHGs could prove volatile in ways we cannot easily predict, such as sudden glacial collapse, methane release, heat waves, extreme weather and slowing of ocean currents.
- ‘Moral hazard’ theory, tendentiously called “mitigation deterrence”, is that we must do nothing about 99% of the warming problem, because dealing with 1% of the problem is more important, even though dealing with that 1% has proved politically and economically impossible.
- The concept of mitigation deterrence is incoherent and ideological. Cutting emissions cannot mitigate climate change over relevant timeframe, whereas higher albedo can, so it makes no sense to say that increasing albedo could deter mitigation.
- When combined with the false theory of moral hazard, efforts to cut emissions are likely to worsen warming by allowing preventable tipping points.
- As leading climate scientist Thomas Goreau recently commented, we have not yet seen the warming impact of present-day CO2, due to the delay caused by ocean mixing.
- The risks of these unpredictable changes can only be mitigated by restoring the temperature that created the previous stability.
- Cutting emissions can have almost no impact on committed warming, and therefore on temperature.
- The goal of net zero heating has to replace the false promise of net zero emissions.
Committed warming is just ignored in the fantasy world of emission reduction alone. Unfortunately, the moral principles of efficiency and effectiveness and evidence and ethics are not applied for climate spending, which is largely unfit for purpose. Governments should not spend public funds to subsidise decarbonisation to achieve climate goals, when those goals could be achieved more rapidly, safely and cheaply with solar geoengineering.
Clear distinction is needed between short and medium-term responses to the climate emergency. In the short term, albedo is the main climate impact that could be affected by human action. Albedo is now collapsing by about 1% per decade, a clear indicator of the shutdown of Earth Systems. This emergency could be mitigated with geoengineering.
Cutting GHG levels is something that will take much longer, with the eventual aim of restoring the Holocene atmospheric composition. Cutting emissions cannot cut GHG levels, despite the alleged ‘consensus’ argument to the contrary made in literature on the Zero Emission Commitment.
Policy discussion in the IPCC and related academic and social organisations has become corrupted by a tribal failure to address scientific evidence about the practical impossibility and high risks of rapid decarbonisation. This triumph of hope over observation is known as greenwishing, which is a bigger political problem than corporate greenwashing. Greenwishing means imagining that a strategy is possible and effective, while ignoring contrary evidence.
Two key points are that possible cuts to emission levels are marginal to the rate of warming, and that efforts to accelerate emission cuts have such high opportunity cost that they are counterproductive.
I don’t know anyone else who advocates geoengineering who also doubts the need to accelerate emission cuts, although a few have hinted at that unpopular opinion. Perhaps some keep silent because they are worried about being shunned by the climate tribe as a heretic. That suggests this debate involves religious psychology and community loyalty as much as intellectual coherence. Scientific integrity should be the primary concern in the face of the urgent need to prevent impending system collapse.
robert...@gmail.com
Hi Robert
Lot's of work behind this! Well done.
I'm not clear how you propose to use it and any comments I might make would be conditioned by that.
Two overarching remarks are first that it
comes across as quite polemical, frequently glossing over the
distinction between fact and opinion. That would restrict its
value to certain readers. Second, there is a litany of facts
and figures that could benefit from references.
Robert
--
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/008d01daae20%249c08f470%24d41add50%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Robert
Thanks for these comments. I have been working on this since one of our members commented while we were waiting for a recent HPAC meeting to start that he had heard I was the only person in this group who rejected the call to cut emissions as fast as possible. I am sure there are others who agree with me, as my view is purely scientific, but there is still a widespread unwillingness to explore the radical dimensions of what is actually needed to prevent climate collapse and develop a practical strategy to achieve that high goal.
So I see this as an invitation for HPAC discussion. If it can lead to anything wider that would be welcome. I have no access to any wider forums. If people want citations on specific claims please ask.
The germ of my comments was my considered view that efforts to accelerate decarbonisation do not help to achieve climate restoration, for political, economic and scientific reasons. Regardless of the unpopularity of this viewpoint, I am only concerned with its evidentiary basis. I see it as entirely scientific to argue there needs to be a decisive switch away from an emission reduction focus and toward an albedo enhancement focus in order to preserve a liveable climate. I am very happy to debate that hypothesis with anyone who wants to argue against it.
I don’t accept the view that the best way to respond to bullies is to give in to them. Unfortunately that seems a frequent response given the virulence of climate emotion.
Looking at this question scientifically, the hypothesis that seems to me to best accord with the available evidence is that action to accelerate emission reduction or remove greenhouse gases in this decade cannot mitigate the risk of catastrophic climate change, whereas action to increase albedo could significantly cut this existential risk.
This picks up on the distinction you have mentioned between long wave radiation (heat) and short wave radiation (light). To put it in simple but comprehensive terms, the imbalance between incoming light and outgoing heat is the cause of global warming. This imbalance can be fixed either by reducing incoming light or increasing outgoing heat to bring the balance back (cf Plant, R., Page, J., 1971).
Unfortunately, the world climate community is besotted by the false idea that only the outgoing heat matters. This is after more than thirty years of headbanging has comprehensively shown how extremely intractable this heat agenda is. Heat and light are equally important, but not equally tractable.
I note that Oswald Petersen and Peter Fiekowsky both continue to argue the entirely false view that increasing outgoing heat could by itself be an effective short term climate strategy. Their arguments undermine the prospect of effective climate action. My effort is partly aimed at rebutting their confused opinions.
Today I finally watched the Netflix movie Don’t Look Up. It was nice to see the Trumpian satire of crowds chanting Don’t Look Up, based on “Build The Wall”, intended as a tragic critique of human idiocy. Unfortunately climate idiocy is bipartisan, given the mutual ignorance of the albedo problem as the world darkens. I found the pointed meaning of this film more in the failure to understand the heat/light imbalance than in the conventional arguments for cutting emissions. Not looking up at the comet which the scientists worry will quite spectacularly destroy the planet at the end of the movie is the equivalent of failing to discuss the role of albedo in preventing climate collapse. Doris Lessing presented a brilliant parable for this situation in her science fiction book Shikasta. It is quite useful to look to popular culture for parables of climate science.
Regards
Robert Tulip
1. Cutting emissions by itself cannot possibly cut temperature, as a simple matter of arithmetic that gets ignored.
2. James Hansen et al have partly explained this problem in the Global Warming in the Pipeline article, noting the importance of considering past geological precedent.
3. Humans have added more than 3.2 trillion tonnes of GHGs to the air, about two thirds as CO2, but also including other GHGs such as methane, based on 100-year CO2 equivalence, according to https://worldemissions.io/.
4. About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 has dissolved in the oceans so will re-gas when CO2 is removed from the air.
5. Of the >425 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, >145 ppm is anthropogenic.
6. Each ppm weighs 7.72 Gt, so the current atmospheric excess CO2 weighs about 1150 Gt.
7. For reference, one gigatonne (Gt) is one cubic kilometre of water.
8. To that we have to add the 570 Gt in the ocean, so over 1600 Gt CO2 would have to be removed to restore the Holocene CO2 level.
9. As well, methane and other GHGs add 50% to the radiative forcing from CO2, indicating a total problem of roughly 2400 Gt CO2 equivalent.
10. Methane radiative forcing is calculated by IPCC on its century-long effect, which is less than one third of its immediate warming effect.
11. The direct radiative forcing from this total excess GHG amount, plus the related loss of planetary albedo, are the main causes of committed warming.
12. Emissions reduction does nothing about committed warming from past emissions.
13. The consensus argument about a Zero Emission Commitment after Net Zero Emissions wrongly claims that this 2400 Gt CO2 excess would gradually disappear by itself, mainly by photosynthesis.
14. Fully restoring Holocene temperature stability would mean converting about 2400 Gt CO2e into non-warming form, whether by some sort of CO2 storage or by finding practical uses such as soil and infrastructure.
15. That will take decades, time that we do not have due to the risk of tipping points.
16. The system disruption from tipping elements would completely swamp all efforts to deal with the carbon problem in the absence of higher albedo.
17. The last time the atmosphere had this much CO2, the sea was something like 20 metres higher and the world was about four degrees C hotter.
18. Earth System Equilibrium will eventually create similar conditions to these geological precedents unless there is some drastic change.
19. The unprecedented nature of our planetary CO2 dumping experiment means there is major risk that catastrophic climate change could occur much faster than is generally imagined.
20. The Earth may be more fragile and sensitive than accepted models indicate.
21. Committed warming, together with loss of cooling aerosols, is creating conditions incompatible with human civilization.
22. Annual CO2e emissions are 59 billion tonnes. Decarbonisation is failing to dent the increase, which has powerful social and economic drivers.
23. For emissions reduction to slow the annual increase by 10% would be hugely expensive, difficult, risky and contested, but would only marginally delay radical climate disruption.
24. If the world managed to cut emissions in half by 2030, emitting only 29.5 Gt CO2e in 2030, the total difference would be that instead of adding 354 Gt CO2e between 2024 and 2030, the world would add two thirds as much, 236 Gt CO2e. That would require annual CO2 cuts of 4.2 Gt.
25. Slowing the rate of CO2e increase by 10% (6 Gt per year) would address about 0.3% of the estimated 2400 Gt of remaining anthropogenic GHGs each year.
26. A 1% slowdown in the increase in radiative forcing is functionally less than zero, ie an acceleration, because the remaining 99% of GHGs could prove volatile in ways we cannot easily predict, such as sudden glacial collapse, methane release, heat waves, extreme weather and slowing of ocean currents.
27. ‘Moral hazard’ theory, tendentiously called “mitigation deterrence”, is that we must do nothing about 99% of the warming problem, because dealing with 1% of the problem is more important, even though dealing with that 1% has proved politically and economically impossible.
28. The concept of mitigation deterrence is incoherent and ideological. Cutting emissions cannot mitigate climate change over relevant timeframe, whereas higher albedo can, so it makes no sense to say that increasing albedo could deter mitigation.
29. When combined with the false theory of moral hazard, efforts to cut emissions are likely to worsen warming by allowing preventable tipping points.
30. As leading climate scientist Thomas Goreau recently commented, we have not yet seen the warming impact of present-day CO2, due to the delay caused by ocean mixing.
31. The risks of these unpredictable changes can only be mitigated by restoring the temperature that created the previous stability.
