Solar geoengineering could start soon if it starts small | MIT Technology Review

[H simmens]

This article published this morning by David Keith and Wake Smith argues that it is entirely feasible that SAI could begin to be deployed at small scale within five years by launching aerosols at higher latitudes where the lower stratospheric boundary is easily accessible by current aircraft.

It appears that their proposal is consistent with what Mike Maccracken has long been advocating - start small and learn by doing testing. 

They also argue that such testing should be subject to a formal moratorium - absent the development of a viable governance structure - consistent with the recommendations of the Climate Overshoot Commission. 

The risks of igniting a geopolitical free for all, particularly if testing were only done by one country and not by a coalition, are substantial they argue. 

Is this proposal something that those on these lists should get behind? 

Herb

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

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

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Herb et al.--And then there is also this article, that I just found out about today:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/27538796231221597

In a quick scan, the article seems to ignore where we are headed without intervention and seems to foresee all sorts of potential geopolitical catastrophes as being, apparently far worse.

As the affiliation of the author is a bit confusing, I found the attached bio (two years old) on the CSIS Web site https://www.csis.org/executive-education/previous-aila-international-fellows/2021-fellows

Mike MacCracken

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/570FEB20-8E7B-4C83-A080-B0A7FCD4D52D%40gmail.com.

[Gregory Slater]

Hello Herb,

Thank you for this link.

(https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/)

I think this is more evidence of the (glacially) slow progression of the scientific and engineering community (such as Keith and Smith) beyond their (completely disingenuous) "SAI is the most insane idea in the history of the Multiverse, but we should fund numerical simulations (etc.) of it for the next fifty years just in case things get 'really bad' (for me personally)" and toward (the inevitable) acceptance and eventual advocacy for deployment of SAI, without wating for a unanimous vote in favor of it by the entire population of the earth (all 8 billion) before the deployment of even a single molecule of any aerosol for the stated intent of cooling the earth is allowed to be released, which is the current (psychotic) demand of SJWs.

However, it is still riddled with disclaimers (for example, last paragraph) and they coyly seem to be pitching the 'small scale SAI' scenario not as a scientific test of the physical effects of SAI's on the atmosphere and climate, but rather as a 'political or sociological science' test of the political reaction of the world to such a test (that is, dump a little SO2 in the stratosphere and measure the blood pressure of the anti-SAI crowd).

It is actually difficult for me to tell, at first reading, whether they are "fer or agin;" such a test.  And I think that ambiguity was carefully crafted.

Of course, it's not like Keith and Smith (and other 'ultra-cautious geoengineers' just 'discovered' the possibility of 'small-scale SAI'.  It's straightforward and obvious, and they certainly know that this has been outlined and advocated for a long time, including by members of this group.  I mean, when Keith spoke on the HPAC zoom just last year, in answer to my question about low level tests, he directly said that he saw no usefulness in small scale tests.

I think they are starting to put the tip of their toes in the side of advocacy, while describing it as 'cautionary'.  I think the proper response is, "thanks for stating the obvious about the possibilities for 'low-scale SAI' tests".  But point out their timidity and disingenuousness in not advocating for the scenario they describe is uncompelling.  They describe one variant of) a first obvious small scale SAI test, but at the end say they still say they are against it until we get a unanimous vote in favor by the entire population of the planet.

They still seem to be trying to maintain their increasingly precarious and wobbly perch on the fence between denouncement and advocacy of SAI, while requesting lots more money for numerical simulations of SAI and studies of the 'sociological' effects of its deployment.

Those who support immediate measures to stabilize global mean temperature should double down and press for actual tests and not be satisfied with 'cautionary notes' like this about the potential dangers of not starting tests.

When will they find the testicles to actually advocate?

Greg Slater

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Herb and Greg and all

Working on something else, the other day I chanced upon the dedication for my PhD thesis written in 2012/13.  It was addressed to my then two year-old and newborn grandchildren expressing the hope that as adults they would come to be awestruck by humanity's achievements, yet forgive it its failings, and all the while see the funny side of both.  This piece by Keith and Smith definitely requires one to see the funny side.

First, they're playing a great game of dissimulation, straining to present their 'we're the good guys' credentials by espousing caution and concern, while also chomping at the bit to get some serious sulphates into the sky.  Their greatest fear is clearly being dubbed the Dr. Strangelove of climate change.

