Recording of Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/068701da72c5%248d27cad0%24a7776070%24%40rtulip.net

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfxitog-2MPwVUeY-8MztAStFL%3DAy%2BH5omYwQGVttuFBOg%40mail.gmail.com.

AMR - GeoRestoration.pdf

AMR - GeoRestoration Action Plan.pdf

Tom Goreau

unread,

Mar 10, 2024, 12:41:05 PM3/10/24

to John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, peter....@gmail.com, gta...@bestfutures.org, Robert Hunziker, Anton Keskinen, Viktor Jaakktola, JOHN ENGLANDER, Peter D Ward

Once again, CO2, temperature, and sea level are so closely linked by feedbacks that to change one is to change all. As Mike says, the rising response is different that falling response, that’s why there’s hysteresis in the system, which many ignore. Each feedback mechanism introduces a different time lag in the response of the other variables to any variable. These time lags cannot be ignored, as IPCC basically does with the long term sea level response. After a thousand years the rate of sea level rise will still be accelerating, so the asymptote never appears on their longest term response curve, they go on and on “forever”.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxr3EP7wivOU2%3DGRb2ORwC8y3VmDzB3sTv-vs2mCFpT4OQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas

unread,

Mar 10, 2024, 3:49:45 PM3/10/24

to H simmens, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, JOHN ENGLANDER, Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hola compadres,

I was on the Sierra Club team that developed the climate policies, Climate Resilience, Carbon Dioxide Removal, March 2020.
Geoengineering, March 2020. I have related much of the history of the Club's climate policies before, but that was then and I want to do it again.

The great thing about geoengineering in these policies is that we went from, "over our dead body - anything geoengineering including research," to "supporting research in case emergency cooling is required."

This was a fairly easy lift after we decide to lower our warming target from 1.5 C to "less than 1C." The justification here -- I did this, thanks to the team for listening-- was Hansen's work on 350 ppm CO2, where this is the upper limits of equilibrium CO2 in the Holocene where our current Earth systems evolved, and anything beyond this creates tipping responses that reverse environmental services including carbon sequestration. Environmental services and ecological conservation are what Sierra Club is all about, so - easy lift. We had 350 ppm and 1.5 C both listed in our policies, which is a common incorrect association that was not understood until Hansen's "Young people's burden" paper in 2017 where he first modeled temperature and CO2 with 350 ppm CO2.

So, tipping is definitely included in the reasoning for the policies even though it is not described as "tipping." There are also several instances in the policies that discuss the point of no return of tipping, where even if the warming is removed that caused ecological collapse to begin, the collapse automatically completes.

I can't claim responsibility for adding carbon dioxide removal to the policies, thanks to Bruce Hamilton, the now retired Assistant Executive Director. Hamilton was aware of Hansen's "Young People's burden...," and the negative emissions required for 350 ppm CO2.

We met with little opposition to either CDR or geoengineering statements in numerous reviews by committees and peers and final approval by the national board, but here's the rub: nothing has been done to advance these policies and as Herb mentioned, just the opposite is true. The Summer 2022 edition of the Club magazine, Sierra, had five articles that blasted air capture CDR with every known myth in the book.

I have not been able to move this position hardly at all, because of the widespread nature of continued regurgitation of poor interpretation of findings, in both the popular press, findings and of course the consensus reporting of findings. One of the greatest reasons for this poor interpretation of the technologies, whether air capture or geoengineering, is because of lack of publishing due to trade secrets, where trillions --tens of trillions of $$$ are awaiting implementation. Proprietary secrets are phenomenally valuable with air capture at least.

Before the Inflation Reduction Act's enhancement of the IRS Section 45Q sequestration incentive, there was no reason to implement anything being scale proof of concept processes in the field. Once this was accomplish, these test processes were shut down to await incentive to use them; no negative incentive to do so: No regs limiting emissions. The positive incentives were limited because of nuances in award with the California Low Carbon Fuels Sequestration Incentives and the first two iterations of IRS 45Q (Obama started 45Q with flue capture alone, then trump doubled it and added air capture). The IRA has now added a cash payment to 45Q (with no cap btw), that has seen commitments of over 200, 1-million ton per year units; 100 by Oxy alone.

The science behind these commitments remains poorly understood by anyone bu the trade secret holders, because $$$ trillions are at stake, with the notable exception of Carbon Engineering's lime-potash process, where the process and components are widespread in industry. What is needed is what David Keith did for Carbon Carbon Engineering, which is to string the processes together to not just capture CO2 with chemicals, but to recycle the process to create a product stream. Most of the field trials we have heard of are in this category. The reasons they were shut down is not at all because they failed, but because they succeeded in their mission of demonstration and process refinement, and were then shut down to await incentive.

Market penetration is a very important concept with the near-term future of atmospheric removal. Because there is now a substantial positive incentive, industry is responding (those 200, 1-million ton per year units) and almost exclusively they use one of the three main mature processes lime-potash, amines and cryoseparation. There are many other processes and strategies, new contactors and new chemicals, and entirely novel capture strategies that are likely far superior to the three old mature processes. But these mature processes are widespread in industry, with individual components even more widespread, and with known scaling relationships.

These processes will (are being) built first, because they are the quickest route to market share, which means significant revenues fro IRS 45Q, and this is what the game is all about. We have seen this concept played out across the globe countless times. The first tech to create market share gets all the loot, at least until more efficient processes are developed that so much more efficient they can take market share away for the fist implementers. This is the way our fossil fuel economy continues to work today. Sunk costs, existing scaling, and known engineering practices are worth more $$$ faster, compared to large-scale implementation of more efficient "new" processes.

The Club has a new capture policy on CSS from flue gases, that I helped develop too, that says if we must, use the best tech available. We finished this very short policy about a year ago and it appears to be languishing - I think because of the great shortfall in funding and layoffs the Club saw in 2023.

Proposed Sierra Club Policy on Federal and State Policies Intended to Result in the Installation of Carbon Capture at Generation Facilities

Sierra Club believes that policies intended to result in the installation of carbon capture projects
at energy generation facilities, rather than policies intended to result in clean, renewable
energy, are not a climate solution. It is Sierra Club’s policy that if carbon capture technology is to
be installed at an energy generation facility, it must be maximally effective and thus remove as
much carbon dioxide from the plant’s flue stream as possible. Permitting authorities must also
appropriately address all of the other environmental concerns associated with fossil fuel
combustion, carbon capture equipment, and associated infrastructure, including potential
increases in air pollution, water use and discharges, habitat destruction, local community
impacts, and environmental justice concerns.

In the above, I was able to remove a critical word "false" from the phrase "climate solution," but the concept remains. This was an entirely different team and the results --the wording above is the entire policy-- meh... Not impressed. The previous team and our 100 pages of policy on 19 different issues was a really rewarding effort. What the Club cannot grasp though, is that flue gas capture catalyzes air capture as almost all the process components are identical to air capture, and in addition, flue gas capture is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. It does move the needle with emissions.

Which leads me to natural systems sequestration. Natural systems are of course the Club's bread and butter. I was able to get the concept that warming degraded natural systems cannot capture carbon into the policies, but only as an interesting aside. The Club, like almost every single policy organization of any kind, is simply behind because the literature and the consensus reporting is slow, reticent and compromised.

Moral hazard thinking is very strong in the Club, after all, these conservation advocate have dedicated their lives to advancing mostly what the popular press says about conservation issues. There are plenty of experts in the Club, but what I have seen is that the momentum of any advocate's life's work overshadows recent findings and interpretation, and that momentum of the past is strong.

First comes policy. Then acknowledgement of the policy. Then comes implementation. The momentum of history and long-term emotional attachment of advocates are tremendous things. I finally was successful in stopping the Club from continued advancing of a 1.5 C target, but it took two years after the board approved of the 2020 policies and a lot of work.

As we say in the Club...

Steep trails,

Bruce

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/463BF092-2789-4803-B754-D7E8A586D69F%40gmail.com.

Yahoo Mail Notice

unread,

Mar 10, 2024, 6:43:53 PM3/10/24

to Healthy Planet Action Coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, Healthy Climate Alliance, rob...@rtulip.net

Thank you.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

.

Robin Collins

unread,

Mar 10, 2024, 6:44:01 PM3/10/24

to Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas, Anton Keskinen, H simmens, Healthy Climate Alliance, JOHN ENGLANDER, Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Bruce

Thanks very much for this interesting and frank outline of efforts at Sierra. Significant here in Canada because the Green Party leader Elizabeth May came out of the Sierra Club world.

Robin

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 10, 2024, 6:44:07 PM3/10/24

to John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, peter....@gmail.com, gta...@bestfutures.org, Robert Hunziker, Anton Keskinen, Viktor Jaakktola, JOHN ENGLANDER, Peter D Ward

I have a concrete and specific action proposal to put forward, gentlemen, regarding how to get traction on SRM as part of a four-part climate management agenda (ramp up green energy, ramp down fossil energy, implement >50 GtCO2 net negative emissions per year, apply interim SRM to cool things down, all in service of a century-long trajectory back down to a target pre-industrial ppm CO2 level of 275 ppm).

What I propose follows up on the key point this thread is grappling with: How do we move the needle on getting SRM taken up seriously in the global policy discourse?

As John Nissen suggests, the priority is to assemble a quorum of climate scientists with impeccable credibility to answer a crucial question:

Can Emissions Reduction Alone (ERA) suffice to stop the Earth from crossing key climate tipping element thresholds? Or will it be necessary to add SRM to prevent the crossing of tipping points?

To put the question in more detail: What long-term ppm CO2 target should humanity steer toward?, and by what target year?, what aggressive yet plausible trajectory of present-to-peak ppm CO2 and CO2 peak-to-target ppm can we envision achieving? (i.e. how fast can we hope to get emissions down to net zero, and what rate of net negative annual GtCO2 emissions can we achieve after the peak year as we move back down toward our target ppm level?), and given a maximally aggressive "back to the Holocene" ppm CO2 trajectory, what climate tipping elements will tip along the way between now and a return to our lower long-term ppm CO2 target level *in the absence of SRM*?

In particular, what will the resultant cumulative sea level rise be *in the absence of SRM*? Can we set a target maximum cumulative sea level rise that we do not want to go beyond, e.g. one meter, and calibrate our climate interventions to stay within that target on a risk-assessed probability basis of, say, >80% confidence that we'll not exceed the target? Can we meet that target (with >80% confidence) on the basis of Emissions Reductions Alone (ERA)? Or do we need to supplement emissions reductions with temporary SRM to cool things down during our transition back down to our target ppm?