32. Cutting emissions can have almost no impact on committed warming, and therefore on temperature.
33. The goal of net zero heating has to replace the false promise of net zero emissions.
Committed warming is just ignored in the fantasy world of emission reduction alone. Unfortunately, the moral principles of efficiency and effectiveness and evidence and ethics are not applied for climate spending, which is largely unfit for purpose. Governments should not spend public funds to subsidise decarbonisation to achieve climate goals, when those goals could be achieved more rapidly, safely and cheaply with solar geoengineering.
Clear distinction is needed between short and medium-term responses to the climate emergency. In the short term, albedo is the main climate impact that could be affected by human action. Albedo is now collapsing by about 1% per decade, a clear indicator of the shutdown of Earth Systems. This emergency could be mitigated with geoengineering.
Cutting GHG levels is something that will take much longer, with the eventual aim of restoring the Holocene atmospheric composition. Cutting emissions cannot cut GHG levels, despite the alleged ‘consensus’ argument to the contrary made in literature on the Zero Emission Commitment.
Policy discussion in the IPCC and related academic and social organisations has become corrupted by a tribal failure to address scientific evidence about the practical impossibility and high risks of rapid decarbonisation. This triumph of hope over observation is known as greenwishing, which is a bigger political problem than corporate greenwashing. Greenwishing means imagining that a strategy is possible and effective, while ignoring contrary evidence.
Two key points are that possible cuts to emission levels are marginal to the rate of warming, and that efforts to accelerate emission cuts have such high opportunity cost that they are counterproductive.
I don’t know anyone else who advocates geoengineering who also doubts the need to accelerate emission cuts, although a few have hinted at that unpopular opinion. Perhaps some keep silent because they are worried about being shunned by the climate tribe as a heretic. That suggests this debate involves religious psychology and community loyalty as much as intellectual coherence. Scientific integrity should be the primary concern in the face of the urgent need to prevent impending system collapse.
--
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/008d01daae20%249c08f470%24d41add50%24%40rtulip.net.
--
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/63a859de-dd85-4a92-ba6f-2532413c6a6b%40gmail.com.
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/032b01daae9c%247d6ce270%247846a750%24%40rtulip.net.
H simmens
"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought."
“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.”
 | |
Yet this absolutely catastrophic description of what faces every living creature on the planet is the reality behind the millions of exhortations every day to reduce emissions.
Pure insanity.
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On May 25, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1326700969.2958147.1716657198806%40mailbusiness.ionos.co.uk.
David Price
On May 25, 2024, at 11:33 AM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive,The theory or at least the hope of emission optimists is that renewable energy will follow the familiar S curve - also known as Dornbusch’s Law as cited by Bill Gates.
Rudiger Dornbusch, who liked to say (for example, in this interview about Mexico's economic crisis in the 1990s):"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought."
In this case it’s not a negative event but a positive event that would be subject to this law.Similarly is the Hemingway Law named after a well-known line in his book The Sun Also Rises where when the character was asked how he went bankrupt the response was:Gradually, then suddenly.The cost reductions in solar, wind and batteries over the past decade or two have been quite remarkable and the gradual penetration of those technologies in the market is now reaching in many cases the point on the S curve where sudden acceleration usually occurs - at the 5 to 10% mark. A classic recent example is the adoption of the smartphone.Therefore notwithstanding the enormous barriers facing the clean energy transformation, including hard to abate sectors, mineral shortages, supply chain challenges and path dependence in many industries I don’t see how anyone can conclusively argue that current trends are inherently insufficient to lead to a dramatic clean energy transformation in the next several decades.My argument as you may know is that even the most optimistic and accelerated S curve emission reduction pathway cannot prevent - according to the most authoritative science - sharply elevated temperatures, increased ecosystem collapse, continuing sea level rise and the all but inevitable activation of multiple largely irreversible tipping points for centuries absent large scale greenhouse gas removal and DCC - direct climate cooling - the Climate Triad.How many people know - or if they do know - inform the public that reaching zero emissions will not alleviate the climate crisis. Almost no one from my experience in reviewing hundreds of papers and articles over the years.As Zeke Hausfather states in an article in Climate Brief:
“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.”
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/82101B90-13DF-4D1B-A5B5-DDA6896F6252%40gmail.com.
Roger Arnold
Therefore notwithstanding the enormous barriers facing the clean energy transformation, including hard to abate sectors, mineral shortages, supply chain challenges and path dependence in many industries I don’t see how anyone can conclusively argue that current trends are inherently insufficient to lead to a dramatic clean energy transformation in the next several decades.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/82101B90-13DF-4D1B-A5B5-DDA6896F6252%40gmail.com.
David Ellison
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1719129D-CE6D-4934-A0B5-528170EC03DC%40pricenet.ca.
rob...@rtulip.net
I will try to reply to all the comments in this discussion, all much appreciated. Some people have just written to me personally. Where they have made comments that I think deserve a wider airing I will discuss them anonymously.
Clive, you and I are on a similar wavelength. The context is that whatever we might wish for, decarbonisation is just not going to happen. So imagining that it will happen involves a profound level of political unrealism.
In preparing my post I looked at the Wikipedia page for Shared Socio Economic Pathways (SSPs) used by the IPCC in modelling. The link is to a citation of a 2020 paper by Zeke Hausfather seeing SSP5–8.5 as highly unlikely, SSP3–7.0 as unlikely, and SSP2–4.5 as likely. This makes good sense. SSP2-4.5 predicts CO2 emissions around current levels until 2050, then falling but not reaching net zero by 2100.
As you say, this means the risk that emissions won’t fall much from the current level for decades seems pretty close to 100%.
The absence of commitments, preparation and action that respond to this likelihood is a primary planetary security risk.
The Chen paper on MCB circulated this week modelled MCB on 5% of the world ocean against SSP2-4.5, calculating an estimated temperature cut of one degree C.
Regards
Robert Tulip
rob...@rtulip.net
Here is a private comment I received.
“If incoming light and outgoing heat were both zero, the conversion of chemical energy into heat by combustion would still warm the planet, so your "simple but comprehensive" statement, albeit simple, is not comprehensive. My guess is that your explanation does not reflect your intended meaning. In any case, if your intended audience detects inherent illogic based on their understanding of language, you will not accomplish your purpose.”
That may be an interesting thought experiment, but given the presence of the Sun, I am struggling to see how hypothetical combustion on a planet without incoming light or outgoing heat relates to the actual situation of the Earth. I am willing to accept that my simple model of earth balance as light in = heat out may not be comprehensive, but this seems to be the underpinning of papers like this one.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/032b01daae9c%247d6ce270%247846a750%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Thanks Herman.
The intro to this CNN doco you linked, titled The Whole Story, restricts action to carbon. Carbon is not the whole climate story. This misperception reflects the widespread failure to understand the simple equation of planetary climate physics, that climate stability requires net zero heating.
My concern is that it will be too hard to do anything about carbon in time to prevent collapse. That means we need to rebrighten the planet as a matter of primary urgency. I look forward to finding a journalist willing to discuss this constructively. I did not find this program helpful or balanced as it focused too much on groundless myths and not enough on strategic scientific vision.
I am now listening to see if he mentions albedo. Kelly Wanser gets a brief introductory comment on climate intervention. Then he interviews Sir David King starting at 15.45, firstly about mimicking the role of whales in marine CDR using volcano dust, and then with a good brief summary of marine cloud brightening.
Then he discusses some good carbon projects for fifteen minutes.
At 32:00 he gets onto climate intervention with some great graphics illustrating Mount Pinatubo, and then in discussion with Kelly Wanser, founder of Silver Lining, and Sir David King, founder of the Cambridge University Centre for Climate Repair. We have previously invited Kelly to speak to HPAC but she ignores us.
I was disappointed with her discussion as it did not focus on why rebrightening is urgently needed, but rather on a dubious semantic critique of geoengineering and on baseless popular fears. David King comments that research today might influence decisions in five years.
They rightly discuss the need for trust and cooperation, but fail to explore how international action to restore albedo could be a peace building focus. The discussion is restricted to the complacency that fails to see we may already be tipping over the climate waterfall. The structure of the program did not put MCB and SAI together, which would have been more sensible.
After the discussion on SAI, they then allow Bertrand Piccard, who they earlier hyped as the most distinguished authority, to undermine it by falsely stating “it is a very dangerous road”. Action on albedo is so much less dangerous than inaction that such ignorant views should not be promoted by CNN. Often this “dangerous” line has a conflict of interest due to people’s investments in carbon projects.
That this CNN program is the most advanced example of climate reporting reflects the ignorant and complacent and bullied status of popular analysis. Not much better than Don’t Look Up. Thanks for sharing it. Much more clarity is needed.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: Herman Gyr <g...@enterprisedevelop.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 5:35 AM
To: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Cc: rob...@rtulip.net; robert...@gmail.com; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
We are currently supporting an effort by CNN Chief Climate Correspondent Bill Weir, who last year produced this:
Among others he interviewed Sir David King.
I thought that this is a useful example of a global broadcaster communicating issues of interest to this group.
Herman
Sent from my iPhone
On May 25, 2024, at 10:13 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1326700969.2958147.1716657198806%40mailbusiness.ionos.co.uk.
Oeste
David
Your idea to put the Need for Climate Repair (do not say "climate engineering"- this term repels people and politicans because they connect it with the unwanted SAI) into a song has been realized meanwhile by David Kieve in a wonderful song which has been introduced short ago to the HPAC (see Daniel's mail from May 16). To my opinion Robert Tulips climate repair measures list may be condensed to:
- Atmospheric CO2 transformation into ocean sediment carbon (inorganic and organic C),
- Methane depletion by atmospheric oxidation
- Earth albedo increase by cloud brightening
- Fossile carbon mining stop
Measures 1 to 3 may be done with simple economic measures as like as tree planting, protecting large ocean areas from industrial fishing, sensitive iron provision to iron depleted ocean surface areas, and providing the tropospheric boundary layer above the ocean with appropriate small Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). Might be Daniel need only a small extension of his song content to cover all these main measures for sustainable climate repair.
Once Jane Yett has motivated Daniel Kieve to produce this wonderful song which now has been presented by Daniel in such a thrilling voice. I am sure it would be the best to present this song for climate repair as a Duet from both: Daniel Kieve & Taylor Swift!