But what's even funnier is the bizarre cognitive dissonance displayed by those opposed to SAI.  On the one hand the global shipping industry can with no serious public debate whatsoever force changes to bunker fuel that will greatly accelerate global warming, with who knows what consequences for both human and other life, on the grounds that the pollution it will reduce will save the lives of a much smaller number of people.  No need to consider the negative climate consequences of reducing the sulphur content of the fuel because, quite obviously, no one really cares about that.  If they did, there would at least have been some public conversation about the relative merits of changing the fuel.  They didn't, so there wasn't.  30 years of IPCC really has changed things, hasn't it!

Other amusing bits from this article are the implications that it'll take decades to scale SAI to make a significant difference to global warming and that this requires long-term anticipatory action by governments both in relation to the technology and its governance.  That completely knocks on the head the idea that some maverick Greenfinger or national leader is going to go off and do their own thing.  The rogue geoengineer is shown to be the joke it always has been.

Similarly, Keith and Smith's highlighting of the social licence issues that have hitherto delayed, and are likely going forward to continue delaying, if not totally frustrating any move to deploy SAI, or even do the research and small scale deployment that they're proposing, completely kills off the equally nonsensical moral hazard argument that the mere prospect of SAI is sufficient reason for the climate baddies to continue being baddies.  The climate baddies can relax, their foes are going to make sure we need all the oil and gas they can produce for as long as they can so dutifully provide it.

For those of us on this list, it is hard to fathom how humanity has boxed itself into this paralysis.  For some us, it has become clear that the basic rules of neoclassical economics are unfolding according to plan.  Boom and bust.  Boom and bust.  As the excesses destabilise the system, the system reacts.  This is euphemistically called a correction.  The greater the excess.  The more severe the correction.  The corrections are a form of catharsis.  But at some point the excess becomes sufficient to provoke a correction that collapses the system.  That happens when the system's resilience is sufficiently compromised that it can't adapt fast enough to the changed circumstances it is then facing.

1.5C, 2C, 2.5C, 3C and beyond, here we come!

There's little I can do to protect my grandchildren from what will confront them decades hence.  Maybe they'll be among the lucky ones.  Some people will make it through, why shouldn't it be them?  However it unfolds, I'm sure they'll find it easier if they can retain the ability to see the funny side.

Thanks David and Wake.  I needed reminding how tragic this comedy is.  Or is it, how comic this tragedy is?

Regards

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/086AD4FC-0128-4F76-9E06-11B5A46D3FD1%40gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

Good catch Herb!  Thanks for sharing. I haven't read the article yet, but though acknowledging the feasibility and possible relevance gradual polar SAI scenario would definitely be progress (that David Keith was very critical of this in his HPAC talk), from skimming the abstract the article appears to focus on SAI geopolitical concerns that echo Gideon Futerman's recent HPAC talk.

 On this, needless to say, I agree with Robert C and Mike. Waiting for a fully operational global governance regime  (like hoping for a super expidited  emissions and drawdown only policy) is not realistic in the near future - the only future that counts if humanity is going to have a non-catastrophic immediate future, at all.

I think the alternative of starting slow by getting the consent of polar jurisdictions and peoples for  a 'Save the polar ecosystems' effort (following current MCB 'save the Great Barrier Reef' efforts) and inviting all nations who wish to contribute to contribute in a 'coalition of the willing' model (as with the 'International Space Station') that would be gradual (initially local SAI focused on polar summers), public, and transparent, and hopefully successful in gradually reducing warming and cooling the poles and helping to stabilize the global climate is an example of a more realistic approach for urgent deployment. Waiting for 'global governance' or 'absolute confidence from research that does not include deployment pilot testing' before beginning deployment is not an urgently workable option.  At the risk of beating a dead horse I'm again attaching a draft of this proposal that many of you may have seen: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing

Best,

Ron

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/aabf34ae-6529-4e39-968d-e3e1159b7ffc%40gmail.com.

[H simmens]

Ron,

It’s quite telling I think that a breakthrough article like this has been released without essentially anyone noticing. 

The only mention of it I see is from the excellent Technology Review reporter James Temple who posted it on X. 

The only comments the post received were from Andrew Lockley and someone posting a vile obscenity. 

I was the only one who even retweeted the post to my loyal following of bots, trolls, fake porn stars and a few Climate informed folks. 