By the way, I think the target has to be 275 ppm CO2 by about 2130 CE, not Jim Hansen's target of 350 ppm, which I've never really understood as a long-term target. I agree with an interim target of 350 ppm by 2100, as many have mooted. I discussed Jim Hansen's proposed 350 ppm target with Jim during a taxi ride between Berlin airport and the Potsdam PIK institute in summer 2008. Frankly, I think he kind of pulled 350 ppm out of a hat. Atmospheric ppm CO2 concentrations drive sea level over the medium term. It is clearer now than it was in 2008 that the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets (GrIS and WAIS) cross their tipping thresholds whenever ppm CO2 approaches 300 ppm, never mind 350 or 420 ppm. During the interglacial period MIC 11c, which lasted around 30k years and peaked around 417,000 years ago, Greenland and West Antarctica were ice-free, and sea level was much higher than today, but ppm CO2 during that interglacial varied between 265 and 280 ppm. This strongly suggests that 350 ppm (sustained over a sufficient number of decades) would push GrIS and WAIS well past their tipping-points into irreversible meltdown dynamics. The same might be true of the Wilkes Basin section of East Antarctica. The overall impact would be about 15 meters SLR from these three ice sheets (7.2m from GriS alone, another 3.5 to 4.5m from WAIS alone), and we can add thermal expansion of seawater and ice mass loss from the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, etc. to that cumulative SLR figure.

What we need to do is organize a scientific project that directly addresses the questions above, complete with funding for climate models, research papers, a dedicated major scientific conference, and participation of top quality science communicators, youtubers, journalists, economists, etc., to report on the results. In brief, the question to address is whether Emissions Reductions Alone, ERA, even at a very aggressive pace, can suffice to prevent the loss of GrIS, WAIS, and Wilkes Basin Ice Sheets, and several other tipping elements, e.g. loss of nearly all tropical coral reefs, dangerous slowdown of AMOC, dangerous levels of methane and CO2 outgassing from the circumpolar permafrost, destabilization of shallow-water methane hydrates in the Arctic Sea, conversion of Amazonia from rainforest to savannah and its wider consequences, and a few other key tipping elements. And if climate modeling shows that ERA, even at an aggressive pace, cannot achieve the prevention of crossing these tipping element thresholds, at an acceptable risk level, then could a combination of aggressive ERA and SRM achieve a safe climate trajectory between now and when we get "back to the Holocene"? which in my view, again, ought to explicitly be a target return to 275 ppm CO2 well before the middle of the 22nd century, e.g. by 2030.

I propose that a key scenario for the climate model research we will seek to engender should be a return to 350 ppm by 2100 and to 275 ppm by 2130. To achieve this, we'll need aggressive emissions reductions, net negative emissions on the order of 50 to 60 GtCO2 per annum between mid-21st century and 2130 to get to 275 ppm by 2030, and SRM to provide interim cooling to achieve a safe trajectory. It is not clear whether or not it's already too late to stop the loss of WAIS and GrIS (whether they've crossed their tipping thresholds); lots of cryosphere scientists think they have. It's entirely unclear whether aggressive circumpolar albedo enhancement could stop or reverse their ice mass loss trend.

We crossed 350 ppm in 1987. To return to pre-industrial CO2 levels by about 2030, we have to reverse the sign on our pace of emissions from 50 to 60 GtCO2eq per annum to minus 50 to 60 GtCO2eq per annum, ASAP. That means building several hundred clean energy Gigafactories, producing equipment for solar PV + wind turbine + energy storage + balance-of-system + other cleantech. If we build about 400 Gigafactories of 20 GW annual production capacity, we'll install a cumulative 130 TW of combined wind and solar capacity after 17 years of production (85% solar PV capacity, 15% wind power capacity), which in my back of the envelope calculations would allow us to devote 100 TW combined solar and wind power capacity for running a prosperous fully electrified post-fossil-fuels global civilization of about 175,000 TWh, or about 18.5 MWh per person per annum, by 2050... and apply a further 30 TW of combined solar and wind power capacity, or about 52,500 TWh per annum, to a combination of CDR and interim SRM methods for the purpose of reducing ppm CO2 by 2.75 ppm per annum on a trajectory back down to 275 ppm by 2030, whilst keeping things cool enough to stop the various tipping elements from crossing their thresholds in the meantime, insofar as that remains possible (it may already be too late for the coral reefs, for the Amazon rainforest, and for WAIS and GrIS - it's unclear).

Net assessment and action proposal: let's formulate a clear research proposal to address the questions posed above in an urgent scientific research project involving many climate scientists from all the relevant countries, including notably China, India, and Brazil, not only European and American scientists. Let's get that research project funded. And let's plan for massive, massive publicity and engagement from the get-go. Eco-groups, policy committees composed of politicians and senior civil servants, science journalists, influential economists, key opinion leaders (including especially those "on the right" of the political spectrum) - all of these must be engaged in taking an interest in the research questions and in the results generated by the teams of climate scientists of impeccable reputation who will carry out the climate model runs needed to address the research questions. It will mostly entail a new set of CMIPs, climate model intercomparison projects.

Anyone who wants to actively help make that research happen, and help prepare the pitch to funders and the recruitment of public opinion influencer and policy attention to the research agenda and its eventual results, let me know. This is what I think we need to do. If there is sufficient interest, we'll form a working group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxr3EP7wivOU2%3DGRb2ORwC8y3VmDzB3sTv-vs2mCFpT4OQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Anderson, Paul

unread,

Mar 10, 2024, 10:37:28 PM3/10/24

to Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, peter....@gmail.com, gta...@bestfutures.org, Robert Hunziker, Anton Keskinen, Viktor Jaakktola, JOHN ENGLANDER, Peter D Ward

I think that Jasper’s proposal makes more sense than most of the discussion. We either pick up this torch, discuss and adapt/adopt it, or we let it die of neglect (and shame on us if we do not even push this discussion forward.)

At least the proposal needs to be in a stand-alone email message with a Subject line (could be “Jasper’s proposal” or more explicit) that is clear and relevant, and that could come from Jasper and others of the leadership.

I am just an observer who is specialized in biochar production but has climate disaster concerns. What counts is what the very well informed leaders reply. Be in agreement, or let it die, or actively kill the idea.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

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

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

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jasper Sky
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 3:28 PM
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; peter....@gmail.com; gta...@bestfutures.org; Robert Hunziker <rlhun...@gmail.com>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Viktor Jaakktola <vik...@operaatioarktis.fi>; JOHN ENGLANDER <johneng...@gmail.com>; Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] RE: Recording of Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7

You don't often get email from jasp...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfzLovJ24LB%3DayPeXzFSKsw3DfOmO5Y0%3DO8N%2B54txvEDgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Anderson, Paul

unread,

Mar 11, 2024, 8:49:54 AM3/11/24

to Jasper Sky, Jeff Suchon, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Jasper, (and to all other readers)

For the HPAC discussion, I respectfully request that you stick to climate topics and definitely avoid sending messages that are strictly about America’s politics and specific candidates.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

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

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

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jasper Sky
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 12:32 AM
To: Jeff Suchon <ecom...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; Herb <hsim...@gmail.com>; JOHN ENGLANDER <johneng...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu>; Peter Wadhams <peterw...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Viktor Jaakktola <vik...@operaatioarktis.fi>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: Recording of Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7

You don't often get email from jasp...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

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

Push elderly Biden out the door into retirement, Democrats, put Governor Whitmer forward as the candidate in November, and she'll crush the orange con man. There's no climate activism action you can take this year that could possibly be more valuable than this one thing. He's set to lose against Trump. The swing state polls are unequivocal.

Literally nobody wants Biden to run again except the vain old egomaniac himself (and his closest aides, whose jobs depend on him carrying on). Organizing within the Democratic Party to push him to retire is a realistic objective that would find overwhelming public resonance and support. OVERWHELMING popular support.

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, 19:50 Jeff Suchon <ecom...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have to know our limitations. If they are ourselves, well we work on that. If it is government or some other organization, we eork on that. They can be the walls or the open doors. My point is we will lose everything gained if the sir lance of the lambs brings his maghgats to the throne.

Am not talking joules, newtons, or watts.. but "watt" will it matter if sir lance wins?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKes%3DnFtd3_JEdb7HsF176x4UhNVSPcNEC5to05MkXKy2Ty9mQ%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/CAHFOvfwVo_ptN2uZNJVgzxOhCHkx_tfH6vTNvC4igXnEuMt0vQ%40mail.gmail.com.

rob...@rtulip.net

unread,

Mar 11, 2024, 2:38:33 PM3/11/24

to Robin Collins, Jasper Sky, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

So pleased we have been able to spark this strategic discussion from Peter’s presentation on sea level.

I welcome Jasper Sky’s proposal, but have a different view. My opinion is that the political left has made itself largely irrelevant to practical climate action due to its fantasy focus on cutting emissions, and that the main appeal will need to be to the security community, to make them see that sea level rise is a primary security threat that can be mitigated with geoengineering. AMOC shutdown, extreme weather and other systemic disruptions are equally security problems that can only be dealt with by SRM.

At the moment, military security is focused on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and the dangers for Taiwan. Climate is barely on their radar, since maintaining energy security is seen as far more important than a drastic system change. But as Peter Ward pointed out, (slides attached), there could be hundreds of millions of climate refugees in coming decades from sea level rise.

The time to plan to prevent this calamity is now, through higher albedo to slow polar melt. That is perfectly compatible with existing political and economic arrangements.

Of course carbon is a climate threat, but there is little difference in terms of warming between a future after massive emission reduction in the 2020s and after none, compared to massive difference between possible futures with different albedo levels. That means the world can afford to delay carbon action, but cannot afford to delay albedo action. If anyone can disprove this, the arguments should be based on science, not politics. I am not interested in the political arguments of the type advanced by Oswald, as that is a capitulation to catastrophe.

So on Jasper’s four-component strategy (renewables, decarbonisation, CDR and SRM), I particularly note his observation that “SRM requires overcoming the sneers and knee-jerk opposition of the entire Republican Party and its cousins in other nations.” Unfortunately, that anti-sneer objective is not compatible with attacking fossil fuels. The gross impracticality of the Energiewende is such that right wingers will automatically reject anyone who says it is necessary. But they could give a hearing to the argument that climate security can be compatible with ongoing emissions. And they are much more capable of mobilising the moonshot resources needed to restore albedo than anyone on the left.

This is not at all an argument against decarbonisation. It simply argues that the scale of decarbonisation possible within this decade is irrelevant to climate change, and that a focus on climate needs to enable rapid albedo increase. The world has darkened by 2% in the last decade and we are slipping over the precipice.

Regards

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAKes%3DnFtd3_JEdb7HsF176x4UhNVSPcNEC5to05MkXKy2Ty9mQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Bangladesh elevation and population.png

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Mar 11, 2024, 6:42:47 PM3/11/24

to Suzanne Reed, Jasper Sky, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Dear Jasper--I'd like to offer a suggestion that this meeting, addressed to consider the question and the research program needed to address relevant questions, be held under the auspices of the Climate Overshoot Commission (which seems to have access to funds, and would add credibility given the affiliations of their members). They would also assure and be able to bring in the broad types of stakeholders that will be needed if a special research program is to go forward--so offering suggestions on social science research and how all the information needs to be communicated. So, the effort would be sort of independent of the COP and IPCC, not have to have every country agree to everything as the COP operates, etc.