Franz
Thanks Herb
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1719129D-CE6D-4934-A0B5-528170EC03DC%40pricenet.ca.
Alan Kerstein
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAJGdOoXxNwMB0%2Bj9m4v0bxyNyTX2%2BmveWsCoS-Y%2BOQsS%2BxyWbw%40mail.gmail.com.
robert...@gmail.com
Robert,
At a guess I suspect that Hausfather's expectations for emissions reductions would fit with Hansen's Pipeline assumption of current GHG concentration being maintained. That led to equilibrium warming of 10C (a bit less if aerosols are not cleaned up) and this implies warming of about 5C by 2100. This would further suggest that AMR's GRAP idea that might at scale deliver cooling of 0.5C would be helpful but far from sufficient to keep surface temperature from triggering some serious tipping events. There's still a need for substantial cooling from SAI/MCB/etc.
Ultimately this is a race against time. If action is contingent upon scientific proof that the interventions can be done in a way that would ensure things being better than if they weren't done, then they'll never be done because such proof is simply not possible without a time machine to travel into alternative futures to see how things turn out - for all the insights modelling offers, it cannot provide incontestable proof about future outcomes. It follows that politicians must take action without scientific proof. There's no reason why they shouldn't do that, they do it all the time in a range of policy areas, but it first requires global climate change policy to be wrested away from the dead hand of the UNFCCC and IPCC, or for them to undergo a fundamental change in mindset. This is a challenging geopolitical conundrum but IMHO, it's crucial.
No promotion of albedo enhancement is going
to get any traction until that is done. The changes required
are not required because albedo enhancement might work. The
changes are required because the current policy regime will not
work. Until that penny drops, there's no compelling reason to
follow another path.
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/039101daaf56%2492b0a7b0%24b811f710%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Here are some more comments I received privately, with my responses in red.
“I acknowledge the legitimacy of many of your arguments, and I am myself conflicted about the 'establishment view' that anything but a total focus (of money, political pressure, and policy) on 'getting off carbon as quickly as possible', is blasphemy.”
- Your mention of blasphemy raises the analogy between climate psychology and religion that I have previously discussed at some length, including an HPAC talk. It is a very complex topic with deep emotional content.
- It is a rather hypocritical irony that “follow the science” has become the dogmatic religious chant of people who reject the science on the need for higher albedo.
“And this is because getting a civilization off the resource it has been built on is, as you say, a long project.”
- This difficulty of emission reduction raises the critical theme of social inertia, the tendency of social systems to resist change and maintain existing conditions and behaviours. Values and traditions are deeply ingrained, tied to collective identity and continuity. Institutions and systems are rigid, making it challenging to innovate. People often prefer the familiar and are wary of the unknown. Social pressures reinforce conformity and discourage deviation from group norms. Established economic systems and vested interests create resistance to change. Businesses and industries that benefit from the status quo lobby against reforms that threaten their position. Societies with a history of conflict are naturally suspicious. Resistance is natural from people who are accustomed to existing practices or benefit from existing power dynamics, and from entrenched parties and ideologies.
- Part of the advantage of an albedo focus is that in itself it requires no social change, and can therefore sidestep the social inertia of the fossil fuel industry and its allies. While it would lead to profound improvements in the relationship between humanity and our planet, any social impacts would be indirect.
- This is in strong contrast to the IPCC insistence that It will take "transformational change" in every sector in every region of the world to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees C.
- Raising awareness and educating people about the benefits and necessity of change are essential to shift attitudes and reduce resistance, but this is easily undermined when there are clear scientific doubts about the proposed strategy. Such doubts are much more compelling about the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 argument than about albedo enhancement.
- An incremental strategy is needed to make the transition less daunting and allow time for adaptation. Starting with sunlight reflection is critical to this process, whereas starting with an insistence on transformational societal change only generates social polarisation with no prospect of success.
- Leadership and advocacy play a crucial role in driving change. Public voices with a clear vision are needed to help forming alliances and coalitions with stakeholders who are at risk from climate change, understanding and addressing their concerns and fears
I would say there are things I disagree on about the certainty of some statements, but I have to read this carefully a few times and confirm some assertions of fact, before replying in detail.
- I have written this fairly quickly, and there may indeed be mistakes. I would welcome anyone pointing out any areas of doubt or disagreement.
One thing I've learned from following the various 'geoegineering-related groups' is that the spectrum of ideologies within such groups is practically as broad as the spectrum of ideologies of the general population, which, although I suppose shouldn't come as a surprise, is, for me anyway, a bit disheartening.
- Yes, there is much diversity in these groups, but there is also a generally shared commitment to evidence and logic as moral principles. There is also a generally higher standard of education and commitment to scientific method than in much of society. So the political spectrum in the rest of society is far wider.
I think, unfortunately, there is confirmation bias across the board and from top to bottom among everyone of us (alas, undoubtedly including me) who is worried about global warming.
- It is too general to see confirmation bias as so pervasive. Scientific facts are objective, and cannot be dismissed as psychological delusions generated by confirmation bias. That dismissal is understood in philosophy as epistemological relativism, the false belief that contradictory statements can both be true. Relativism is widespread in society, and can lead to a nihilistic solipsism, the irrational worry that nothing really exists and nothing really matters. It is true that people’s moral values and speculations are subject to confirmation bias, but it should be possible to analyse this problem systematically and openly in order to minimise such bias.
- I think one of the worst examples of confirmation bias in climate policy is the so-called Zero Emission Commitment, the theory that cutting emissions can be sufficient to reverse global warming, which is based entirely on the desire for it to be true. I do not accept that my argument for higher albedo can reasonably be dismissed as involving confirmation bias.
- I do suffer from confirmation bias to the extent that I give the benefit of the doubt to the potential for albedo enhancement to cut temperature. But this bias can be mitigated by scientific method, insisting on rigorous and transparent scientific assessment of all claims.
Could I suggest that we make your piece the topic of discussion one or more of the NOAC, PRAG, or HPAC zooms?
- Good idea!
Anyway, I want to read your piece carefully multiple times and reply in an equally careful way, if I possibly can. Thanks again, and regards,
- Much appreciated. This whole topic deserves a lot more careful discussion.
Regards
Robert Tulip
1. Cutting emissions by itself cannot possibly cut temperature, as a simple matter of arithmetic that gets ignored.
2. James Hansen et al have partly explained this problem in the Global Warming in the Pipelinearticle, noting the importance of considering past geological precedent.
3. Humans have added more than 3.2 trillion tonnes of GHGs to the air, about two thirds as CO2, but also including other GHGs such as methane, based on 100-year CO2 equivalence, according to https://worldemissions.io/.
4. About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 has dissolved in the oceans so will re-gas when CO2 is removed from the air.
5. Of the >425 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, >145 ppm is anthropogenic.
6. Each ppm weighs 7.72 Gt, so the current atmospheric excess CO2 weighs about 1150 Gt.
7. For reference, one gigatonne (Gt) is one cubic kilometre of water.
8. To that we have to add the 570 Gt in the ocean, so over 1600 Gt CO2 would have to be removed to restore the Holocene CO2 level.
9. As well, methane and other GHGs add 50% to the radiative forcing from CO2, indicating a total problem of roughly 2400 Gt CO2 equivalent.
10. Methane radiative forcing is calculated by IPCC on its century-long effect, which is less than one third of its immediate warming effect.
11. The direct radiative forcing from this total excess GHG amount, plus the related loss of planetary albedo, are the main causes of committed warming.
12. Emissions reduction does nothing about committed warming from past emissions.
13. The consensus argument about a Zero Emission Commitment after Net Zero Emissions wrongly claims that this 2400 Gt CO2 excess would gradually disappear by itself, mainly by photosynthesis.
14. Fully restoring Holocene temperature stability would mean converting about 2400 Gt CO2e into non-warming form, whether by some sort of CO2 storage or by finding practical uses such as soil and infrastructure.
15. That will take decades, time that we do not have due to the risk of tipping points.
16. The system disruption from tipping elements would completely swamp all efforts to deal with the carbon problem in the absence of higher albedo.
17. The last time the atmosphere had this much CO2, the sea was something like 20 metres higher and the world was about four degrees C hotter.
18. Earth System Equilibrium will eventually create similar conditions to these geological precedents unless there is some drastic change.
19. The unprecedented nature of our planetary CO2 dumping experiment means there is major risk that catastrophic climate change could occur much faster than is generally imagined.
20. The Earth may be more fragile and sensitive than accepted models indicate.
21. Committed warming, together with loss of cooling aerosols, is creating conditions incompatible with human civilization.
22. Annual CO2e emissions are 59 billion tonnes. Decarbonisation is failing to dent the increase, which has powerful social and economic drivers.
23. For emissions reduction to slow the annual increase by 10% would be hugely expensive, difficult, risky and contested, but would only marginally delay radical climate disruption.
24. If the world managed to cut emissions in half by 2030, emitting only 29.5 Gt CO2e in 2030, the total difference would be that instead of adding 354 Gt CO2e between 2024 and 2030, the world would add two thirds as much, 236 Gt CO2e. That would require annual CO2 cuts of 4.2 Gt.
25. Slowing the rate of CO2e increase by 10% (6 Gt per year) would address about 0.3% of the estimated 2400 Gt of remaining anthropogenic GHGs each year.
26. A 1% slowdown in the increase in radiative forcing is functionally less than zero, ie an acceleration, because the remaining 99% of GHGs could prove volatile in ways we cannot easily predict, such as sudden glacial collapse, methane release, heat waves, extreme weather and slowing of ocean currents.
27. ‘Moral hazard’ theory, tendentiously called “mitigation deterrence”, is that we must do nothing about 99% of the warming problem, because dealing with 1% of the problem is more important, even though dealing with that 1% has proved politically and economically impossible.
28. The concept of mitigation deterrence is incoherent and ideological. Cutting emissions cannot mitigate climate change over relevant timeframe, whereas higher albedo can, so it makes no sense to say that increasing albedo could deter mitigation.
29. When combined with the false theory of moral hazard, efforts to cut emissions are likely to worsen warming by allowing preventable tipping points.
30. As leading climate scientist Thomas Goreau recently commented, we have not yet seen the warming impact of present-day CO2, due to the delay caused by ocean mixing.