Is it fair to observe that most everyone laments the understandable and very real challenges of developing a governance architecture but no one in any kind of authority has yet to propose a serious effort to get such a governance structure discussed and agreed to by the world community? 

If and until that happens the strategy you’re proposing while sound will be very difficult to advance very far. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

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

On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:20 PM, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Michael MacCracken]

It is really not clear to me why the United Nations could (and should) not be the structure--or at least the designator of the structure, but better yet, of the overall goal, namely to offset future warming and gradually return the climate to something similar to its mid-20th century situation (with allowances for those nations facing special needs to ask for consideration of possible fine scale adjustments as knowledge improves--or something similar).

There is a UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), and if there were ever anything that is impinging on their mandate, it is climate change. The UN Secretary General, with concurrence I imagine of General Assembly, could refer matter to them asking for a report on the matter and to propose a recommendation to the General Assembly and Security Council. I'd note that I was on a panel that prepared a report for the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (see https://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/critical-issues-in-science/un-sigma-xi-climate-change-report), and I and other lead authors, courtesy of contacts made by former Senator and UN Foundation lead Tim Wirth (the UN Foundation having provided some of the funding for the effort), met with the UN Secretary General upon the report's issuance.

I'm not clear on how the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC might mesh (or not) with the UNCSD, but this too could be outlined. The UNCSD I think meets annually and so could well move things along,

Mike MacCracken

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CDF4D93B-504F-4532-A2EA-64DF65DBB237%40gmail.com.

[Oswald Petersen]

Dear Herb and Mike

 

Prenotice

 

Europeans like me are still quite unfimiliar with the new habit to adress a community without an adressee. Adressees do have the advantage that I can disregard everything I am not addressed for. So far for US globalimsus.

 

Dear all,

 

The UN are our only hope. We cannot diverge from the UN. Let´s stick to the UN!

 

Regards

 

Oswald

 

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/329c7a99-85d3-4b94-99dc-3b22c495a783%40comcast.net.

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Herb, Mike, and Oswald,

I think the issue right now is pervasively couched in far too general and absolutist terms that would make it very difficult/impossible to get universal (or even just Security Council) agreement for deployment from the UN. If pilot testing were started small-scale with willing actors consisting of countries with polar regional jurisdictions that are willing to try this in this from their territory (as probably not all polar jurisdictions or polar peoples will agree right away) and done carefully with maximum transparency, openness, etc. this could hopefully make it less of an abstract 'politicized and moralized' hot potato and more of a cooling method that is perceived as potentially valuable, useful, and (quite likely) indispensable to avoid climate catastrophe. 

I'm assuming here of course mostly measurable positive impacts from the pilot testing, and an ability to adjust to smaller and less significant undesirable impacts.  My thinking is that this would be a way to make gradual polar SAI a more practical and tangible technique and less of a boogie man on which to project every manner of global geopolitical armageddon (per the Futerman talk and I'm guessing - from the abstract - in the Keith and Smith  paper as well).  At this point, my hope is that it would be easier to arrive at, at least, "tacit" and at some point "formal" consent by the Security Council, or a sufficient number of major world powers, for continued, slowly upscaled, global deployment without geopolitical disaster. 

My thinking is that (as with the research/deployment dichotomy), the governance/deployment dichotomy should not be looked at as strictly separable. My hope is that moving on both tracks simultaneously and trying to build confidence, trust, and knowledge with gradual deployment would hopefully change international perceptions and discussions of SAI and direct climate cooling more broadly in a positive way, and that this could then hopefully allow for global tacit, and at some point formal, political support. 

I should also note that countries are already currently engaging in large scale climate efforts 'on their own territory' that probably have cross boundary impacts. See for example discussion of China's large scale cloud seeding efforts (as I recall in the Himalayas to regenerate snow pack, discussed in this podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cloud-seeding-law-simon/id1529459393?i=1000632950341  

Also by starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out (in the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and  polar ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive. .

Best,

Ron

[Sev Clarke]

Folks,

Some are making a mountain out of a molehill. My three principle climate restoration technologies, Buoyant Flakes, Seatomiser/ISAs and Ice Shields could all be separately approved and tested in the EEZ waters of many states at pilot, then local, then cautiously scaling up to regional scales, without either Security Council or other UN approval - though open discussion of the plans in advance and independent and transparent MRV during, should also occur. Several such tests by different organisations should both give confidence to local communities and the international community, and allow us to proceed quickly in learning by doing. Approval for use in international waters might be sought from either an enhanced LC/LP (preferably), the International Maritime Organisation, the G20 (in order to bring in several Global South members), the Security Council, or even the UNEP or General Assembly. Any holdout spoilers should be shamed, bypassed or compelled by whatever means are necessary to save the planet - after their views had been properly considered (and, if necessary, exposed).  