Yes, their report was a bit reluctant to say that it was inevitable that 1.5 C would be passed, but their report was pretty open on their viewpoint, seemed to have at least some good discussion so venture into areas where it was okay (or seemed to be) for members to express different views and have both sides represented, etc.

I just think this might really keep the proposed meeting get characterized by some as by people who are beyond the pale (or it is pail?), for it is going to be really important that the effort be seen as credible.

It would also help if the meeting were based on using a decision-making framework based on risk and not on having to have two sigma confidence before making a finding. For IPCC, the underlying hypothesis has been that things are natural and will move slowly unless proven otherwise to two-sigma significance. For this meeting, based on risk, the underlying hypothesis should be reversed--that is, the world is on a path to catastrophe that will be untenable for future generations and we will want to figure out what has to be done so that Greta Thunberg and future generations can have high confidence that the future world would be viable for them (right now IPCC sort of gives a 50% or 66% chance it will be livable and Greta rightly, on behalf of the youth, says that this is simply unacceptably inadequate, especially given that IPCC has pretty consistently been under estimating what has been coming to pass. So, basically, use a decision framework consistent with what society has been using (and proper due diligence apparently dictates) that the outcome must be resilient to the worst plausible outcome--so building bridges, etc. to withstand 1 in 100 year events, make sure vaccines are viable to some high degree, and more.

And so, Suzanne, I hope the discussion that you and Dennis will be leading, lays out some thinking on how to ensure whatever emerges as the proposed work program will have credibility not only in our eyes but in the eyes of the community out there (one can't just declare one has credibility by who participates--one has to earn credibility by the rigor of the explanation and forthrightly dealing with questions from whom one is trying to gain credibility)), and then also puts forth a view on the decision framework that we would be trying to speak in. I've felt for quite some time that IPCC and COP do not adequately explain the decision framework they are using (yes, IPCC has definitions of its lexicon) and how the framework compares to the decision frameworks by other components of society and the significance of the choice.

Best, Mike MacCracken

On 3/11/24 1:23 AM, Suzanne Reed wrote:

HPAC will be hosting a special meeting, tentatively on Monday, March 25, to discuss development of an advocacy, messaging, and collaboration strategy and action plan to elevate and advance direct climate cooling in the global climate change policy discourse. There will be a brief presentation featuring Dennis Garrity, Chair of the Board, Global EverGreening Alliance followed by discussion among all attendees. We will be exploring opportunities, options, strategies, and tactics, many of which have been suggested or proposed in this email chain by Jasper and others and in prior draft action plans.

Since COP26, there have been multiple attempts to organize a Working Group to develop and implement an advocacy strategy to advance direct climate cooling. For example, a prior draft plan is available here in the HPAC Google Drive. (Everyone in the HPAC Google Group should have access, but let me know if you run into trouble.) These past efforts have not come to fruition because our collective organizations have not had any capacity to commit to this cause. We are all volunteers, and our organizations have limited or no funding. People are busy with their own work and commitments.

Given the enthusiasm and array of ideas expressed in this email chain, perhaps we can begin again, overcome challenges to past efforts, and form a functional Working Group.

You will receive a notice for the Advocacy Strategy meeting as soon as the date and time are confirmed. I hope you will all attend.

Suzanne

Suzanne Reed

HPAC Steering Circle

Healthy Planet Action Coalition

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 9:14 PM Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Peter and Paul (and Robin, who PM'd me). Let's see who else expresses interest in the proposal I put forward by Monday evening (some people may actually treat weekends as weekends and won't have read the dozens of posts in this chain yet); it looks like there may well be enough of us willing to engage to form a quorum and the beginnings of a working group on this specific effort. If you send me your one-page outline, Peter, I'll edit it (tomorrow, Monday). Then we'll post it as a fresh discussion topic.

Regards

Jasper

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:00 PM Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu> wrote:

I am trying to absorb it all and write a one page outline to start

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfyERoFwAxMCQ%3DdPUsNEu_Z6ywf%2BkY2%3Dn6862jp2thS6Uw%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/CAE0%3DaUDAygSvQAfjnrrWGDV1_-MMRHeVBG2kD5P9VQ3rFXyGOA%40mail.gmail.com.

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Mar 11, 2024, 7:28:38 PM3/11/24

to Suzanne Reed, Anderson, Paul, Jasper Sky, Jeff Suchon, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Sorry--I meant the Climate Overshoot Commission.

Their phrase was CARE, Cut emission, Adapt to impact, Remove Carbon, Explore SRM. What the proposed meeting could help do is indicate how much of each is possible and what in addition to Exploring SRM is needed.

Mike

On 3/11/24 2:56 PM, Suzanne Reed wrote:

I would add to this appeal that we avoid references to WAR and atomic bomb metaphors as part of the messaging strategy. For those who aren't familiar, the HPAC proposed approach is three-pronged, "Cool, Reduce, Remove" as put forth in the Vision document found on our website. This couples with restoration, adaptation, and inclusion of the most vulnerable populations in policy making and implementation.

Suzanne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB59323B5758597DFD1B736185DB242%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.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/CAE0%3DaUDBWCMii2%2BNMvi-kdOKFXDtqxhjtd6V_ccAoxWXJarRHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Anderson, Paul

unread,

Mar 11, 2024, 9:44:38 PM3/11/24

to Jasper Sky, Jeff Suchon, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Jasper,

You missed my point. Americans are bombarded with opinion messages from now to early November. Regardless of which party I prefer, your comments are not needed nor wanted by me (and probably MANY others) on this forum.

Please stop such messages to this discussion group.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

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

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

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jasper Sky
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 10:13 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>
Cc: Jeff Suchon <ecom...@gmail.com>; Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; Herb <hsim...@gmail.com>; JOHN ENGLANDER <johneng...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu>; Peter Wadhams <peterw...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Viktor Jaakktola <vik...@operaatioarktis.fi>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: Recording of Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7

You don't often get email from jasp...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

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

Paul, of course I won't mention US politics in the proposal. Obviously not. Relax.

In the context of this thread, not of the project proposal, I'm pointing out that Trump and the crew he'll bring into office will torpedo the IRA and every other climate initiative. Swing state polls clearly show Biden will lose to Trump in November. If you're an American and want to avoid that outcome, work to get the Democratic Party elites to push Biden to collect his winnings and protect his own legacy by retiring and making way for a younger, more electable candidate. Polls suggest Gretchen Whitmer would easily beat Trump.

The only thing that can prevent a disastrous turn in US climate policy is if the people around one elderly narcissist make it clear to him that he'll retire next January one way or the other: either after gracefully passing the Dem baton to a younger, more electable candidate before November, or after losing the election to Trump, who will gleefully dismantle Biden's legacy.

If you're an American Democrat, you can work within the party to push those insiders to work up the courage to push Biden to retire. I hope some of you will do so. This isn't above your pay grade. The Democratic Party elites in DC are just people. They're not unreachable gods on Mount Olympus. Reach out.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfwv7DpYrX74B-25jUoW_0E_AWe%3D4VG3mZdHFqazt-Ctmw%40mail.gmail.com.

rob...@rtulip.net

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 1:44:03 AM3/12/24

to Jasper Sky, Healthy Climate Alliance, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hi Jasper, I am pleased you are so optimistic about renewable energy scale up.

My doubts about this optimism come partly from observing the concerted campaign against SRM, since it is obvious that SRM is needed now to counteract the dangerous loss of sulphur aerosols. The vitriol and emotion within this campaign leads me to suspect its leaders are not open to rational dialogue about climate risk, and therefore have distorted their claims. As I said, I am not opposed to decarbonisation, I simply want to understand the scientific basis for the advocacy.

Shifting the climate debate to focus on cooling requires legitimate scientific questioning of claims about renewable energy potential. Conflicts of interest and ideological agendas from renewable proponents can distort priorities, contributing to unrealistic cost and time estimates.

I would like to see rebuttals of the arguments presented by Simon Michaux, who contends that there is excessive optimism about materials, personnel and costs for the proposed renewable rollouts, and by Vaclav Smil, who argues that the scale of ongoing fossil fuel need is much bigger than assumed in renewable energy literature. How concerns about renewable intermittency affect the ability to prevent blackouts through provision of backup baseload energy also needs to be clarified.

To reverse warming it does not matter greatly how fast we move away from fossil fuels, if the cooling can be delivered by SRM. Warming is caused by the 2.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 that has been emitted, less the small proportion that has already been stabilised by natural processes. Annual emissions worsen committed warming by about 2%, so decarbonising at 10% per year would mitigate about 0.2% of warming each year, a marginal figure.

Here in Australia there is significant concern about damage to agriculture and environment from renewable plans. A widespread perception is that these concerns are just brushed aside for ideological motives by people who hypocritically claim they want to protect the environment by slowing global warming. The cost and impact of new transmission lines to install renewables at scale in our low density geography is high.

I looked at the Breyer et al precis you linked, and felt that its argument that renewables transition can help keep warming below 1.5 is exaggerated. The total absence of discussion of albedo makes the strategic vision of this paper inadequate.

Thanks & Regards

Robert Tulip

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jasper Sky
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 8:30 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; Herb <hsim...@gmail.com>; JOHN ENGLANDER <johneng...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu>; Peter Wadhams <peterw...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Viktor Jaakktola <vik...@operaatioarktis.fi>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [HPAC] Re: Recording of Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7

Robert, your dismissal of the Energiewende is just flat mistaken. Renewables cost less than 10% per MWh what they did when the Germans got it going in the 2000s. Continuing the Energiewende going forward will be cheap and easy. Multiple studies exist showing that a 100% renewable energy future is both technically achievable and affordable by mid-century, along well-defined technology buildout pathways with realistic numbers. I've pointed this out to you before several times. There's the work of Christian Breyer and his research group at LUT in Finland, whose models include upwards of 130 key technologies on both the energy supply and energy demand sides; similarly, there's Mark Jacobson et al. at Stanford, there's Mathiesen and Lund et al. in Denmark, there's Tom Brown et al. at the Technical University of Berlin and Claudia Kempfert at DIW also in Berlin, there's Sven Teske et al. at ANU in Australia, there's Jiang Lin at UC Berkeley (who has worked out techno-economic transition scenarios to 100% RE for China)... and many others. They all work on very detailed quantitative techno-economic energy system transition models. I am in direct personal touch with some of these researchers, and have read papers from others. This is not some kind of kookery.

Here is a precis of the 100% R.E. literature: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362270272_On_the_history_and_future_of_100_renewable_energy_systems_research

I'm sorry to say this, Robert, but you seem to relentlessly recycle the same talking-points over and over, and just sieve out any information that contradicts your established opinion. You seem to have formed an opinion that a rapid transition away from fossil fuels and into a clean renewable energy future is "impossible" or "unaffordable" or "unrealistic" or whatever combination of those terms you use from day to day, and that we must continue using fossil fuels in large amounts for many decades or perhaps indefinitely. And this opinion, heatedly expressed, leads you to hold up SRM as the ONLY thing that matters, and to pooh-pooh the prospect of transitioning away from fossil fuels. You seem utterly convinced of this stance and simply don't seem open to evidence that it might be wrong.