31. The risks of these unpredictable changes can only be mitigated by restoring the temperature that created the previous stability.
32. Cutting emissions can have almost no impact on committed warming, and therefore on temperature.
33. The goal of net zero heating has to replace the false promise of net zero emissions.
Committed warming is just ignored in the fantasy world of emission reduction alone. Unfortunately, the moral principles of efficiency and effectiveness and evidence and ethics are not applied for climate spending, which is largely unfit for purpose. Governments should not spend public funds to subsidise decarbonisation to achieve climate goals, when those goals could be achieved more rapidly, safely and cheaply with solar geoengineering.
Clear distinction is needed between short and medium-term responses to the climate emergency. In the short term, albedo is the main climate impact that could be affected by human action. Albedo is now collapsing by about 1% per decade, a clear indicator of the shutdown of Earth Systems. This emergency could be mitigated with geoengineering.
Cutting GHG levels is something that will take much longer, with the eventual aim of restoring the Holocene atmospheric composition. Cutting emissions cannot cut GHG levels, despite the alleged ‘consensus’ argument to the contrary made in literature on the Zero Emission Commitment.
Policy discussion in the IPCC and related academic and social organisations has become corrupted by a tribal failure to address scientific evidence about the practical impossibility and high risks of rapid decarbonisation. This triumph of hope over observation is known as greenwishing, which is a bigger political problem than corporate greenwashing. Greenwishing means imagining that a strategy is possible and effective, while ignoring contrary evidence.
Two key points are that possible cuts to emission levels are marginal to the rate of warming, and that efforts to accelerate emission cuts have such high opportunity cost that they are counterproductive.
I don’t know anyone else who advocates geoengineering who also doubts the need to accelerate emission cuts, although a few have hinted at that unpopular opinion. Perhaps some keep silent because they are worried about being shunned by the climate tribe as a heretic. That suggests this debate involves religious psychology and community loyalty as much as intellectual coherence. Scientific integrity should be the primary concern in the face of the urgent need to prevent impending system collapse.
--
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
To view this discussion on the web visit
rob...@rtulip.net
Thanks Alan, here is my effort at a song. You might also like Daniel Kieve’s song - https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/danielkieve/fire-from-ice
Dermott Reilly
(Verse 1)
In a world that's spinning wildly, where the skies are draped in grey,
The CO2 whispers secrets, to the oceans far away.
Transforming into sediment, both organic and in stone,
A silent dance beneath the waves, where light has rarely shone.
(Chorus)
We're painting our tomorrow with the choices of today,
Can we rewrite the story, can we save the blue and grey?
It's time to stop the mining, let the fossil carbon rest,
For a future that's worth claiming, for a world that's at its best.
(Verse 2)
Methane once abundant, now depleting in the air,
Oxidation's gentle touch, a change that's only fair.
The Earth she seeks to cool herself, with clouds that shine so bright,
Reflecting back the sun's warm rays, a force against the night.
(Bridge)
And as we stand upon this ground, our hearts must hear the call,
To be the change, to lead the way, to catch us if we fall.
The albedo's rising, with each cloud that we can brighten,
A testament to human will, our burdens we must lighten.
(Chorus)
We're painting our tomorrow with the choices of today,
Can we rewrite the story, can we save the blue and grey?
It's time to stop the mining, let the fossil carbon rest,
For a future that's worth claiming, for a world that's at its best.
(Outro)
So let's sing for the changes, let's sing for the sea,
For every living creature, for you and for me.
With every note that's played, with every word we pen,
We'll echo through the ages, 'til the world breathes again.
This song aims to capture the urgency of addressing climate change while maintaining a hopeful tone that encourages positive action.
Seems good to me😁
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/e174d9f7-1f95-4ff5-8f32-441bfa86df26%40gm-ingenieurbuero.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
Herb, My comments below in red.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of H simmens
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 4:33 AM
To: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Cc: rob...@rtulip.net; robert...@gmail.com; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
Clive,
The theory or at least the hope of emission optimists is that renewable energy will follow the familiar S curve - also known as Dornbusch’s Law as cited by Bill Gates. Rudiger Dornbusch, who liked to say (for example, in this interview about Mexico's economic crisis in the 1990s): "The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought." In this case it’s not a negative event but a positive event that would be subject to this law. Similarly is the Hemingway Law named after a well-known line in his book The Sun Also Rises where when the character was asked how he went bankrupt the response was: Gradually, then suddenly.
- By “emission optimists” you appear to mean advocates of emission reduction alone. And then you apply Hemingway’s Law to the idea that when renewable technology reaches critical mass we will see a sudden massive shift from fossil fuels to renewables. I found this a bit confusing, since the main application of Hemingway’s Law to climate is tipping points, that they are rather like earthquakes, gradually building tectonic pressure until a sudden catastrophic phase shift.
- I agree with Roger Arnold’s response “what you neatly refer to as Hemingway's law -- Gradually, then suddenly -- doesn't quite apply, because there's been no reduction in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.” Jevon’s Paradox is a better description, that new technology adds rather than replaces. I think the idea that renewables might suddenly reach a transformative tipping point is extremely unlikely, and I am sympathetic to the arguments of Simon Michaux and Vaclav Smil against the feasibility of emission reduction. Amazingly, when I search on this, my first hit is a post by none other than Roger Arnold - https://energycentral.com/c/cp/there-realistic-solution-intermittency - setting out major problems with the proposed energy transition.
The cost reductions in solar, wind and batteries over the past decade or two have been quite remarkable and the gradual penetration of those technologies in the market is now reaching in many cases the point on the S curve where sudden acceleration usually occurs - at the 5 to 10% mark. A classic recent example is the adoption of the smartphone.
Therefore notwithstanding the enormous barriers facing the clean energy transformation, including hard to abate sectors, mineral shortages, supply chain challenges and path dependence in many industries I don’t see how anyone can conclusively argue that current trends are inherently insufficient to lead to a dramatic clean energy transformation in the next several decades.
- The arguments linked in the post from Roger Arnold that I just cited do exactly what you suggest can’t be done, convincing many informed observers that “current trends are inherently insufficient to lead to a dramatic clean energy transformation in the next several decades.” The smartphone is completely different. Unlike renewables, it is a replacement for previous technology rather than an adjunct to it, with its higher utility making life in advanced societies difficult without it. By contrast, renewables are less utile than fossil fuels, due to the unsolved intermittency, storage, recycling and materials concerns. The main problem with fossil fuels is not about functional utility (except for pollution). Rather, it is the more intangible existential problem that business as usual is extinctive.
My argument as you may know is that even the most optimistic and accelerated S curve emission reduction pathway cannot prevent - according to the most authoritative science - sharply elevated temperatures, increased ecosystem collapse, continuing sea level rise and the all but inevitable activation of multiple largely irreversible tipping points for centuries absent large scale greenhouse gas removal and DCC - direct climate cooling - the Climate Triad. How many people know - or if they do know - inform the public that reaching zero emissions will not alleviate the climate crisis. Almost no one from my experience in reviewing hundreds of papers and articles over the years.
- This failure to “inform the public that reaching zero emissions will not alleviate the climate crisis” is what I described as the triumph of hope over observation, the core psychology of confirmation bias, which I discuss in another recent comment. My next plan is to write a review of Don’t Look Up, arguing that the emissions reduction alone dogma is guilty of not looking up. My initial discussion sought to put some numbers around this problem of the efficacy of cutting emissions. I would really like it if people could check my calculations as they seem of value to quantifying the problem of committed warming.
As Zeke Hausfather states in an article in Climate Brief: “Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.” Yet this absolutely catastrophic description of what faces every living creature on the planet is the reality behind the millions of exhortations every day to reduce emissions. Pure insanity.
- Going back to this article by Zeke is useful. I have discussed it before, as my assessment is that it is absolutely terrible, the worst imaginable example of confirmation bias, the Boxer Problem that ‘a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest’. He opens with a confused discussion of committed warming, which does NOT mean that past emissions mean future warming is inevitable, but rather that past emissions are the main cause of current warming. This is an essential distinction. The concept of committed warming was introduced to refute the popular myth underlying emission reduction alone which holds that NEW emissions are the main cause of warming.
- But in this Hausfather article and similar work the meaning of committed warming has been shifted, diminishing its political impact. He then proceeds to ignore the main possible way that committed warming can be avoided, namely sunlight reflection. Instead his focus is on the thoroughly impossible hypothesis of net zero emissions by 2050, citing the bizarre 2008 article by Matthews and Caldeira whose abstract has about ten truck-sized holes. I am happy to come back to this topic further.
- https://giorgiograffinoclimate.earth/2024/03/19/when-will-global-warming-stop/# makes the eminently reasonable observation that “Having significantly increased the concentration of [GHGs], there is the possibility that some of those loops have been set in motion irreversibly until they become points of no return, accelerating global warming. As claimed by one recent study, climate change is in fact accelerating.”
Therefore I find it counterproductive to critique the zero emission commitment or Michael Mann’s views for example as too optimistic as these disagreements about interpreting climate science will only be resolved when it’s too late to act on them. As Michael Mann himself says the reality is bad enough.
- I don’t get why this critique would be counterproductive Herb. It is possible to develop models that quantify likely alternative results of such scenarios, enabling action before it is too late. Hansen has started to do this, but he also seems to have accepted the false definition of committed warming that Hausfather presents. If we can build a model that shows the urgent necessity of rebrightening, then the complacent IPCC acceptance of a zero ZEC can be refuted. (A zero ZEC means that after reaching net zero, temperatures would allegedly stop rising.) But that conflicts with geological analysis of earth system equilibrium, the observation that current GHG levels correlate to much higher past temperatures and sea levels. I should add, the Zero Emission Commitment (ZEC) as discussed in AR6 is monumentally confusing, based on models with a pulse of 1000 ppm CO2, and estimating that the result of an absurd hypothetical thought experiment with sudden ending of combustion would be a utopian fixing of climate change. That is my slightly exaggerated satire, but if I am wrong I would be grateful to know where. The climate stability allegedly resulting from ZEC is totally implausible, as the earth system is far more sensitive and fragile than it assumes, leaving us wide open to disruptive tipping points that can only be mitigated by higher albedo.