Best,

Sev  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9DJ3WcyEYcPQMvn6xSixYQA0fZwEQ51wCoKevkjs8-rGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Self, what is LP/LC?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/A10A72DA-6525-4925-A574-FD2C7F637646%40me.com.

[Sev Clarke]

It is the widely-ratified, international marine dumping ’treaty’, the London Convention and London Protocol, see https://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/ConferencesMeetings/Pages/London-Convention-Protocol.aspx

Chris Vivian is our expert on it.

Sorry, it is usually acronymed LC/LP. 

Whilst it definitely covers ocean fertilisation, it may possibly, but doubtfully, be judged to cover spraying seawater into the air for MCB purposes, releasing ferric chloride aerosols into the atmosphere which eventually rain out  into the sea, and even sea ice thickening where either the ice or the equipment that produces it (particularly at the end of its life) might be called dumping. Chris should be able to tell us whether offshore drilling platforms, their products if released, wind turbines, and unrecovered buoys, containers, plastic waste, waste from fish farms, by-catch, nets and sensors are covered by it. Dredged material is usually exempt. Intent is a key factor in determining what is dumping.

Sev 

[Chris Vivian]

Sev,

 

Responding to your 2 emails below:

 

1. It is a widespread misconception that the LC/LP only covers international waters. The LC/LP cover all waters up to the baselines that are the base from which the territorial waters and EEZ are measured. On a straight coast the baseline  is the low water mark. Also, the LP has a provision that it applies to marine internal waters i.e., behind the baselines, that includes large bays and estuaries unless a Party opts out when it then has to have effective permitting and regulatory measures to control dumping activities and marine geoengineering activities when they come into force. So, testing in EEZ waters could fall under the LC/LP depending on what was being done.
2. Currently, the LC/LP Parties are considering whether MCB could be regulated under the 2013 marine geoengineering amendments. There is a precedent from the past when the LC regulated marine incineration of toxic (e.g., organochlorines) or very smelly (e.g., mercaptans that are put in natural gas at very low concentrations so you can smell gas leaking) chemicals on the basis that material from the plume was deposited onto the sea surface. I think that spraying ferric chloride aerosols into the atmosphere from vessels which eventually rain out  into the sea would likely be considered to fall under the LP remit. Done from land it would not fall under the LP remit.
3. Sea ice thickening may unlikely to fall under the LP.
4. About the other things you queried:
1. offshore drilling platforms, their products if released – activities associated with the exploration, exploitation and associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources are excluded from the remit of the  LC and LP. The influence of the oil and gas industry!
2. Wind turbines – installation is considered placement that is excluded from the definition of dumping. This applies to all construction activities in the marine environment e.g., sea walls, pipelines jetties.
3. Unrecovered buoys, containers, plastic waste, nets – this is not deliberate disposal so therefore not dumping.
4. By-catch – this is incidental to the operation of fishing vessels so not dumping.
5. Any marine research equipment left in the marine environment that cannot be recovered e.g., sensors, is not deliberate disposal as it was placed for a purpose other than mere disposal.
6. Waste from fish farms – usually regulated as a discharge so not dumping.

 

I hope that answers your questions.

 

Best wishes

 

Chris.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3C1FF62C-FBFE-4181-A3EB-AB0D218FD814%40me.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Ron,

You've hit the nail on the head:

By starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out (in the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and  polar ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive.

Cheers, John

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DJ3WcyEYcPQMvn6xSixYQA0fZwEQ51wCoKevkjs8-rGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

[Sev Clarke]

Thanks, Chris, 

This is helpful. I did not mean that the LC/LP did not cover EEZ and other national waters, just that it was each nation which  determined its responsibilities in its own waters for actions coming under its responsibilities under the LC/LP. This gives them leeway regarding ocean restoration and direct climate cooling experimentation approvals. Of course, some nations, such as the USA, have not even ratified the LP - though they may still tend to follow its strictures.