And it is wrong. Your rejection of the feasibility of a rapid transition almost entirely away from fossil fuels is just plain technically wrong (thank heavens!). There is absolutely nothing stopping us from building 100 TW of combined solar PV and wind power capacity before mid-century. Or 150 TW, or 200 TW, if we want to. And that's plenty.

Here are the numbers: Assume we install nameplate RE capacity of 85% solar, 15% wind. On a conservative estimate of annual MWh per MW of installed capacity of 1,800 MWh per year per MW, solar power gets us to 156,000 TWh per year from 86.7 TW of cumulative installed solar PV capacity by mid-century. On a conservative value of 2,200 MWh per year per installed MW of wind turbine, with a cumulative 15.3 TW wind turbine capacity installed, we get a further 33,700 MWh from wind. The combined total of solar and wind generated electricity in a mid-century year is then 190,000 TWh (with nuclear, hydroelectric, tidal, and geothermal power being additional to this, and increasing the overall level of energy prosperity even further). We can also assume that large amounts of direct heat for industrial processes will be supplied from deep geothermal wells, and in some regions direct geothermal heat will also be used for district heating of buildings.

Assuming a population of 10 billion people in a fully electrified world in 2050, in which only a handful of sectors continue to use fossil fuels (e.g. kerosene for jet fuel) requiring ongoing CDR offsets, will mean 19 MWh per person per year in total final energy delivery, which is a very high standard of global energy prosperity in an electrified world --- a world unlike the one we live in today, in which >70% of primary energy is lost as waste heat in fossil fuels combustion processes in cars or thermal power generators and so on.

We'll need an additional energy supply above that 190,000 TWh amount for powering CDR processes, and I'm keen to figure out how much will be needed to provide 55 GtCO2 CDR per annum. 55 GtCO2 per annum an estimate of what will be needed to get from a peak of about 460 ppm in mid-century back down to 350 ppm by 2100. Will it take 1 MWh per ton CO2 sequestered? 2 MWh? 3 MWh? Can most of the energy required for CDR be harvested from geothermal sources, or does it have to take the form of electricity? These are important questions. Worst-case scenario: delivering 55 GtCO2 per annum each year from mi-century onward will take about 3 MWh per ton CO2, all of it electricity, or a total of 165,000 TWh for 55 GtCO2 -- which is 165/190 = 87% as much as we'll need for all other purposes. In other words, we'll need to nearly double the installed capacity of electricity to achieve that level of CDR based on 3 MWh per ton CO2. That is also technically feasible. But we will hopefully be able to do much better than that in terms of energy required per ton of CDR.

Getting to a cumulative 100 TW of installed solar and wind power capacity by mid-century will be achievable by running 300 Gigafactories each producing 20 GW combined solar and wind capacity (85% of it solar, again) for 17 years. Solar panel Gigafactories of that size already exist in China, and India is starting with the construction of its first 20 GW solar PV (+ energy storage capacity, etc.) in Gujarat this year. If we can build three or four such Gigafactories in China and India, we can build three or four hundred of them in the world. There is no plausible constraint on input materials or land availability for setting up solar farms, or anything else. We already know how to do this. And our technology just keeps getting better.

In summary: to get to 100 TW of cumulative installed solar and wind power, we have to build 300 Gigafactories, each of 20 GW annual output, and run them for 17 years, and we're done. If we have to provide 1 MWh electricity per ton of CDR, then to achieve 55 GtCO2 CDR per year, we'll have to build about 400 Gigafactories instead of 300. If we have to provide 2 MWh per ton of CDR, we'll have to build 500 Gigafactories, and if we have to provide 3 MWh per ton of electricity per ton of CDR, we'll have to build closer to 600 Gigafactories. If we start building those Gigafactories around 2028 and get them operational by 2033, we'll have 17 years to run them between then and 2050, and we'll hit those cumulative installed solar and wind power capacity targets I set out above.

In addition to all that, because of the heavy carbon dioxide and methane load already in the atmosphere, we're going to need SRM between now and when we've got ppm CO2 back down to a safe level (well below 350 ppm). In addition, not instead of building a prosperous clean energy based civilization by 2050.

So it's a both-and: we need both emissions reduction via green energy ramp-up and brown energy ramp-down, and CDR, and SRM.

The "left" and the "right" both have de facto vetos on major policy shifts. The "left" will veto SRM proposals that are not part of a PACKAGE of climate measures that includes aggressive emissions reductions and clean energy ramp-up, and the "right" will veto anything that their opinion leaders tell them to veto, which is why we need to persuade their opinion leaders that robust global prosperity is easily achievable off the back of a 100% renewable energy economy (or renewable energy plus small modular reactors, which will probably never be financially viable, but whatever, the right wing loves nuclear and hates renewables, for reasons I really do not understand; I like both, personally, but renewables are safer, much faster to deploy, and much cheaper, so we aren't going to build nuclear power at scale except in a few countries like France where land for solar power is limited and/or they want to keep nuclear as the basis for their military nuclear capacity). The right-wingers go around telling each other that EVs are bad, renewable energy is for weak people, cissies, and queers, etc., but that's just weird bullshit. I think it can be overcome - EVs are, after all, objectively better than ICE vehicles, more fun to drive, cheaper to operate, and renewable power is cheaper than coal or gas power in most of the world. It's up to us to show the rednecks the relevant numbers (and the already operating Gigafactories) that prove a 100% clean energy future is feasible, until they realize their hostility to cleantech is just bullshit they adopted because they were told to hate Al Gore and everything Al Gore stood for back in the day, or because Rush Limbaugh told them to hate renewables and associate them with cissies and homos, or some clutch of inane non-reasons like that.

The objective, demonstrable techno-economic and engineering fact is that there is no contradiction at all between prosperity and a world built on renewable energy, and hence also need to sacrifice climate stability. SRM is just an interim band-aid to cool things down while we build that cleantech world. The coal, gas, and oil boys will continue to try to slow down the transition because they're greedy sociopaths who don't seem to care about the fate of their own children, much less the biosphere, and pumping oil out of the ground is more profitable (generates more unearned economic rent for the license-holders) than the thin profit margins earned from solar PV farms, but there is no technical reason necessitating any such slowdown.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfxYe73N-uEc1%3D%2BVKPO8y8ZspuQRyxo-cFnE-d%3DV0pMrAA%40mail.gmail.com.

Peter D Ward

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 3:58:37 PM3/12/24

to Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

I am trying to absorb it all and write a one page outline to start

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 7:37 PM Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu> wrote:

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 3:58:47 PM3/12/24

to Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Thanks, Peter and Paul (and Robin, who PM'd me). Let's see who else expresses interest in the proposal I put forward by Monday evening (some people may actually treat weekends as weekends and won't have read the dozens of posts in this chain yet); it looks like there may well be enough of us willing to engage to form a quorum and the beginnings of a working group on this specific effort. If you send me your one-page outline, Peter, I'll edit it (tomorrow, Monday). Then we'll post it as a fresh discussion topic.

Regards

Jasper

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:00 PM Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu> wrote:

Peter D Ward

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 3:58:53 PM3/12/24

to Jasper Sky, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

I began by asking my family. How much are you willing to sacrifice for humans not yet born?

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 3:59:01 PM3/12/24

to Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter....@gmail.com

Nononono, Peter. 'Sacrifice' is entirely the wrong concept here. I've done the numbers on clean energy provision. 100 TW of combined solar PV and wind turbine capacity, with 85% solar and 15% wind, gets us to about 175,000 TWh of electricity, or 18.5 MWh per person per year of final energy supply in a fully electrified post fossil fuels global economy. That's a highly prosperous world. No sacrifice entailed at all.

Getting there means ramping up annual global solar PV panel production and installation from 400 GW in 2023 and annual global wind turbine additions from 100 GW in 2023 to about 5,000 GW solar and 1,000 GW wind annually ASAP, a 12x increase in annual output of those two equipment types (plus appropriate amounts of ancillary equipment: energy transmission and storage capacity, etc.).

There's a big factory in China that spits out 20 GW of solar PV panels per year. We need 300 similar factories operating for 17 years to get to 100 TW of combined cumulative solar PV and wind turbine capacity. We can achieve global prosperity in clean energy abundance by 2045 if we want to. It ain't even hard. Just build and run 300 Gigafactories of 20 GW annual equipment production scale each, and we're done. No sacrifices entailed AT ALL.

We need to build an additional amount of power generation capacity to provide the energy inputs we'll need to achieve around 55 GtCO2 per year CDR drawdown by mid-century. It's not yet clear to me how many MWh per ton we'll need for that. If it turns out to be 3 MWh/ton CDR (as per estimates of current generation DACCS), we'll need 165 billion MWh for 55 billion tons of CDR per year. That's nearly the same amount of electricity as the whole of global civilization requires to run a prosperous clean energy powered world.

But if we find scalable CDR methods that only require, say, 1 MWh/ton CDR, then we'll only need an additional 55 billion MWh per annum, so the total annual power requirement will be 175,000 TWh + 55,000 TWh = 230,000 TWh, and instead of building and operating 300 renewable energy equipment Gigafactories of 20 GW annual capacity each for 17 years, we'll have to build and operate 400 of them.

Not much of a sacrifice there, either, is there? Sure beats NOT building that CDR capacity and choosing to bequeath a half-dead storm planet to our children and grandchildren, doesn't it?

I'll write a project proposal tomorrow for everyone to consider and comment on, and we'll see if we can get a working group going to advance it.

Jasper

Suzanne Reed

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 3:59:08 PM3/12/24

to Jasper Sky, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

HPAC will be hosting a special meeting, tentatively on Monday, March 25, to discuss development of an advocacy, messaging, and collaboration strategy and action plan to elevate and advance direct climate cooling in the global climate change policy discourse. There will be a brief presentation featuring Dennis Garrity, Chair of the Board, Global EverGreening Alliance followed by discussion among all attendees. We will be exploring opportunities, options, strategies, and tactics, many of which have been suggested or proposed in this email chain by Jasper and others and in prior draft action plans.

Since COP26, there have been multiple attempts to organize a Working Group to develop and implement an advocacy strategy to advance direct climate cooling. For example, a prior draft plan is available here in the HPAC Google Drive. (Everyone in the HPAC Google Group should have access, but let me know if you run into trouble.) These past efforts have not come to fruition because our collective organizations have not had any capacity to commit to this cause. We are all volunteers, and our organizations have limited or no funding. People are busy with their own work and commitments.

Given the enthusiasm and array of ideas expressed in this email chain, perhaps we can begin again, overcome challenges to past efforts, and form a functional Working Group.