The most effective strategy against an opponent is not to go after his weaknesses but to go after his strengths. You saw that when George Bush successfully critiqued John Kerry’s heroic war record in 2004 and you often see that in various martial arts. In this case the most effective and accurate approach is not to question the conventional climate science about the consequences of the emission reductions alone paradigm but to accept the zero emission commitment and simply point out what almost all Climate advocates and scientists refuse to say. Which is that even the best case emission reductions forecast will still lead to a dystopian planet for literally centuries that no one would choose to or should have to live through as long as ERA- emission reductions alone - continues as the prevailing paradigm. Once people internalize that reality - or as the writer Mark Herzgaard first described in 2009 as an Oh Shit moment - the willingness to accept and even enthusiastically advocate for DCC should often follow. Herb
- Thanks very much for these observations Herb. Simplifying fundamental climate concepts like committed warming and zero emission commitment can provide an essential public service in demystifying climate science, not to mention my main bugbear, the false prevailing definition of mitigation. Each of these terms has major political implications. Drawing that out, as you do here with the dystopian effect of a supposedly ‘stable’ but much hotter world, serves to reinforce the immediate need for geoengineering. Like planting a tree, the best time was twenty years ago, and the next best time is now.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/82101B90-13DF-4D1B-A5B5-DDA6896F6252%40gmail.com.
Oswald Petersen
Dear Robert,
your sentence:
In climate policy, the most desirable goals should be about what sort of world we want to have in the future, allied to a realistic path to achievement. Key objectives should include peace, prosperity, stability, rationality, equality, cooperation and biodiversity.
overloads climate policy. If you set too many goals, you won’t reach one of them. Make more modest goals. I would write
In climate policy the most important goal is cooling.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/05dd01daaf71%2485d33e70%249179bb50%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Thank you David. Unfortunately being ‘masterfully clear’ makes no difference when you confront people’s entrenched prejudices.
I don’t think millions of people need to read this, but finding ways to open dialogue with potential leaders of supportive constituencies is essential.
My view is that changing the minds of leaders of small island developing states could be the most effective way to force rebrightening onto the COP agenda.
They should understand that they have been sold a crock with the advice that cutting emissions could make any difference to their existential challenges of storm intensity and sea level rise.
Building constituencies of support requires simple mass media messaging, scientific backup, targeted political lobbying and pop culture endorsement.
That all needs money, of which HPAC has about none.
Debate with opponents is also valuable, but their general attitude is to avoid giving any oxygen to the truth.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1719129D-CE6D-4934-A0B5-528170EC03DC%40pricenet.ca.
rob...@rtulip.net
Roger, I hope you saw my email mentioning you in reply to Herb. Some further responses below in red.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: Roger Arnold <silver...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 10:20 AM
To: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; rob...@rtulip.net; robert...@gmail.com; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
Herb,
When you write: “Therefore notwithstanding the enormous barriers facing the clean energy transformation, including hard to abate sectors, mineral shortages, supply chain challenges and path dependence in many industries I don’t see how anyone can conclusively argue that current trends are inherently insufficient to lead to a dramatic clean energy transformation in the next several decades.” I can't disagree. But the key phrase is "conclusively argue". I think there's ample basis for arguing that it's looking pretty damn unlikely.
- I discussed this problem of the feasibility of clean energy in reply to Herb. I personally am convinced that emission reduction can only have a marginal impact on global warming, addressing less than 1% of the forcing each year, functionally less than zero.
- The real heavy lifting has to be done by solar geoengineering, with support from GGR. A key issue here is what Ye Tao calls “cooling return on investment”.
- Very large government investment in clean energy is justified with the unproven assertion that it helps to stop global warming. But if there is other spending – direct climate cooling – that is far better value for money, governments have a responsibility to switch focus. As I mentioned, the UK Royal Society estimated that geoengineering is one thousand times better value for money than emission reduction as a global warming response. That makes the restriction of climate funding to carbon action inexplicable.
Even what you neatly refer to as Hemingway's law -- Gradually, then suddenly -- doesn't quite apply, because there's been no reduction in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Gradual or otherwise. Barring COVID and short periods of economic downturn, there's only been growth. The whole emissions reduction narrative is reminiscent of Gandhi's response to being asked what he thought about western civilization: "I think it would be a very good idea".
- Good point. If Hemingway’s bankruptcy process applied to the energy transition S curve, then we would have seen a gradual fall in emissions. But we haven’t.
- The only “S-bend” I can see here is a metaphor for the quality of the argument that clean energy is the main climate agenda.
I don't believe Clive nor anyone else on this list would say that emissions reduction isn't a good idea.
- Of course emission reduction is a good idea. But it needs to be part of a systematic principled analysis, and the IPCC has rejected that.
But it's a fact that much of the opposition to the other two legs of the climate triad is rationalized by the popular belief that reducing net anthropogenic carbon emissions to zero will resolve the climate change problem. That's of course a false belief -- as you quite correctly point out. Whether it's valid or not, however, is moot if we can't even get to that point.
- Can I point out here Roger that net zero emissions is reached by the combination of emission reduction and greenhouse gas removal, not just an end to emissions, even though as you note that error is how it is popularly understood. The “net” in “net zero” just means sinks equals sources. Since CDR is intended to become a primary sink, it is included in net zero, balancing ongoing emissions. That is why Greta Thunberg insisted, maintaining her mixed reputation for realism, “we don’t need net zero, we need real zero.” Campaigning for a total end to combustion may be valiant and quixotic, but it is not the same thing as net zero emissions.
The bottom line is that, while the likelihood that we won't be able to achieve net zero anytime soon isn't the only reason we need geoengineering, it's a reason. That makes it worth pointing out.
- I would say this is a main reason why solar geoengineering is needed urgently. The traditional theory that climate can be fixed by tinkering with carbon is wrong.
Clive,
The theory or at least the hope of emission optimists is that renewable energy will follow the familiar S curve - also known as Dornbusch’s Law as cited by Bill Gates.
Rudiger Dornbusch, who liked to say (for example, in this interview about Mexico's economic crisis in the 1990s):
"The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought."
In this case it’s not a negative event but a positive event that would be subject to this law.
Similarly is the Hemingway Law named after a well-known line in his book The Sun Also Rises where when the character was asked how he went bankrupt the response was:
Gradually, then suddenly.
The cost reductions in solar, wind and batteries over the past decade or two have been quite remarkable and the gradual penetration of those technologies in the market is now reaching in many cases the point on the S curve where sudden acceleration usually occurs - at the 5 to 10% mark. A classic recent example is the adoption of the smartphone.
Therefore notwithstanding the enormous barriers facing the clean energy transformation, including hard to abate sectors, mineral shortages, supply chain challenges and path dependence in many industries I don’t see how anyone can conclusively argue that current trends are inherently insufficient to lead to a dramatic clean energy transformation in the next several decades.
My argument as you may know is that even the most optimistic and accelerated S curve emission reduction pathway cannot prevent - according to the most authoritative science - sharply elevated temperatures, increased ecosystem collapse, continuing sea level rise and the all but inevitable activation of multiple largely irreversible tipping points for centuries absent large scale greenhouse gas removal and DCC - direct climate cooling - the Climate Triad.
How many people know - or if they do know - inform the public that reaching zero emissions will not alleviate the climate crisis. Almost no one from my experience in reviewing hundreds of papers and articles over the years.
As Zeke Hausfather states in an article in Climate Brief:
“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.”
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi David
You said “So many reasons to plant more trees and raise more forests...”
Just some background. My interest in geoengineering began in 2006 when I worked for an Australian government overseas aid program on Forests and Climate. The program was based on the premise that preventing deforestation in poor countries would help cool the world. As ever, my interest in simple numbers led me to compare the scale of global warming to the scale of forests.
I noticed that the amount of carbon involved in global warming is orders of magnitude bigger than the amount that can be added to forests. When I pointed this out, I was uninvited to the program launch conference.
Total emissions including equivalents are over three trillion tonnes of CO2, of which about half is still serving as our friendly carbon time bomb in the air and sea. One calculation is that world forests could store an extra gigatonne of CO2 per year. That assumes deforestation, drought, fire, heat, pests, storms and social inertia don’t get in the way of establishing the estimated hundred million hectares of extra forest growth needed to store 1 Gt.
So the optimistic scenario is that forests can handle about 0.1% of the climate problem each year, one billion tonnes compared to one trillion. That is worthwhile, but it does suggest that your comment doesn’t see the forest for the trees. It is lovely to focus on forests, but pointless if the climate collapses around them.
Roughly similar calculations back in 2006 led me to the view that large scale ocean based algae production would be the best climate strategy. Since then, my thinking has evolved based on analysis of the barriers to change to see marine cloud brightening as our most important immediate option to avoid collapse.
Regards
Robert Tulip
robert...@gmail.com
A further problem with re- and afforestation as a response to climate change is the time it takes for the trees to begin sequestering serious amounts of carbon and the vulnerability of that carbon to unexpected release through forest fires and other perils.
Tree planting has a load of important
ecological and social benefits and is to be widely encouraged.
However, tree planting does not offer a meaningful contribution
to ameliorating global warming.
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/06cd01dab02d%24f8084780%24e818d680%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Alan, I already sent you one of my climate songs, based on Eve of Destruction, the number one anti war hit song from 1965.
Here is the tune for your song - Buckle Up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WYWOc4L9_0
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 11:18 PM
To: David Ellison <elli...@gmail.com>
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi RC
Your comparison of Oswald’s methane project to SRM reminds me of this old McKinsey marginal abatement cost curve (source). It was just focused on carbon, but a similar exercise could be done for albedo, with temperature impact as the abscissa and cost as the ordinate, if someone could just pay a few McKinsey consultants…
Climate modellers tend to use SSP2, and as Hansen points out that is a recipe for catastrophe.
On your point about “scientific proof that the interventions can be done in a way that would ensure things being better than if they weren't done”, we can’t prove the Sun will rise tomorrow, but there are reasonable inductive grounds for a risk-risk analysis to be highly favourable to sunlight reflection.
I believe that convincing national governments most at risk that sunlight reflection is urgently essential is the best way to get this onto the world agenda.
Many thanks
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/add50aae-fb41-4761-a98a-ebd340897272%40gmail.com.
David Ellison
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Herman, getting a range of people to talk about albedo with CNN would be a superb advocacy strategy.