Cheers,

Sev

[Rocio Herbert]

Hi Chris,

How about ISA from commercial ships in international waters?  What does the  LC/LP say about that?

Cheers,

Rocío

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/923A8C5D-31AE-4DD5-B16A-754D6470940A%40me.com.

--

Rocío Herbert, Blue Dot Change

Director of Outreach

650-575-3607

ro...@bluedotchange.com

[Ron Baiman]

Hi Rocio,

Regarding distributing aerosols from commercial ships, the second "ask" of this letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MwB5PuV0GuqzcINowIXrJBqQkSgwI5Lv/view?usp=sharing

(now being reviewed by the Secretary General of the IMO - or so his office has informed us) may be of interest.

Best,

Ron

[Alan Kerstein]

Ron,

Concerning the second ask, engines and the fuels that they are designed to burn are highly optimized systems such that any additives are introduced in small proportions of carefully tuned composition to tweak engine performance. Additive modification involves a good deal of testing, often in conjunction with adjustments to engine design or operating procedures. Putting the type and amount of aerosol precursor required to have geophysical impact into the fuel, even if feasible, is not an approach that could be considered low-hanging fruit in terms of opportunities for timely impact on global warming.

I think that the maritime industry might be more amenable to a suggestion to spray ocean water into the engine exhaust. The idea would be to piggyback the saline aerosol on the rising warm exhaust for a free ride to cloud altitude. If there is further communication with the IMO on this topic, you might float this as an alternate option.

More generally, MCB that is portrayed as a restoration of the originally unintended effect of historical aerosol emissions by ships might be perceived as less of a shot in the dark than other cooling techniques, so it might be a good candidate for rapid deployment. Delivery of the aerosol by the same ships that did this previously could reinforce this perception as well as expediting deployment.

Alan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BuFKQ4EejPxSJwghjrJT2TOZtFxk7utApBSuS06rf2XA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rocio Herbert]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for sharing this information with me, including the open letter.  I can't wait to hear about their response.   

This is a 6000-year-old industry, that includes countries from all over the world.  There is a lot of inertia.

Best,

Rocío

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:39 AM Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Clive Elsworth]

Alan, Ron

 

We have never said that climate catalyst can be added to ship fuel, so I don’t know how that found its way into the document, and how we missed it.

 

Climate catalyst could be added to ship exhaust gases after they emerge from flues, or from UAVs, or from cheap, remotely controlled buoys and so forth.

 

Years ago it was thought that Ferrocene, a fuel additive, might be added to ship bunker fuel to produce a form of iron salt aerosol, but we recognised the problems you raise below, plus it is a rather expensive option.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAH-gPYEgur%3DRMDZvVYc5v42VJ8wRUnLrqoUc_y4bNv-K1ECxaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Alan and Clive!

 I have updated the letter and petition: Please review it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcmRgEREmL1j18EE4HLN2MK6zi_kGuJy/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true

Unfortunately, the hard copy of the original version has been sent tot he IMO but future downloads will be corrected.

Best,

Ron

[Alan Kerstein]

Ron,

The original proposal, though technically infeasible, had the virtue of being actionable in the sense that once an additive composition and mass fraction within the fuel were established, the deployment protocol would be well defined. For example, deployment would be universal among ships that use such fuel and the additive deposition in the atmosphere by a ship would be proportional to its fuel consumption. Injection into engine exhaust is technically less problematic but is not actionable as now stated (and not just because exhaust injection is not mentioned).

Rather than quibbling further, I’ll outline an approach that at least has no obvious (to me) showstoppers. The first question is who pays for implementation and how is payment organized? The obvious answer is to imitate what is already working on the decarbonization side, which is offsets. So MCB using the commercial fleet is now couched in the bigger question of how to put a price on a ‘unit increment’ of cooling and how to organize an offset market for this entity so that Adam Smith’s ‘unseen hand’ (my apologies to the anti-capitalists) can then organize private-sector cooling efforts much as it is presently organizing private-sector decarbonization efforts. This alone is a gigantic challenge but is vital for timely progress, so I hope that people with the expertise and job description that enable them to wrap their arms around this will delve into it.

In case this seems so intractable that it deters people from even trying, consider the alternative of solely public-sector funded and directed MCB. This might involve purpose-built ships, platforms, etc. There’s no problem with that, but it would be a pity to let all the aerosol-lofting capability emanating from engines and other thermal-fluid processes go to waste. In that regard, there are surely many land-based smokestacks and related exhausts along the shoreline that are situated so that seawater injection would provide beneficial cloud brightening.