You will receive a notice for the Advocacy Strategy meeting as soon as the date and time are confirmed. I hope you will all attend.

Suzanne

Suzanne Reed

HPAC Steering Circle

Healthy Planet Action Coalition

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 9:14 PM Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfyERoFwAxMCQ%3DdPUsNEu_Z6ywf%2BkY2%3Dn6862jp2thS6Uw%40mail.gmail.com.

Peter D Ward

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 3:59:23 PM3/12/24

to Jasper Sky, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Graeme Taylor, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, peter....@gmail.com

Please

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:00:07 PM3/12/24

to Suzanne Reed, Jasper Sky, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Hi Sue,

very good idea, I am in.

Please make sure that the endeavour is not confined to SAI, which has the least public support of all methods discussed in this forum.

Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAE0%3DaUDAygSvQAfjnrrWGDV1_-MMRHeVBG2kD5P9VQ3rFXyGOA%40mail.gmail.com.

Suzanne Reed

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:00:41 PM3/12/24

to Anderson, Paul, Jasper Sky, Jeff Suchon, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

I would add to this appeal that we avoid references to WAR and atomic bomb metaphors as part of the messaging strategy. For those who aren't familiar, the HPAC proposed approach is three-pronged, "Cool, Reduce, Remove" as put forth in the Vision document found on our website. This couples with restoration, adaptation, and inclusion of the most vulnerable populations in policy making and implementation.

Suzanne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB59323B5758597DFD1B736185DB242%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

Alan Kerstein

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:01:31 PM3/12/24

to Jasper Sky, rob...@rtulip.net, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

This discussion illustrates that what is needed is a definitive assessment, including policy recommendations, by the National Academy of Sciences or something equivalent. If there has been such an assessment but not recently, then it should be updated based on the data, evolving scientific understanding, and technological advancements since the prior assessment.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:30 PM Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert, your dismissal of the Energiewende is just flat mistaken. Renewables cost less than 10% per MWh what they did when the Germans got it going in the 2000s. Continuing the Energiewende going forward will be cheap and easy. Multiple studies exist showing that a 100% renewable energy future is both technically achievable and affordable by mid-century, along well-defined technology buildout pathways with realistic numbers. I've pointed this out to you before several times. There's the work of Christian Breyer and his research group at LUT in Finland, whose models include upwards of 130 key technologies on both the energy supply and energy demand sides; similarly, there's Mark Jacobson et al. at Stanford, there's Mathiesen and Lund et al. in Denmark, there's Tom Brown et al. at the Technical University of Berlin and Claudia Kempfert at DIW also in Berlin, there's Sven Teske et al. at ANU in Australia, there's Jiang Lin at UC Berkeley (who has worked out techno-economic transition scenarios to 100% RE for China)... and many others. They all work on very detailed quantitative techno-economic energy system transition models. I am in direct personal touch with some of these researchers, and have read papers from others. This is not some kind of kookery.

Here is a precis of the 100% R.E. literature: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362270272_On_the_history_and_future_of_100_renewable_energy_systems_research

I'm sorry to say this, Robert, but you seem to relentlessly recycle the same talking-points over and over, and just sieve out any information that contradicts your established opinion. You seem to have formed an opinion that a rapid transition away from fossil fuels and into a clean renewable energy future is "impossible" or "unaffordable" or "unrealistic" or whatever combination of those terms you use from day to day, and that we must continue using fossil fuels in large amounts for many decades or perhaps indefinitely. And this opinion, heatedly expressed, leads you to hold up SRM as the ONLY thing that matters, and to pooh-pooh the prospect of transitioning away from fossil fuels. You seem utterly convinced of this stance and simply don't seem open to evidence that it might be wrong.

And it is wrong. Your rejection of the feasibility of a rapid transition almost entirely away from fossil fuels is just plain technically wrong (thank heavens!). There is absolutely nothing stopping us from building 100 TW of combined solar PV and wind power capacity before mid-century. Or 150 TW, or 200 TW, if we want to. And that's plenty.

Here are the numbers: Assume we install nameplate RE capacity of 85% solar, 15% wind. On a conservative estimate of annual MWh per MW of installed capacity of 1,800 MWh per year per MW, solar power gets us to 156,000 TWh per year from 86.7 TW of cumulative installed solar PV capacity by mid-century. On a conservative value of 2,200 MWh per year per installed MW of wind turbine, with a cumulative 15.3 TW wind turbine capacity installed, we get a further 33,700 MWh from wind. The combined total of solar and wind generated electricity in a mid-century year is then 190,000 TWh (with nuclear, hydroelectric, tidal, and geothermal power being additional to this, and increasing the overall level of energy prosperity even further). We can also assume that large amounts of direct heat for industrial processes will be supplied from deep geothermal wells, and in some regions direct geothermal heat will also be used for district heating of buildings.

Assuming a population of 10 billion people in a fully electrified world in 2050, in which only a handful of sectors continue to use fossil fuels (e.g. kerosene for jet fuel) requiring ongoing CDR offsets, will mean 19 MWh per person per year in total final energy delivery, which is a very high standard of global energy prosperity in an electrified world --- a world unlike the one we live in today, in which >70% of primary energy is lost as waste heat in fossil fuels combustion processes in cars or thermal power generators and so on.

We'll need an additional energy supply above that 190,000 TWh amount for powering CDR processes, and I'm keen to figure out how much will be needed to provide 55 GtCO2 CDR per annum. 55 GtCO2 per annum an estimate of what will be needed to get from a peak of about 460 ppm in mid-century back down to 350 ppm by 2100. Will it take 1 MWh per ton CO2 sequestered? 2 MWh? 3 MWh? Can most of the energy required for CDR be harvested from geothermal sources, or does it have to take the form of electricity? These are important questions. Worst-case scenario: delivering 55 GtCO2 per annum each year from mi-century onward will take about 3 MWh per ton CO2, all of it electricity, or a total of 165,000 TWh for 55 GtCO2 -- which is 165/190 = 87% as much as we'll need for all other purposes. In other words, we'll need to nearly double the installed capacity of electricity to achieve that level of CDR based on 3 MWh per ton CO2. That is also technically feasible. But we will hopefully be able to do much better than that in terms of energy required per ton of CDR.

Getting to a cumulative 100 TW of installed solar and wind power capacity by mid-century will be achievable by running 300 Gigafactories each producing 20 GW combined solar and wind capacity (85% of it solar, again) for 17 years. Solar panel Gigafactories of that size already exist in China, and India is starting with the construction of its first 20 GW solar PV (+ energy storage capacity, etc.) in Gujarat this year. If we can build three or four such Gigafactories in China and India, we can build three or four hundred of them in the world. There is no plausible constraint on input materials or land availability for setting up solar farms, or anything else. We already know how to do this. And our technology just keeps getting better.

In summary: to get to 100 TW of cumulative installed solar and wind power, we have to build 300 Gigafactories, each of 20 GW annual output, and run them for 17 years, and we're done. If we have to provide 1 MWh electricity per ton of CDR, then to achieve 55 GtCO2 CDR per year, we'll have to build about 400 Gigafactories instead of 300. If we have to provide 2 MWh per ton of CDR, we'll have to build 500 Gigafactories, and if we have to provide 3 MWh per ton of electricity per ton of CDR, we'll have to build closer to 600 Gigafactories. If we start building those Gigafactories around 2028 and get them operational by 2033, we'll have 17 years to run them between then and 2050, and we'll hit those cumulative installed solar and wind power capacity targets I set out above.

In addition to all that, because of the heavy carbon dioxide and methane load already in the atmosphere, we're going to need SRM between now and when we've got ppm CO2 back down to a safe level (well below 350 ppm). In addition, not instead of building a prosperous clean energy based civilization by 2050.

So it's a both-and: we need both emissions reduction via green energy ramp-up and brown energy ramp-down, and CDR, and SRM.

The "left" and the "right" both have de facto vetos on major policy shifts. The "left" will veto SRM proposals that are not part of a PACKAGE of climate measures that includes aggressive emissions reductions and clean energy ramp-up, and the "right" will veto anything that their opinion leaders tell them to veto, which is why we need to persuade their opinion leaders that robust global prosperity is easily achievable off the back of a 100% renewable energy economy (or renewable energy plus small modular reactors, which will probably never be financially viable, but whatever, the right wing loves nuclear and hates renewables, for reasons I really do not understand; I like both, personally, but renewables are safer, much faster to deploy, and much cheaper, so we aren't going to build nuclear power at scale except in a few countries like France where land for solar power is limited and/or they want to keep nuclear as the basis for their military nuclear capacity). The right-wingers go around telling each other that EVs are bad, renewable energy is for weak people, cissies, and queers, etc., but that's just weird bullshit. I think it can be overcome - EVs are, after all, objectively better than ICE vehicles, more fun to drive, cheaper to operate, and renewable power is cheaper than coal or gas power in most of the world. It's up to us to show the rednecks the relevant numbers (and the already operating Gigafactories) that prove a 100% clean energy future is feasible, until they realize their hostility to cleantech is just bullshit they adopted because they were told to hate Al Gore and everything Al Gore stood for back in the day, or because Rush Limbaugh told them to hate renewables and associate them with cissies and homos, or some clutch of inane non-reasons like that.

The objective, demonstrable techno-economic and engineering fact is that there is no contradiction at all between prosperity and a world built on renewable energy, and hence also need to sacrifice climate stability. SRM is just an interim band-aid to cool things down while we build that cleantech world. The coal, gas, and oil boys will continue to try to slow down the transition because they're greedy sociopaths who don't seem to care about the fate of their own children, much less the biosphere, and pumping oil out of the ground is more profitable (generates more unearned economic rent for the license-holders) than the thin profit margins earned from solar PV farms, but there is no technical reason necessitating any such slowdown.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:38 AM <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfxYe73N-uEc1%3D%2BVKPO8y8ZspuQRyxo-cFnE-d%3DV0pMrAA%40mail.gmail.com.

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:01:42 PM3/12/24

to Alan Kerstein, Jasper Sky, rob...@rtulip.net, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Dear all,

can’t we agree on the following?

Mitigation is urgently needed and technically possible, no question about it. But it will take at least till the end of this century to get it done. Remember that there is not only the US and EU, but also the rest of the world, which is about 4/5 of it, which will need more time than the advanced countries. It is a Herculean job.
Negative emissions are needed to make up for the remaining fossil fuel-burning tech.
GeoRestoration is needed to clean up existing GHG in the atmosphere.

Regards

Oswald

Von: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Alan Kerstein

Gesendet: Montag, 11. März 2024 22:20
An: Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAH-gPYFSrk6b-QWQdiRTL7cTCkOi-kwZpUaQ1ZwV-Sr54Zj%3DBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Robert Chris

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:02:10 PM3/12/24

to Peter D Ward, Jasper Sky, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Can't take the suspense!! How did they answer?