Of course, the term albedo is too much of a brain strain for popular TV, so it has to be radically simplified for a mass audience, while retaining the strategic vision.
I recently spoke with Metta Spencer at Project Save The World, and with Paul Beckwith at Climate Emergency Forum.
Reviewing their numerous published video conversations offers excellent material for your suggestion.
Part of the challenge in this space is that many strong advocates see the climate problem through a partisan political lens. My view is that effective results need to avoid such commentary.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: Herman Gyr <g...@enterprisedevelop.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 12:05 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
Thanks Robert for your thoughtful and detailed review of that CNN documentary. My intention was simply to provide a glimpse into what some of the messaging by one global news broadcaster looks like.
Your insights make me wonder whether you / this group could craft an outline for a suggested Whole Story segment. Something about Facing the Climate Emergency (or whatever title you chose), maybe with a list of persons / projects that would be good for Bill to interview.
robert...@gmail.com
Robert, when I was introduced to philosophy I had a hard time getting to understand how the sun rising tomorrow morning was only contingently and not absolutely true. The problem is that when a proof depends on induction, as most proofs that we're concerned about do, it is absolutely true that they are not absolutely true, and because they are not absolutely true there is always scope for argument about whether the correct conclusion has been induced from the available observations, or even whether those observations are themselves a sound basis for the induction.
Now here's an absolute truth 🙂: any statement that is not absolutely true will attract those willing to dispute its truth.
And here's another: All statements central
to our understanding of climate change and responses to it, are
contingent truths (i.e. none is absolutely true).
And another: any decisions not forced on us
by circumstances can be deferred indefinitely so long as someone
is willing to dispute the truth of the statements on which it is
based.
What we need to understand is the limited
role that truth has in this discourse.
Robert
robert...@gmail.com
Hi David
I had a quick scan of this paper and didn't
see the numbers that make planetary cooling from tree planting a
slam-dunk. I'd be grateful if you would point me to the
specific bits of the papers that do this.
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAJGdOoVj5ap0pS0A5dOUMzhHFxGYLNjU0%2Bp4YJUYWPnug%3DgAAQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Oswald Petersen
Dear Robert,
Note: Thanks for adding your last name to your posts, I would otherwise fall into Robertomania, a known disease since the French Revolution:-)
To the point:
At this stage SAI will not get the support it would need, no matter what opinion you and I or anybody in this forum have.
I consideration of this fact I suggest to concentrate on GHG removal. Unlike SAI it is within the UNFCCC's strategy to remove GHG.
Why not go the easier way. Once planes spread material to cool the climate it will be much less contentious to do " the same" at another location.
BTW methane removal alone has the potential of cooling the atmosphere by 0.5 °C. This number will rise with methane levels. The 2nd large impact of GRAP is OIF. At this stage we do not count that in any way, simply because no scientist ever assessed that impact. Let alone cloud forming… all in all the impact of GRAP in the future could be sufficient to bring us over the next 100 years. Till then decarbonization must transform our economy. Decarbonization is the way to go in the long term. If it still is not happening in 100 years, we will all be dead. Excuse the pun, but really, 100 years is the time frame needed for such a revolution in practically all economic fields. Any claim it could be done earlier is IMHO just eyewash. Within 100 years however most buildings will be replaced anyway. That’s a good guideline. Buildings last around 100 years. Industrial building get replaced faster on average, but then again the human economic system is about as fast as the atmospheric/oceanic system. It took 150 years to brake it, and it will take 150 years to fix it, taking year 2000 as the point in time when GW really began to influence some decisions.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/07e401dab035%2437a16410%24a6e42c30%24%40rtulip.net.
rob...@rtulip.net
Some more private comments, with responses in red.
“First and most importantly: keep writing, keep moving forward, regardless. You have an incredible gift of language and I believe good things will happen, progress will get made if you continue to use that gift.”
- It is always nice to receive compliments (quite rare for me), so I am happy to share this one. I think this illustrates that as long as discussion is pertinent and focused it is a good way to build momentum and agreement. It reflects Margaret Mead’s observation that the only thing that has ever changed the world is a small group of thoughtful, committed, organized citizens.
“Secondly, in the US, we are a giant clusterfuck of a country and most people here have zero hope that political forces will be marshalled in an effective way. I am wrong of course to some minor degree (example: EPA is pushing out $27B by Sept 30th from the greenhouse gas reduction fund as part of the Biden administration effort). But what it feels like over here is that we're living in the pre-trembling of a house that will fall.”
- This is really important. There is fear that the USA is facing its 1933 moment with Donald Trump this year, and a grim sense that democracy has failed.
- I wonder how much the climate action movement has contributed to this polarisation by its focus on speeding up the energy transition.
- There is quite a bit of hatred and fury outside the Tesla Zone, fed by a sense that the progressive consensus on decarbonisation is harmful and delusional.
- I still vividly recall Trump’s speech in 2017 in the Rose Garden, explaining that his reason for leaving the Paris Accord was that science shows it would not cut temperature. He has been proved largely right in this, but there is no contrition from his opponents, only doubling down.
- Here is what Trump said about temperature: “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes. As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”
- You can quibble that Trump’s figures leave out the Paris ratchet, but there is no evidence that the ratchet ambition is feasible.
- My view is that climate stability should be the first priority, delivered by higher albedo. That can contribute to a systematic approach to security that will enable practical incremental approaches to other problems, including by building international trust and cooperation.
- Many would say that climate stability can only be approached from a progressive political lens, but I don’t agree, in view of the broad progressive hostility to geoengineering. There is quite a bit of conservative interest in using geoengineering as a substitute for emissions reduction, but this whole conversation is treated as a taboo.
Regards
Robert Tulip
2. James Hansen et al have partly explained this problem in the Global Warming in the Pipelinearticle, noting the importance of considering past geological precedent.
Tom Goreau
You said: Many would say that climate stability can only be approached from a progressive political lens, but I don’t agree, in view of the broad progressive hostility to geoengineering. There is quite a bit of conservative interest in using geoengineering as a substitute for emissions reduction, but this whole conversation is treated as a taboo.
Your suggestion that geoengineering is rightwing/leftwing issue is astonishing!
The division is more between those favouring fact based rationality versus mysticism as explanations of the world, than political views.
Those opposed to geo-engineering are almost all conservatives viscerally opposed to playing god by trying to influence nature, driven by strong anti-science, anti-fact, and anti-reasoning dogmas.
Progressives are far more willing to take a chance on uncertainty and science than those blinkered from looking at the facts or thinking about them due to ideology.
From:
healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Date: Monday, May 27, 2024 at 9:58 AM
To: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
Cutting emissions by itself cannot possibly cut temperature, as a simple matter of arithmetic that gets ignored.
James Hansen et al have partly explained this problem in the Global Warming in the Pipelinearticle, noting the importance of considering past geological precedent.
Humans have added more than 3.2 trillion tonnes of GHGs to the air, about two thirds as CO2, but also including other GHGs such as methane, based on 100-year CO2 equivalence, according to https://worldemissions.io/.
About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 has dissolved in the oceans so will re-gas when CO2 is removed from the air.
Of the >425 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, >145 ppm is anthropogenic.
Each ppm weighs 7.72 Gt, so the current atmospheric excess CO2 weighs about 1150 Gt.
For reference, one gigatonne (Gt) is one cubic kilometre of water.
To that we have to add the 570 Gt in the ocean, so over 1600 Gt CO2 would have to be removed to restore the Holocene CO2 level.
As well, methane and other GHGs add 50% to the radiative forcing from CO2, indicating a total problem of roughly 2400 Gt CO2 equivalent.
Methane radiative forcing is calculated by IPCC on its century-long effect, which is less than one third of its immediate warming effect.
The direct radiative forcing from this total excess GHG amount, plus the related loss of planetary albedo, are the main causes of committed warming.
Emissions reduction does nothing about committed warming from past emissions.
The consensus argument about a Zero Emission Commitment after Net Zero Emissions wrongly claims that this 2400 Gt CO2 excess would gradually disappear by itself, mainly by photosynthesis.
Fully restoring Holocene temperature stability would mean converting about 2400 Gt CO2e into non-warming form, whether by some sort of CO2 storage or by finding practical uses such as soil and infrastructure.
That will take decades, time that we do not have due to the risk of tipping points.
The system disruption from tipping elements would completely swamp all efforts to deal with the carbon problem in the absence of higher albedo.
The last time the atmosphere had this much CO2, the sea was something like 20 metres higher and the world was about four degrees C hotter.
Earth System Equilibrium will eventually create similar conditions to these geological precedents unless there is some drastic change.
The unprecedented nature of our planetary CO2 dumping experiment means there is major risk that catastrophic climate change could occur much faster than is generally imagined.
The Earth may be more fragile and sensitive than accepted models indicate.
Committed warming, together with loss of cooling aerosols, is creating conditions incompatible with human civilization.
Annual CO2e emissions are 59 billion tonnes. Decarbonisation is failing to dent the increase, which has powerful social and economic drivers.
For emissions reduction to slow the annual increase by 10% would be hugely expensive, difficult, risky and contested, but would only marginally delay radical climate disruption.
If the world managed to cut emissions in half by 2030, emitting only 29.5 Gt CO2e in 2030, the total difference would be that instead of adding 354 Gt CO2e between 2024 and 2030, the world would add two thirds as much, 236 Gt CO2e. That would require annual CO2 cuts of 4.2 Gt.
Slowing the rate of CO2e increase by 10% (6 Gt per year) would address about 0.3% of the estimated 2400 Gt of remaining anthropogenic GHGs each year.
A 1% slowdown in the increase in radiative forcing is functionally less than zero, ie an acceleration, because the remaining 99% of GHGs could prove volatile in ways we cannot easily predict, such as sudden glacial collapse, methane release, heat waves, extreme weather and slowing of ocean currents.
‘Moral hazard’ theory, tendentiously called “mitigation deterrence”, is that we must do nothing about 99% of the warming problem, because dealing with 1% of the problem is more important, even though dealing with that 1% has proved politically and economically impossible.
The concept of mitigation deterrence is incoherent and ideological. Cutting emissions cannot mitigate climate change over relevant timeframe, whereas higher albedo can, so it makes no sense to say that increasing albedo could deter mitigation.
When combined with the false theory of moral hazard, efforts to cut emissions are likely to worsen warming by allowing preventable tipping points.