In short, there is a lot of unexploited aerosol-lofting capability and a variety of bespoke solutions might be needed to make good use of it. If there’s a better way to enable this than monetizing them by means of some type of offset market, then those on distribution are invited to tell us about it. Even better, tell us how to put a price on a ‘unit increment’ of cooling.

Alan

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Alan,

I believe that the current version:  is general enough to include many possibilities.

Best,

Ron

Sent from my iPhone

[daleanne bourjaily]

Dear Alan et al,

Thia is what we at Bluecooling.org hoped - piggybacking on commercial marine traffic would save money and emissions- until we asked the scientists.

Unfortunately the ideal places to roll out MCB have very very little commercial shipping.  Namibia, Peru etc.  There are also very few ship satellite points. According to our satellite expert we will have to use dedicated fishing buoys with sensors and low tech little LEO satellites.  

As to cooling points, we have asked WRI to consider being the verifying body.  Since voluntary credits are an artificial construct it should not be a problem to market them any more than for any other kind of credit existing outside the EU official framework bit it will take a good marketing budget and a team to get companies on board.  That is probably what MCB and other projects should target in fundraising, not deployment but a cooling credit scheme

We are in the process of forming an SRM alliance - all of us plus other relevant organisations.  That entity could pool funds to arrive at a credit scheme.

Best regards,

Dale Anne

Op za 10 feb 2024 06:45 schreef Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com>:

[Chris Vivian]

Rocio,

 

The LC/LP has not considered that as yet but some parties are aware of it.

 

Chris.

[Alan Kerstein]

Dale Anne,

This is the first time I’ve read something that gets the framing right in terms of how to make the transition from hopes and dreams to action on SRM. As you indicate, there’s been a lot of activity in this regard, so it’s a matter of looking in the right place. Obviously you face a challenge in getting noticed if a person with my level of interest didn’t run across this. I suppose that you’ve been trying to get some visibility at places like the World Economic Forum. For seed funding, maybe you could get a loan from a World Bank type of organization to be paid off by a small administrative fee to be levied on offset transactions.

On one of your points, how do we reconcile the claimed beneficial impact of pre-regulation ship emissions with the fact that shipping routes are in the wrong places in terms of MCB? Did the emissions actually contribute the amount of cooling that is claimed, but inefficiently in the sense that the same amount of emissions could have produced even more cooling if optimally deployed, or has there been a misattribution of the observed cooling, or does the difference between carbon and salt aerosol somehow matter?

Thanks for your insights,

Alan

[Rocio Herbert]

Thank you, Chris.   It is good to know they have not considered it as yet.  I knew they were aware of it.

--

Rocío

I live on the lands of the
Ohlone

[daleanne bourjaily]

Dear Alan, 

That is a question for the scientists. 

Best regards,

Dale Anne

Op zo 11 feb 2024 19:21 schreef Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com>:

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Alan--I'm not expert enough to answer your question about efficiency/inefficiency of marine emissions and cloud brightening, but I would note that with respect to the efficiency of SO2 emissions from coal plants (and other sources on land), that emissions are so concentrated in particular regions (now China and elsewhere in East Asia) that their effect in creating a hazy troposphere is clearly much less than it would be if the emissions and so sulfate concentrations were spread more broadly. Also, the light colored aerosols will have greater effects over dark than bright surfaces, so would have more effect out over the low albedo oceans than over the brighter land areas.

Mike MacCracken

--

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/CANhw0zyunbtWQyv_o6PHE%2BFB0TnsDfOXh2%3DvERgYDX3q3ewPjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Kerstein]

Mike,

Not having looked into this personally, my impression from discussions of the topic is that there's some sentiment that the climatological record indicates a beneficial cooling effect resulting from historical ship emissions. In view of Dale Anne's point that shipping routes are not situated so as to be particularly beneficial in this regard, can someone clarify the degree of certainty that there was such an effect? The justification for advocating deliberate aerosol emission from commercial shipping appears to depend on this question.