Robert

Sent from my Galaxy

-------- Original message --------

From: Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu>

Date: 12/03/2024 19:58 (GMT+00:00)

To: Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CADThVtKa0%3D%2B11Kba2Fb-rJ1w7eEgrPTxT%3D8ioDtPWw6HiDn4ZA%40mail.gmail.com.

Jeff Suchon

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:03:19 PM3/12/24

to Oswald Petersen, Alan Kerstein, Jasper Sky, Robert Tulip, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Oswald, if you added reflection, aka srm, then it would sound right.

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:03:31 PM3/12/24

to Jeff Suchon, Alan Kerstein, Jasper Sky, Robert Tulip, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hi Jeff,

GeoRestoration includes MCB…

Oswald

AMR - GeoRestoration.pdf

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:05:06 PM3/12/24

to Michael MacCracken, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Michael MacC,

thanks for suggesting the Climate Overshoot Commission (which I see appears to have emerged out of the Paris Peace Forum, the first annual meeting of which I attended in 2018). I think exploring a connection with them is a good idea.

As you point out, the overwhelming priority is for this effort to be (and be seen as) impeccably credible scientifically, and to NOT give rise to a perception that the conclusion was reached before the research was done.

Most of us in this forum - me included - think that a risk assessment based on current understanding is that in the absence of SRM applied as an interim cooling measure, the world will almost certainly cross multiple tipping points in the climate system between now and whenever we return back down to 350, 300, or 275 ppm. (275 ppm is a level consistent with civilization's having emerged during, and built its cities on the shores of, a world in which ppm CO2 was around 275 ppm.)

And therefore we'll have to apply SRM while we steer back down from a peak of around 460 ppm in mid-century to 275 ppm sometime in the 22nd century.

However, we will have to refrain from presuming this to definitely be the case before the research results are in. The whole point of the research programme is to ask climate scientists whether or not this hypothesis is correct, even under conditions of very aggressive emissions reductions and CDR efforts on the road back to 275 ppm.

Our goal in this project (which I am sitting at my laptop writing a draft proposal for - hope to have it ready for your review this evening) is to pose the key scientific questions, raise money to fund the required scientific research - most of which will take the form of CMIPs, climate model intercomparison projects - and then disseminate the results.

We'll shift gears into advocacy *after* the results of the research are in. That doesn't preclude folks from continuing to advocate for immediate SRM *before* the research results are in - but it does preclude folks from advocating SRM in connection with this research project before its results are in.

The Climate Overshoot Commission seems like it may be a good fit in this context, because they raise (on their website) the possibility of SRM as part of a comprehensive approach toward implementing climate safety, but they don't seem (yet) to be advocating for its unequivocal necessity.

Jasper

Suzanne Reed

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:05:19 PM3/12/24

to Jasper Sky, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Mike, Jasper, et al. We now appear to be talking about two different things: 1) advocacy for a risk-risk and feasibility research program to be conducted) vs. 2) actually conducting a research program.

Contributing to the confusion are references to "this group," "this meeting," and "Jasper's Proposal" in various emails. Jasper has actually offered two proposals, one on March 9 concerning outreach and another on March 10 concerning the research program with a follow-up reference to a meeting. Others, e.g., Robin, have also offered outreach suggestions. There are now two separate email conversations running with similar (but different) subject lines adding to the confusion. All of this demonstrates (again) what a failure email chains are as a method of inclusive conversation and decision making.

To be clear, as described in my email of March 10, the planned HPAC hosted meeting tentatively scheduled for March 25 is "to discuss development of an advocacy, messaging, and collaboration strategy and action plan to elevate and advance direct climate cooling in the global climate change policy discourse." I will add that the outcomes being sought for the 1 and 1/2 hour meeting are: a collective decision on if an Advocacy Working Group should be formed; if so, who is stepping up to participate in it; and what should be the structure, process, and timeline. Mission, goals, branding, tasks, decision frameworks, research program elements, etc. would be developed by the Working Group with drafts presented to the group(s) at large for input and ultimately, implementation of the final advocacy strategy.

I suggest that making the research program happen requires advocacy in and of itself. Within that advocacy, what research exactly needs to be done and who should do it needs to be laid out. My expectation is that the Working Group would address these items. Those who have different points of view should share their views during the discussion.

Regarding Jasper's comment: "We'll shift gears into advocacy *after* the results of the research are in. That doesn't preclude folks from continuing to advocate for immediate SRM *before* the research results are in - but it does preclude folks from advocating SRM in connection with this research project before its results are in." This suggests a misunderstanding of the HPAC position which considers research, risk analysis, and pilot testing as an urgent and necessary precursor to SRM deployment. Participants in this email chain are actually members of a few different groups. It is true that some participants, even those who also participate in HPAC, are advocating for immediate deployment of SRM. However, HPAC is an umbrella organization under which are gathered people with a range of points of view from nature-based and incremental deployment advocates to those whose priority is immediate refreezing of the Arctic using technology-based methods. Points of consensus among us, or a good number of us as indicated by signature or endorsement, are represented in the documents published on the HPAC website Home page. Such is the confusion that can emerge relative to umbrella organizations that promote discourse across differing points of view and are open to new information.

Finally, please know that the meeting discussion and Working Group process envisioned are inclusive and collaborative. I am facilitating the process, not making *this* or *that* happen or not happen. It will be up to all of you to express your points of view and enable productive outcomes for the impending meeting and any Working Group that follows.

Best wishes,

Suzanne

Jeff Suchon

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 4:08:18 PM3/12/24

to Oswald Petersen, Alan Kerstein, Jasper Sky, Robert Tulip, Robin Collins, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Climate Alliance, Herb, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Peter Wadhams, Planetary Restoration, Tom Goreau, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Oswald, I interpreted vleaning up GHG in the air as mitigation of carbon. That brings up another problem I have with semantics.

Mitigation is generally cdr and emission reductions. Netghgative stuff.

Adaptation is protecting oneselg from the heat, storms, etc?

Is srm ( of course, including mcb) "mitadaptation" because the cooling also saves on energy for a/c and also halts rhe momentum to more feedback loops.

rob...@rtulip.net

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 8:24:32 PM3/12/24

to Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hi Oswald

Each of your proposed terms in your email below has problems.

“Mitigation” defined as emission reduction and sink enhancement is an Orwellian misuse of language, a legacy of obsolete thinking from the UNFCCC. Emission reduction cannot mitigate climate change except as a small component of a broader program led by sunlight reflection to cool the temperature. It is wrong, harmful and misleading to endorse any language that implies sunlight reflection cannot mitigate global warming. Since that false belief is what anti-cooling NGOs try to promote with their bizarre propaganda against “mitigation deterrence”, their false premise on the meaning of mitigation has to be rejected. Rectifying this definition recognises that albedo restoration through rebrightening of the Earth needs to become central to mitigation of global warming.

“Negative Emissions” is equally confusing, as a linguistic paradox that is best not used. An equivalent is Greenhouse Gas Removal, as a broader term encompassing both carbon dioxide removal and methane removal, but still not covering the photosynthetic conversion of CO2 into useful products. My favoured term is Carbon Conversion as proposed at https://www.energy.gov/fecm/carbon-conversion. Although Carbon Conversion is not in wide use, it has the advantage of promoting the idea that CO2 can be mined from the air and sea to make bulk commercial commodities such as soil and construction materials as part of a future circular economy. Even though that is only gradually becoming feasible at scale, my view is that carbon conversion will have to eventually largely replace CDR concepts such as geosequestration that offer no potential profit. Carbon needs to be understood as a highly valuable element to protect and enhance the productive and sustainable flourishing of abundant biodiversity and human industry, not something that needs to be removed.

“GeoRestoration” is a proprietary term from http://georestoration.com/, a company working on soil remediation. Unfortunately that means it cannot be broadly accepted within the climate space.

This all illustrates the challenges of finding common language to support our agreed goals, as well as to talk through differences of strategic emphasis.

Regards

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/002f01da7404%24ff743cf0%24fe5cb6d0%24%40hispeed.ch.

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 8:52:18 PM3/12/24

to oswald.petersen, Jasper Sky, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, healthy-planet-action-coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter.wadhams

Dear Jasper (and Oswald)--I would like to offer a different view.

The El Nino versus La Nina show very clearly that different patterns in surface temperature lead to changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warmer Arctic makes the same point. What persistent MCB will do is alter the surface temperature pattern--if it is doing this is it working at all? So, MCB can lead to changes in the atmospheric circulation--that is how the teleconnection of MCB works having some remote effect as Stephen Salter has talked about. So, let's not say MCB won't have some regional influences on the circulation, which is to say it will affect the weather, and not just how much solar is absorbed in the area of the ocean where it is done (and ocean circulation might change as well. Given the CO2 forcing is relatively uniform around the world, one would really like to be counterbalancing that and that would require a relatively uniform negative focing over the Earth--and MCB is not globally uniform.

On the other hand stratospheric aerosol injection does lead to relatively uniform influence around latitudes since that is how the winds spread aerosols--and can be made to be relatively uniform by latitude as well, depending on how injected (or non-uniform if that is what would provide most benefit). Ruling it out makes no sense at all. There has actually been a good bit of experience with stratospheric aerosol injections due to volcanic eruptions and knowledge gained. And this does indicate that there can be seasonal patterns in the response in terms of circulation and temperature pattern (possibly due to the different ocean-land characteristics even though forcing might be longitudinally and even latitudinally uniform).

Note that changes in vegetation can also lead to changes in circulation and precipitation--indeed, just look at how changes in the Amazon are affecting conditions, and deforestation does too. In fact, the first climate change assessment in the US was done by Thomas Jefferson who evaluated how the deforestation of North America's coastal Atlantic Plain affected the sea breeze regime, etc. I don't mean to say don't do it, just don't claim that it has no effect--the whole hope is to have less change than currently being induced.

All this said, I simply don't understand the argument that it is less palatable--it is rather key that the effects induced do have large scale/global influence, and that is just not the case with doing MCB in any one location and doing MCB in different places can't just simply be added together as if everything can just be added together, etc.

We need studies of the various approaches working together in a various reinforcing ways, etc. I'd suggest (as I did some days/weeks ago) that stratospheric aerosol intervention can tend to get the world on average back to earlier conditions and MCB and other approaches can help to moderate apparent negative adverse consequences. I don't see how the reverse can work.

Mike MacCracken

On 3/12/24 3:21 PM, 'oswald.petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) wrote:

Dear Jasper,

SRM does not restore the climate. From our point of view SRM is not an option we would want to put forward. Not one single SRM method. MCB is a co-benefit of our GRAP (GeoRestoration Action Plan) and we think it is rather harmless, so we accept it, not as a goal but as a freebie.

Please put strong emphasis on all GeoRestoraton methods, not on SRM. Please include our GRAP in your proposal.

To be honest I do not know what function you have in this and cannot judge your role and its restrictions. I am just keen to change the agenda of this initiative from SRM to more palatable methods, which have a realistic chance to be accepted.