As leading climate scientist Thomas Goreau recently commented, we have not yet seen the warming impact of present-day CO2, due to the delay caused by ocean mixing.
The risks of these unpredictable changes can only be mitigated by restoring the temperature that created the previous stability.
Cutting emissions can have almost no impact on committed warming, and therefore on temperature.
The goal of net zero heating has to replace the false promise of net zero emissions.
Committed warming is just ignored in the fantasy world of emission reduction alone. Unfortunately, the moral principles of efficiency and effectiveness and evidence and ethics are not applied for climate spending, which is largely unfit for purpose. Governments should not spend public funds to subsidise decarbonisation to achieve climate goals, when those goals could be achieved more rapidly, safely and cheaply with solar geoengineering.
Clear distinction is needed between short and medium-term responses to the climate emergency. In the short term, albedo is the main climate impact that could be affected by human action. Albedo is now collapsing by about 1% per decade, a clear indicator of the shutdown of Earth Systems. This emergency could be mitigated with geoengineering.
Cutting GHG levels is something that will take much longer, with the eventual aim of restoring the Holocene atmospheric composition. Cutting emissions cannot cut GHG levels, despite the alleged ‘consensus’ argument to the contrary made in literature on the Zero Emission Commitment.
Policy discussion in the IPCC and related academic and social organisations has become corrupted by a tribal failure to address scientific evidence about the practical impossibility and high risks of rapid decarbonisation. This triumph of hope over observation is known as greenwishing, which is a bigger political problem than corporate greenwashing. Greenwishing means imagining that a strategy is possible and effective, while ignoring contrary evidence.
Two key points are that possible cuts to emission levels are marginal to the rate of warming, and that efforts to accelerate emission cuts have such high opportunity cost that they are counterproductive.
I don’t know anyone else who advocates geoengineering who also doubts the need to accelerate emission cuts, although a few have hinted at that unpopular opinion. Perhaps some keep silent because they are worried about being shunned by the climate tribe as a heretic. That suggests this debate involves religious psychology and community loyalty as much as intellectual coherence. Scientific integrity should be the primary concern in the face of the urgent need to prevent impending system collapse.
--
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/008d01daae20%249c08f470%24d41add50%24%40rtulip.net.
--
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/08c201dab03d%24f5b71140%24e12533c0%24%40rtulip.net.
David Ellison
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/79108be0-9013-4974-bea9-571ceda02b91%40gmail.com.
robert...@gmail.com
Hi David
Forgive me for not going through the detail
but I'm deeply involved in something else at the moment. But
just a quickie - in this Table 1 is the assumption that the
results in the gold and green highlighted boxes delivered by
reversing the historically lost forestation assumed in each
column? If so, what areas are we talking about? How is that
land currently used? What would be the impacts elsewhere on
people and other ecosystems of restoring forest on this scale?
In short, is reforestation on this scale remotely feasible in a
timescale that would reduce surface temperature soon enough to
avoid triggering tipping events? Would it be sufficiently
economically attractive to be undertaken by market forces, and
if not, why should governments fund this when they're not
funding so many other climate change responses?
Robert
Ron Baiman
David Ellison
robert...@gmail.com
Hi David
Thanks for the clarification. I think it confirms my basic point that reforestation has limited practical capacity to help with climate change in the short term. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't important and there will be all kinds of local reasons for promoting it.
A point I really like and hadn't appreciated before was that the notion that dark biomass decreases albedo and therefore contributes to global warming is more than offset by the other atmospheric impacts of forestation. I'll have to have a look at that more carefully.
Thanks.
Robert
Roger Arnold
daleanne bourjaily
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/067401dab028%24e10ae920%24a320bb60%24%40rtulip.net.
Sev Clarke
rob...@rtulip.net
Tom, I don’t think the political division on geoengineering is as simple as you suggest.
The main active opposition to geoengineering comes from the political left, on the ground that it undermines emission reduction and presents a technocratic solution. That has certainly been the main argument in forums such as the UN Environment Assembly, as explained in this article - Biermann, F. et al, A paradigm shift? African countries call for the non-use of solar geoengineering at UN Environment Assembly, PLOS Climate, May 2024, https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000413.
I don’t know how to characterise the politics of the IPCC on a left right spectrum, but you could not see its fervent opposition to geoengineering as conservative, given the radical UN calls for halving emissions by 2030.
The political right are more receptive to the idea that geoengineering can be a substitute for emission reduction. While that is a dubious proposition, it is better than no climate action at all, and plausibly also better than attempts to deliver emission reduction without albedo action. It is also plausible they will come to see higher albedo as an effective way to respond to extreme weather, but this proposition is not yet widely discussed.
A Pew Research survey in 2021 found that only 4% of Americans say they have heard or read a lot about solar geoengineering, and that opinion overall is fairly evenly divided on whether it would make any difference to climate change. This survey breaks down US geoengineering opinion by political affiliation, but I don’t think its results on this mean much.
The distinction you suggest between mystical and fact based worldviews is far from clear. There are mystical environmentalists who support action on climate change.
Conservatives believe that progressives are “blinkered from looking at the facts or thinking about them due to ideology.” This is a main factor in debates on energy policy, with emission reduction alone a dominant progressive ideology.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994A9357F819CEC7E0F7C6FDDF02%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
David Ellison
Vyt Garnys (CETEC)
Thank you Robert, Tom and all for expounding and exposing your deep thoughts and feelings on this critical matter. So valuable and to be treasured.
I am sure we all welcome robust debate but is this expert, knowledgeable and passionate input likely to be lost in contest and introspection?
How can our process and condense the agreed, reasonable, debatable and disagreed components and openly dissipate for rippling review, amplification, progressive adoption for sober consideration by those charged to action?
Do we have a hazard and risk assessment based ( eg ISO 31000) assessment and management strategy and tactics plan that we, The Healthy-Planet- ACTION-Coalition are following?
I guess that I am asking for a structured, managed and KPI’d process since the clock is ticking loudly for us but maybe not loudly enough for those that have not yet learned to tell this time or even know where this clock is. .
I am posing this question for discussion knowing there will be many answers that we will have to prioritise and possibly develop a range of action plans.
Kind and humble regards, Vyt
 |
Dr Vyt Garnys |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03fa01dab0d0%24dcf327a0%2496d976e0%24%40rtulip.net.
Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.
https://www.mailguard.com.au/mg
Bru Pearce
Ruth Mundy,
Love in the time of coral reefs.
Ru Mundy - Love in the Time of Coral Reefs (youtube.com)
Bru
Pearce
E-mail b...@envisionation.org
Skype brupearce
Work +44 20 8144 0431 Mobile +44 7740 854713
Salcombe, Devon, UK
Information contained in this email and any files attached to it is confidential to the intended recipient and may be covered by legal professional privilege. If you receive this email in error, please advise by return email before deleting it; you should not retain the email or disclose its contents to anyone. Envisionation Ltd has taken reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of software viruses, but we recommend that any attachments are virus checked before they are opened. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 2:44 PM
To: 'Alan Kerstein' <alan.k...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'David Price' <da...@pricenet.ca>; 'Daniel Kieve' <dki...@gmail.com>; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
Thanks Alan, here is my effort at a song. You might also like Daniel Kieve’s song - https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/danielkieve/fire-from-ice
From: Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 11:18 PM
To: David Ellison <elli...@gmail.com>
Cc: David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>;
rob...@rtulip.net;
robert...@gmail.com;
healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
I detect a burgeoning groundswell of opinion that we should have a song. I wrote the attached last October and sent it to just a few people (with the suggestion that Taylor Swift and others of her ilk should be encouraged to sing it while dancing around a maypole), but I guess it's time to share it widely. It's a riff on a long-forgotton ditty that I include so you can get the melody from the web. Hopefully it will provoke the reaction "I can do better than that" and so someone will.
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 1:28 AM David Ellison <elli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of robert...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 8:29 AM
To: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] The Need for Geoengineering
Hi Robert
Lot's of work behind this! Well done.
I'm not clear how you propose to use it and any comments I might make would be conditioned by that.
Two overarching remarks are first that it comes across as quite polemical, frequently glossing over the distinction between fact and opinion. That would restrict its value to certain readers. Second, there is a litany of facts and figures that could benefit from references.
Regards
Robert
1. Cutting emissions by itself cannot possibly cut temperature, as a simple matter of arithmetic that gets ignored.
2. James Hansen et al have partly explained this problem in the Global Warming in the Pipeline article, noting the importance of considering past geological precedent.
3. Humans have added more than 3.2 trillion tonnes of GHGs to the air, about two thirds as CO2, but also including other GHGs such as methane, based on 100-year CO2 equivalence, according to https://worldemissions.io/.
4. About 30% of anthropogenic CO2 has dissolved in the oceans so will re-gas when CO2 is removed from the air.
5. Of the >425 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, >145 ppm is anthropogenic.
6. Each ppm weighs 7.72 Gt, so the current atmospheric excess CO2 weighs about 1150 Gt.
7. For reference, one gigatonne (Gt) is one cubic kilometre of water.
8. To that we have to add the 570 Gt in the ocean, so over 1600 Gt CO2 would have to be removed to restore the Holocene CO2 level.
9. As well, methane and other GHGs add 50% to the radiative forcing from CO2, indicating a total problem of roughly 2400 Gt CO2 equivalent.
10. Methane radiative forcing is calculated by IPCC on its century-long effect, which is less than one third of its immediate warming effect.
11. The direct radiative forcing from this total excess GHG amount, plus the related loss of planetary albedo, are the main causes of committed warming.
12. Emissions reduction does nothing about committed warming from past emissions.
13. The consensus argument about a Zero Emission Commitment after Net Zero Emissions wrongly claims that this 2400 Gt CO2 excess would gradually disappear by itself, mainly by photosynthesis.
14. Fully restoring Holocene temperature stability would mean converting about 2400 Gt CO2e into non-warming form, whether by some sort of CO2 storage or by finding practical uses such as soil and infrastructure.
15. That will take decades, time that we do not have due to the risk of tipping points.
16. The system disruption from tipping elements would completely swamp all efforts to deal with the carbon problem in the absence of higher albedo.
17. The last time the atmosphere had this much CO2, the sea was something like 20 metres higher and the world was about four degrees C hotter.