Alan

[Ron Baiman]

Alan et al.,

See below copied from the technical appendix to the Bunker fuel letter (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sgW4kZequCBdOMAesK-rWJ5Us0uGokBz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true). The Hansen et al. (2023) much higher estimate is based on their contention that based on the Paleo record climate sensitivity and aerosol cooling are significantly greater than assumed in current climate models. But all of the studies suggest a significant cooling "reverse termination shock" from the IMO maritime shipping regulations.

"Hansen et al. (2023) estimates the increased global forcing impact of the 2015 and 2020 IMO bunker fuel sulfur content regulations to be about 1.05 W/m2.

Diamond (2023) estimates the effect of the 2020 regulations  to be on the order of 0.1 W/m2. Diamond’s paper built on earlier studies that had found that, using artificial intelligence-based satellite image recognition, clouds induced by ships (i.e. ship tracks) had been 10 times more numerous before 2020 than previously estimated based on manual identification techniques, and that ship tracks had declined by more than 50% in the main shipping corridors after the 2020 IMO regulations came into effect (Voosen, 2023; Yuan et al., 2022). Another recent study, currently under review, by Yuan and co-authors, using this data reportedly estimates a similar 0.1 W/m2 radiative forcing increase due to loss of maritime sulfur aerosol after 2020 (Voosen, 2023). 

Estimates from earlier studies have shown a range of influences for different (2015 or 2020) regulatory regimes and sulfate, or sulfate and other, marine fuel induced aerosols. Hausfather & Forester (2023) found 0.079 W/m2; Yuan et al. (2023) estimate 0.12 W/m2, Yuan et al. (2022) give a range of 0.02-0.27 W/m2; Bilsback et al. (2020) estimate 0.027-0.041 W/m2; Jin et al. (2018) estimate 0.153 W/m2; Sofiev et al. (2018) 0.071 W/m2; Partanen et al. (2013) 0.39 W/m2; Fuglestvedt et al. (2009) 0.097 W/m2; and Lauer et al. (2007) 0.11-0.36 W/m2.

Considering that recent (i.e., January 2020 - June 2023) CERES data on the total Earth Energy Imbalance,  or total excess energy from the sun absorbed by the earth,  averages 1.36 W/m2, all of these estimates suggest that a significant global heating impact has resulted from the regulations, as there are no other indications of such a large positive forcing (Hansen et al., 2023; Hansen, 2023a, 2023b)."

Best,

Ron

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Alan--I'm not the expert here, but a few thoughts--and happy to be corrected on this. 

In that there are ship trails (of low clouds) visible from satellites, this would suggest a slight cooling influence. However, it is also true that if too much CCN is injected, then the clouds might clear (or a clear area might be created by the small scale flow) as droplets get too big and precipitate, and this would seem to be of the opposite sign and it would be hard to know how big such areas are as they don't have clouds.  Thus, I'd say uncertainty is pretty high as there needs to be a pretty narrow range of CCN amount to get the right effects and this optimal amount of injection would change with location, making it pretty complicated doing the adjustments as a ship goes along on its way. 

Stephen Salter's proposal and what is being tested is keeping mist creating ships in a relatively uniform area of optimal cloud/atmospheric characteristics, trying to create a region with brighter clouds rather than a long line of brighter clouds along the diverse region of clouds and conditions that a ship happens to cross on its route. Yes, the latter might make injections less expensive, but harder to optimize and not necessarily in an optimal location and with optimal cloud conditions.

Mike

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAH-gPYHhFaPXSkf%2BKvD1Tt%3Dkp_X5MwpjGubPkTNeORUrfaWCjg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Kerstein]

Thanks Mike - Regardless of the precise accuracy of all your points, they are broadly consistent with current understanding of cloud aerosol microphysics. In particular, they indicate the likelihood if not certainty that there would be a case-specific cost-benefit tradeoff depending on ship routing, ship-specific discharge height, velocity, and temperature, local ambient conditions (e.g. no point in aerosol injection during a rainstorm) and ship design features that affect the capital and operating cost of the needed retrofit. These are the circumstances in which an offset incentive is a suitable framework for the sorting of the viable and nonviable deployment approaches by the advocates of each approach within the two broad categories of commercial shipping and dedicated aerosol-emission platforms. The alternative is handing a single entity the task of making and enforcing (how???) all these judgment calls and constantly adjusting as circumstances evolve (such as increasing knowledge of cloud dynamics and improved cloud-brightening technology). That said, formulating the offset rules for cooling is a wicked problem. There are no easy solutions.

Alan