IPCC is not our enemy but our ally, we should be cooperative, friendly and respectful. IPCC is the authority, and we are modest applicants. Terms like ERA or similar are divisive and unhelpful, they alienate the recipient.

Everything I say is my opinion, just like everything you say is yours. Your role in this is to be established. Sue can you help?

Regards

Oswald

Am 12.03.2024 um 17:05, Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com> schrieb:

Oswald, it isn't for me, or for the proposed CMIP project, to presuppose which SRM method will gain favor. My project proposal will suggest, inter alia, that different SRM methods shall be modeled to help shed light on which appears to have the best combination of characteristics in terms of avoiding climatic and ecological disruptions, and effectiveness at achieving desired cooling outcomes. But it's unlikely to be the last word on the "which SRM" topic.

As you know, there are heated differences of opinion amongst SRM proponents on this question. It is not a settled issue, even amongst bona fide SRM experts. It would be an intellectual and strategic mistake for a research project on the question of whether SRM is necessary to choose a side in the "which SRM" debate at this point, before the CMIP models explore the matter. Hopefully the outcome of the research will move the "which flavor of SRM" discussion a step further into focus as an ancillary benefit of the project.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, 08:11 Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:

Dear Jasper,

SRM is a very ambiguous term, could you please be more precise?

We are strictly against SAI, but do support low-key albedo enhancement such as MCB …

Regards

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

Von: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Jasper Sky
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. März 2024 08:04
An: Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; JOHN ENGLANDER <johneng...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Hunziker <rlhun...@gmail.com>; Viktor Jaakktola <vik...@operaatioarktis.fi>; gta...@bestfutures.org; peter....@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: Jaspers's proposal RE: [HPAC] RE: Recording of Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7

Progress report, y'all:

I've spent the past several hours writing a draft CMIP research project proposal. I'm hopeful you will like it. It's motivated by the strategic necessity of recruiting a global network of climate modellers to put the question of whether Emissions Reductions Alone will be enough to prevent imminent climate disasters and tipping-point exceedances (they won't be enough, I think most of us are agreed on that) or whether, IN ADDITION to even the most strenuous and extreme mitigation efforts, efforts so extremely ambitious that their feasibility strains credulity, we will not be able to prevent climate disasters without ALSO implementing SRM.

If we can get climate modelers to explore whether we are right about that being the case, and organize a conference and a bunch of papers and a lot of press attention and YouTuber attention and so on to propagate the results of the research, then (assuming their results show our hypothesis to be correct - there's a tiny chance we're wrong), then we will have the tools in hand to defeat the anti-SRM dogmatists.

So I have formulated a base-case scenario for the climate modelers to model which sets out a wildly ambitious 'green-shift' that gets us out of fossil fuels by mid-century, builds a highly prosperous renewable energy based global economy (also by mid-century), restores huge areas of land to biodiverse, carbon-sequestering wilderness, AND achieves insane levels of CDR, i.e. 55 GtCO2 per year (which most climate scientists won't believe is even technically possible), to get us back to 350 ppm CO2 by 2100 and 275 ppm by 2130. The point is precisely to offer the greenies the most ambitious scenario that any of them could ever hope for. Green Nirvana.

And we'll ask the climate scientists to model whether that scenario would - absent SRM - reliably prevent the world from crossing the various tipping-point thresholds we're all worried about: the Amazon forest, the tropical coral reefs, the GrIS and WAIS ice sheet irreversible meltdown dynamics threshold, the permafrost zone outgassing, the AMOC collapse, all of it. We'll ask them to model this wildly ambitious greenshift scenario twice: once WITHOUT SRM, and once WITH SRM... in multiple variants across many different models (hence CMIP, climate model intercomparison project).

The results will put the matter of whether or not we can do without SRM definitively to rest.

We'll publicize the living hell out of the results.

I don't presume to know for sure in advance what the results will show, but if I were a betting man, I would bet every dollar I own that the results of the model runs will show that we are much much safer if we add SRM to the greenshift scenario than if we don't, and that even the hyper-ambitious greenshift scenario I've concocted will entail a high risk of crossing multiple critical climate tipping thresholds.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:09 PM Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike, Jasper, et al. We now appear to be talking about two different things: 1) advocacy for a risk-risk and feasibility research program to be conducted) vs. 2) actually conducting a research program.

Contributing to the confusion are references to "this group," "this meeting," and "Jasper's Proposal" in various emails. Jasper has actually offered two proposals, one on March 9 concerning outreach and another on March 10 concerning the research program with a follow-up reference to a meeting. Others, e.g., Robin, have also offered outreach suggestions. There are now two separate email conversations running with similar (but different) subject lines adding to the confusion. All of this demonstrates (again) what a failure email chains are as a method of inclusive conversation and decision making.

To be clear, as described in my email of March 10, the planned HPAC hosted meeting tentatively scheduled for March 25 is "to discuss development of an advocacy, messaging, and collaboration strategy and action plan to elevate and advance direct climate cooling in the global climate change policy discourse." I will add that the outcomes being sought for the 1 and 1/2 hour meeting are: a collective decision on if an Advocacy Working Group should be formed; if so, who is stepping up to participate in it; and what should be the structure, process, and timeline. Mission, goals, branding, tasks, decision frameworks, research program elements, etc. would be developed by the Working Group with drafts presented to the group(s) at large for input and ultimately, implementation of the final advocacy strategy.

I suggest that making the research program happen requires advocacy in and of itself. Within that advocacy, what research exactly needs to be done and who should do it needs to be laid out. My expectation is that the Working Group would address these items. Those who have different points of view should share their views during the discussion.

Regarding Jasper's comment: "We'll shift gears into advocacy *after* the results of the research are in. That doesn't preclude folks from continuing to advocate for immediate SRM *before* the research results are in - but it does preclude folks from advocating SRM in connection with this research project before its results are in." This suggests a misunderstanding of the HPAC position which considers research, risk analysis, and pilot testing as an urgent and necessary precursor to SRM deployment. Participants in this email chain are actually members of a few different groups. It is true that some participants, even those who also participate in HPAC, are advocating for immediate deployment of SRM. However, HPAC is an umbrella organization under which are gathered people with a range of points of view from nature-based and incremental deployment advocates to those whose priority is immediate refreezing of the Arctic using technology-based methods. Points of consensus among us, or a good number of us as indicated by signature or endorsement, are represented in the documents published on the HPAC website Home page. Such is the confusion that can emerge relative to umbrella organizations that promote discourse across differing points of view and are open to new information.

Finally, please know that the meeting discussion and Working Group process envisioned are inclusive and collaborative. I am facilitating the process, not making *this* or *that* happen or not happen. It will be up to all of you to express your points of view and enable productive outcomes for the impending meeting and any Working Group that follows.

Best wishes,

Suzanne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfzVD2M3mZNYZXnafS02HCR1we5zC855A1Krc%2By4WN1vNg%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/CAHFOvfzu%3DGZR21zhLroxBX2dpbNd5yvmkXpNk60ayZcKu7Y6vg%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/c919ed1f-8bad-4e35-801e-e89c5d73e08b%40edison.

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 8:59:04 PM3/12/24

to oswald.petersen, Jasper Sky, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, healthy-planet-action-coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter.wadhams

Dear Oswald--I would add one further response to your comment.

Virtually all model simulations of stratospheric aerosol injection show that SAI can be designed to take the climate a good bit back toward the unperturbed climate. Not perfect, but then the pre-CO2 climate was not one set of condition--the climate has a range due to both internal and external variability to which the world has pretty much gotten used to (not perfect, of course--nothing is perfect).

Mike

Mike, Jasper, et al. We now appear to be talking about two different things: 1) advocacy for a risk-risk and feasibility research program to be conducted) vs. 2) actually conducting a research program.

Contributing to the confusion are references to "this group," "this meeting," and "Jasper's Proposal" in various emails. Jasper has actually offered two proposals, one on March 9 concerning outreach and another on March 10 concerning the research program with a follow-up reference to a meeting. Others, e.g., Robin, have also offered outreach suggestions. There are now two separate email conversations running with similar (but different) subject lines adding to the confusion. All of this demonstrates (again) what a failure email chains are as a method of inclusive conversation and decision making.

To be clear, as described in my email of March 10, the planned HPAC hosted meeting tentatively scheduled for March 25 is "to discuss development of an advocacy, messaging, and collaboration strategy and action plan to elevate and advance direct climate cooling in the global climate change policy discourse." I will add that the outcomes being sought for the 1 and 1/2 hour meeting are: a collective decision on if an Advocacy Working Group should be formed; if so, who is stepping up to participate in it; and what should be the structure, process, and timeline. Mission, goals, branding, tasks, decision frameworks, research program elements, etc. would be developed by the Working Group with drafts presented to the group(s) at large for input and ultimately, implementation of the final advocacy strategy.

I suggest that making the research program happen requires advocacy in and of itself. Within that advocacy, what research exactly needs to be done and who should do it needs to be laid out. My expectation is that the Working Group would address these items. Those who have different points of view should share their views during the discussion.

Regarding Jasper's comment: "We'll shift gears into advocacy *after* the results of the research are in. That doesn't preclude folks from continuing to advocate for immediate SRM *before* the research results are in - but it does preclude folks from advocating SRM in connection with this research project before its results are in." This suggests a misunderstanding of the HPAC position which considers research, risk analysis, and pilot testing as an urgent and necessary precursor to SRM deployment. Participants in this email chain are actually members of a few different groups. It is true that some participants, even those who also participate in HPAC, are advocating for immediate deployment of SRM. However, HPAC is an umbrella organization under which are gathered people with a range of points of view from nature-based and incremental deployment advocates to those whose priority is immediate refreezing of the Arctic using technology-based methods. Points of consensus among us, or a good number of us as indicated by signature or endorsement, are represented in the documents published on the HPAC website Home page. Such is the confusion that can emerge relative to umbrella organizations that promote discourse across differing points of view and are open to new information.

Finally, please know that the meeting discussion and Working Group process envisioned are inclusive and collaborative. I am facilitating the process, not making *this* or *that* happen or not happen. It will be up to all of you to express your points of view and enable productive outcomes for the impending meeting and any Working Group that follows.

Best wishes,

Suzanne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfzVD2M3mZNYZXnafS02HCR1we5zC855A1Krc%2By4WN1vNg%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/CAHFOvfzu%3DGZR21zhLroxBX2dpbNd5yvmkXpNk60ayZcKu7Y6vg%40mail.gmail.com.

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Mar 12, 2024, 10:41:22 PM3/12/24

to Jasper Sky, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Hi Jasper--A few suggestions:

1. It would be good to compare your emissions cutback scenario to the various scenarios the modeling groups have run and to figure out if any of the existing runs that have been made are close enough to use.