18. Earth System Equilibrium will eventually create similar conditions to these geological precedents unless there is some drastic change.
19. The unprecedented nature of our planetary CO2 dumping experiment means there is major risk that catastrophic climate change could occur much faster than is generally imagined.
20. The Earth may be more fragile and sensitive than accepted models indicate.
21. Committed warming, together with loss of cooling aerosols, is creating conditions incompatible with human civilization.
22. Annual CO2e emissions are 59 billion tonnes. Decarbonisation is failing to dent the increase, which has powerful social and economic drivers.
23. For emissions reduction to slow the annual increase by 10% would be hugely expensive, difficult, risky and contested, but would only marginally delay radical climate disruption.
24. If the world managed to cut emissions in half by 2030, emitting only 29.5 Gt CO2e in 2030, the total difference would be that instead of adding 354 Gt CO2e between 2024 and 2030, the world would add two thirds as much, 236 Gt CO2e. That would require annual CO2 cuts of 4.2 Gt.
25. Slowing the rate of CO2e increase by 10% (6 Gt per year) would address about 0.3% of the estimated 2400 Gt of remaining anthropogenic GHGs each year.
26. A 1% slowdown in the increase in radiative forcing is functionally less than zero, ie an acceleration, because the remaining 99% of GHGs could prove volatile in ways we cannot easily predict, such as sudden glacial collapse, methane release, heat waves, extreme weather and slowing of ocean currents.
27. ‘Moral hazard’ theory, tendentiously called “mitigation deterrence”, is that we must do nothing about 99% of the warming problem, because dealing with 1% of the problem is more important, even though dealing with that 1% has proved politically and economically impossible.
28. The concept of mitigation deterrence is incoherent and ideological. Cutting emissions cannot mitigate climate change over relevant timeframe, whereas higher albedo can, so it makes no sense to say that increasing albedo could deter mitigation.
29. When combined with the false theory of moral hazard, efforts to cut emissions are likely to worsen warming by allowing preventable tipping points.
30. As leading climate scientist Thomas Goreau recently commented, we have not yet seen the warming impact of present-day CO2, due to the delay caused by ocean mixing.
31. The risks of these unpredictable changes can only be mitigated by restoring the temperature that created the previous stability.
32. Cutting emissions can have almost no impact on committed warming, and therefore on temperature.
33. The goal of net zero heating has to replace the false promise of net zero emissions.
Committed warming is just ignored in the fantasy world of emission reduction alone. Unfortunately, the moral principles of efficiency and effectiveness and evidence and ethics are not applied for climate spending, which is largely unfit for purpose. Governments should not spend public funds to subsidise decarbonisation to achieve climate goals, when those goals could be achieved more rapidly, safely and cheaply with solar geoengineering.
Clear distinction is needed between short and medium-term responses to the climate emergency. In the short term, albedo is the main climate impact that could be affected by human action. Albedo is now collapsing by about 1% per decade, a clear indicator of the shutdown of Earth Systems. This emergency could be mitigated with geoengineering.
Cutting GHG levels is something that will take much longer, with the eventual aim of restoring the Holocene atmospheric composition. Cutting emissions cannot cut GHG levels, despite the alleged ‘consensus’ argument to the contrary made in literature on the Zero Emission Commitment.
Policy discussion in the IPCC and related academic and social organisations has become corrupted by a tribal failure to address scientific evidence about the practical impossibility and high risks of rapid decarbonisation. This triumph of hope over observation is known as greenwishing, which is a bigger political problem than corporate greenwashing. Greenwishing means imagining that a strategy is possible and effective, while ignoring contrary evidence.
Two key points are that possible cuts to emission levels are marginal to the rate of warming, and that efforts to accelerate emission cuts have such high opportunity cost that they are counterproductive.
I don’t know anyone else who advocates geoengineering who also doubts the need to accelerate emission cuts, although a few have hinted at that unpopular opinion. Perhaps some keep silent because they are worried about being shunned by the climate tribe as a heretic. That suggests this debate involves religious psychology and community loyalty as much as intellectual coherence. Scientific integrity should be the primary concern in the face of the urgent need to prevent impending system collapse.
--
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/008d01daae20%249c08f470%24d41add50%24%40rtulip.net.
--
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/63a859de-dd85-4a92-ba6f-2532413c6a6b%40gmail.com.
--
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/032b01daae9c%247d6ce270%247846a750%24%40rtulip.net.
--
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/1326700969.2958147.1716657198806%40mailbusiness.ionos.co.uk.
--
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/82101B90-13DF-4D1B-A5B5-DDA6896F6252%40gmail.com.
--
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/1719129D-CE6D-4934-A0B5-528170EC03DC%40pricenet.ca.
--
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/CAJGdOoXxNwMB0%2Bj9m4v0bxyNyTX2%2BmveWsCoS-Y%2BOQsS%2BxyWbw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/062d01daaf72%24c4ae9800%244e0bc800%24%40rtulip.net.
Tom Goreau
Thanks so much, Daleanne!
We make large amounts of hydrogen from our solar powered Biorock sea water electrolysis reefs, but we are not able to tap it. However there are ways that can be done in industrial processes that we’ve been trying to develop with no funding. Here’s a photograph from one of our projects showing hydrogen bubbling away.
Our work has shown that there other mechanisms that produce deep “gold” hydrogen not mentioned in these articles, which I will speak about at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry Conference in August.
I’ll be glad to discuss how this potential can be achieved with you and your colleagues.
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/CANhw0zxVynxtdcEphEXhRZAU0TnwmQ%2BcJFVWGFkAHnSS4LoyQw%40mail.gmail.com.
peterlin...@gmail.com
That’s interesting, but I’d have some concerns about any fugitive methane that might be released while extracting the hydrogen. And perhaps any fugitive H2 as well, as I understand that it’s also a greenhouse gas. I presume/hope these aspects are being considered.
Peter
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of daleanne bourjaily
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 4:27 PM
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CANhw0zxVynxtdcEphEXhRZAU0TnwmQ%2BcJFVWGFkAHnSS4LoyQw%40mail.gmail.com.
Herman Gyr
Herman Gyr
On May 26, 2024, at 5:27 AM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:
Thanks Herman.
The intro to this CNN doco you linked, titled The Whole Story, restricts action to carbon. Carbon is not the whole climate story. This misperception reflects the widespread failure to understand the simple equation of planetary climate physics, that climate stability requires net zero heating.
My concern is that it will be too hard to do anything about carbon in time to prevent collapse. That means we need to rebrighten the planet as a matter of primary urgency. I look forward to finding a journalist willing to discuss this constructively. I did not find this program helpful or balanced as it focused too much on groundless myths and not enough on strategic scientific vision.
I am now listening to see if he mentions albedo. Kelly Wanser gets a brief introductory comment on climate intervention. Then he interviews Sir David King starting at 15.45, firstly about mimicking the role of whales in marine CDR using volcano dust, and then with a good brief summary of marine cloud brightening.
Then he discusses some good carbon projects for fifteen minutes.
At 32:00 he gets onto climate intervention with some great graphics illustrating Mount Pinatubo, and then in discussion with Kelly Wanser, founder of Silver Lining, and Sir David King, founder of the Cambridge University Centre for Climate Repair. We have previously invited Kelly to speak to HPAC but she ignores us.
I was disappointed with her discussion as it did not focus on why rebrightening is urgently needed, but rather on a dubious semantic critique of geoengineering and on baseless popular fears. David King comments that research today might influence decisions in five years.
They rightly discuss the need for trust and cooperation, but fail to explore how international action to restore albedo could be a peace building focus. The discussion is restricted to the complacency that fails to see we may already be tipping over the climate waterfall. The structure of the program did not put MCB and SAI together, which would have been more sensible.
After the discussion on SAI, they then allow Bertrand Piccard, who they earlier hyped as the most distinguished authority, to undermine it by falsely stating “it is a very dangerous road”. Action on albedo is so much less dangerous than inaction that such ignorant views should not be promoted by CNN. Often this “dangerous” line has a conflict of interest due to people’s investments in carbon projects.
That this CNN program is the most advanced example of climate reporting reflects the ignorant and complacent and bullied status of popular analysis. Not much better than Don’t Look Up. Thanks for sharing it. Much more clarity is needed.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: Herman Gyr <g...@enterprisedevelop.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 5:35 AM
To: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Herman Gyr
Enterprise Development Group⎢+1 650 464 6419 ⎢ Skype: live:hgyr_4⎢ 930 Roble Ridge Road ⎢ Palo Alto, CA. 94306 ⎢ www.enterprisedevelop.com
Ron Baiman
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/67B09B9D-87DC-436C-8D19-F0AE987B50AD%40enterprisedevelop.com.
Roger Arnold
rob...@rtulip.net
Hi Herman
A title that would cover this agenda is ‘Reflecting Sunlight to Cool the Earth’.
I have just been chatting with Rafe Pomerance and Dennis Garrity, and they would both be good to interview on this.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8461255D-D413-41FF-8EC4-25028AA64654%40enterprisedevelop.com.
Ye Tao
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994DCB1D86A43F1E4A27B04DDF12%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
In general hydrogen formed by electrolysis is still somewhat more expensive than that made from methane (which releases CH4 & CO2), but that is only if you consider hydrogen as the sole product.
We make pure hydrogen as cheaply as possible by sea water electrolysis, so the cost depends on the cost of electricity, which solar power is driving down.
For us hydrogen is a free side product, since the other products (limestone reefs and growing ecosystems) are so useful that we don’t even factor in the hydrogen benefit.
Error! Filename not specified.
Roger Arnold
The hydrogen needs to be captured and burnt because of its indirect global warming potential through CH4 lifetime. Some more of [more or] less recent paper[s]:
John Macdonald
On 5 Jun 2024, at 8:35 AM, Roger Arnold <silver...@gmail.com> wrote:
<image001[11].png>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAN%3D9PgkAOQtxAfkpcfh-%2B4%3DLbys1SyehBGSCnWhhorEAKkzd5w%40mail.gmail.com.
Sev Clarke
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/710EAFAB-2360-41B8-BDEB-9DA103C8E450%40mail.com.
Anton Alferness
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAN%3D9PgkAOQtxAfkpcfh-%2B4%3DLbys1SyehBGSCnWhhorEAKkzd5w%40mail.gmail.com.