2. The MAGICC models is a fast running energy balance model that has been set up to emulate the global average results of the GCMs. You should plan to run your scenario in that model and compare to the existing scenarios and how plausible it looks when put together. The model is freely downloadable. It is not easy to run on Apple computers. You should approach Shannon Flume to perhaps run your case--even cases--as she has done for Peter Fiekowsky.

3. With those simulations, you can gain a lot of insights.

4. You may have noticed that Kelly Wanser's recent report on Silverlining indicated that they have hired a climate modeler from NCAR--so he knows how to run such models and could perhaps do so as there seem to be ways to find computer time.

5. If you really get an interesting scenario together, you might be able to get the GeoMIP project to consider running the case. They have their annual meeting coming up in July at Cornell (and it might even be you could get the Cornell group to run the scenario). There is not really a need to run in lots of models--it is reasonably well understood how models are performing compared to others, so getting runs on a few representative models would likely be adequate for the purposes you are talking about.

The key is to put together a sensible scenario. You can learn a lot about doing that by looking at how the model scenarios have been put together, what forcings they include, what they do not, what is considered interactively and what is fixed and how fixing some aspects can help to simplify the scenario and allow fewer and simpler simulations to get insights to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the scenario you are proposing. So, really do your homework on this. Shannon Flume with MAGICC could help you make sure the scenario is put together well.

Best, Mike MacCracken

On 3/12/24 3:03 AM, Jasper Sky wrote:

Progress report, y'all:

I've spent the past several hours writing a draft CMIP research project proposal. I'm hopeful you will like it. It's motivated by the strategic necessity of recruiting a global network of climate modellers to put the question of whether Emissions Reductions Alone will be enough to prevent imminent climate disasters and tipping-point exceedances (they won't be enough, I think most of us are agreed on that) or whether, IN ADDITION to even the most strenuous and extreme mitigation efforts, efforts so extremely ambitious that their feasibility strains credulity, we will not be able to prevent climate disasters without ALSO implementing SRM.

If we can get climate modelers to explore whether we are right about that being the case, and organize a conference and a bunch of papers and a lot of press attention and YouTuber attention and so on to propagate the results of the research, then (assuming their results show our hypothesis to be correct - there's a tiny chance we're wrong), then we will have the tools in hand to defeat the anti-SRM dogmatists.

So I have formulated a base-case scenario for the climate modelers to model which sets out a wildly ambitious 'green-shift' that gets us out of fossil fuels by mid-century, builds a highly prosperous renewable energy based global economy (also by mid-century), restores huge areas of land to biodiverse, carbon-sequestering wilderness, AND achieves insane levels of CDR, i.e. 55 GtCO2 per year (which most climate scientists won't believe is even technically possible), to get us back to 350 ppm CO2 by 2100 and 275 ppm by 2130. The point is precisely to offer the greenies the most ambitious scenario that any of them could ever hope for. Green Nirvana.

And we'll ask the climate scientists to model whether that scenario would - absent SRM - reliably prevent the world from crossing the various tipping-point thresholds we're all worried about: the Amazon forest, the tropical coral reefs, the GrIS and WAIS ice sheet irreversible meltdown dynamics threshold, the permafrost zone outgassing, the AMOC collapse, all of it. We'll ask them to model this wildly ambitious greenshift scenario twice: once WITHOUT SRM, and once WITH SRM... in multiple variants across many different models (hence CMIP, climate model intercomparison project).

The results will put the matter of whether or not we can do without SRM definitively to rest.

We'll publicize the living hell out of the results.

I don't presume to know for sure in advance what the results will show, but if I were a betting man, I would bet every dollar I own that the results of the model runs will show that we are much much safer if we add SRM to the greenshift scenario than if we don't, and that even the hyper-ambitious greenshift scenario I've concocted will entail a high risk of crossing multiple critical climate tipping thresholds.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:09 PM Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 10:37:15 AM3/13/24

to Jeff Suchon, Robin Collins, Oswald Petersen, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Graeme Taylor, JOHN ENGLANDER, Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Peter D Ward, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Suzanne Reed, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition, peter.wadhams

Dear Jeff and the MEER group--In that 95% or so the heat trapped by GHGs is taken up by the ocean, it would seem that what needs to be done is to reduce that heat uptake; only something like 5% of the trapped heat is going into melting the ice sheets and permafrost.

There is no question that using mirrors over land areas during the day can limit peak temperatures. What I want to know (proven in modeling) is if that really reduces the amount of energy trapped by the Earth system? While it may seem obvious, I'm not yet convinced as I think the full diurnal cycle needs to be considered. What normally happens is that there is sunlight absorption on the land during the day and then loss via convection during the late afternoon if the region is humid and loss via radiation at night, especially in arid environments. So during the night, regions often cool down to near the dew point, which is really telling us that the atmosphere has radiated away virtually all the heat it can--if there is less heat around, the radiation down to the dew point would occur earlier overnight than later, but basically all the day's heat has been lost. In urban areas where buildings take up heat, it can take a bit more time as the buildings have greater heat capacity than the soils, and so would be nice to have urban areas be higher reflectivity so that does not happen--so cooling urban areas would be helped by not absorbing as much solar so make everything there as while as one can, and fine to have mirrors elsewhere to keep peak temperatures down, but that would seem mainly to mean a bit less IR radiation at night, so, as far as the planet is concerned, does this offset the amount of solar reflected by mirrors during the day?

As just an example of night time cooling, before cars had air conditioning (so in 1961, I think it was), our family drove around the country on a family trip and we hung a canvas bag with water in it from our antenna. This gave us nice cool water to drink during as we traveled in warm areas (we also had a window swamp cooler--air went in as we drove and went over water so evaporation took some of the heat and coolish air came into the car). Well, when we parked for the night with our tent camper in rural Nevada (I guess this is all of Nevada except Las Vegas), the days were in the 90s, but at night our canvas water cooler had icicles dripping from it. There was basically no heat left from the previous day--so would mirrors there during the day have made any difference?

Yes, less peak solar would lead to less local evaporation in areas where there is soil moisture, but the atmospheric humidity is mainly controlled by the atmospheric circulation and evaporation out over the oceans. That rivers take water back to the ocean is clear evidence that the atmosphere is bringing water evaporated over the ocean to over the land. Yes, re-evaporation occurs, but to a large extent, absolute humidity is mainly influenced by evaporation over the ocean and that is where the trapped heat is accumulating.

So, I think there is a real question about whether a lot of mirrors over the land will have a global cooling influence by anything like the increased amount of reflected energy of mirrors over land, there quite possibly being a significant compensation by the reduction of nighttime IR. I'd like to be proven wrong--but just calculating the change in solar radiation absorbed is not going to convince me. A much more thorough study is needed.

Mike

PS--Oh, and I will agree that by keeping peak daytime temperature down it would seem likely that this will reduce the demand for air-conditioning and so demand for energy, and if that energy is coming from fossil fuels, will reduce CO2 emissions, so I really don't want to imply that mirrors are not locally beneficial. And since the daily average temperature metric is the average of maximum and minimum temperature, this will lower the daily temperature anomaly and so were mirrors done over all land areas the seeming average temperature anomaly would drop (though land covers only 30% of the Earth). But, I'm just not convinced that their reflectivity itself will reduce oceanic heat uptake, which, as Jim Hansen notes is the key issue (basically, EEI and oceanic heat uptake are the same thing).

PPS--And this latter argument may also well apply to saying that forests will make us cooler--is this really having a big effect on EEI, or just on the local temperatures?

On 3/13/24 9:19 AM, Jeff Suchon wrote:

While the debate ( which is a good, positive thing) goes on about need, weight, and efficacy of CDR and SRM we are losing time in deploying what we know works now and that is land surface reflection. Am talking massive deployment, and especially in the heated and insolated latitudes around the equator. It can only help reduce suffering, ease energy use, help mitigate the feedback loops by raising albedo a tad.
Do any of all the proposals mention surface reflection deployment NOW whilst researching all the other pathways?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 9:05 AM Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oswald

I think most of us realize that the media have a built in bias against SAI. That does not mean the proposals that are being advanced to give SRM and SAI a fair hearing are therefore misinformed. The “media” are often wrong about a lot of things. There is no consensus here (HPAC) either but not touching SAI as an option seems highly premature and possibly complete wrong.

Robin

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 2:31 AM 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Michael,

would you mind commenting on the suggestion we make?

SAI is the most known GeoEngineering (GE) method. Virtually all media comments work the same pattern.

They say that they will look at GE as a concept for fighting global warming.

They take the “Example” SAI.

They find that SAI is too risky, unpredictable, irresponsible (which can be argued to be true).

They throw out GE altogether, never looking at the other options.

So, in a way, SAI (inadvertently) blocks all other GE methods!

We want to do GHG removal the big way. We want to remove legacy GHG, not to be confused with “negative emissions”. We can cool the planet faster, safer and more efficient than SAI or any other SRM method can. This is the way to go, forget SRM.

Global Warming is caused by GHG, not by solar radiation. Curing it means taking out the GHG, not enhancing albedo. Work the cause, not the symptoms.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/5143e1ba-381b-42b0-b3ad-857ea4e416d5%40comcast.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/004501da7510%2418d2b6c0%244a782440%24%40hispeed.ch.

--
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/CAKes%3DnEEcQXG3YbU%3Dsxp5JeKoFuJxOV9q9r%3D%3D47JK0fiAuecSg%40mail.gmail.com.

Ron Baiman

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 12:29:50 PM3/13/24

to Anderson, Paul, Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, peter....@gmail.com, gta...@bestfutures.org, Robert Hunziker, Anton Keskinen, Viktor Jaakktola, JOHN ENGLANDER, Peter D Ward

Dear Jasper et al.,

I unfortunately missed Peter's HPAC presentation (a rare occurrence for me - long story - that is missing an HPAC presentation) but was able to subsequently view the recording. I found it to be an excellent discussion of sea level rise and other topics that morphed into an effort to do something that I found to be even more encouraging!

I've also not participated in the followup email-chains as I've been very busy working on the HPAC cooling paper that is under review by Oxford Open Climate Change and facing an April 6 resubmission response to the reviewers. We're still working on this, but this is the current draft of our paper that I encourage you and others to view (preliminary as of today 3/13/2024 - so please do not disseminate this beyond this thread!) as I believe that it directly addresses many of the issues raised in this email thread (as far as I know from a synopsis provided by Suzanne to me - if I'm wrong about this it is on me for not directly spending the time to review the discussion on the thread!): https://docs.google.com/document/d/13KIo-KhOVjig6I3Cm8uOkgwfFIN7VowK/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true

Also, (as I believe Suzanne has done) I would strongly encourage participants in this thread to attend the HPAC climate cooling advocacy strategizing and mobilizing session to be led by Suzanne Reed and Dennis Garrity on Thursday March 28 5:30 pm EDT, as

I think it is important that we all try, as much as possible, to communicate and coordinate our direct climate cooling advocacy efforts with each other as much as possible! The notice and link for this meeting will be posted by Suzanne and Dennis.

Onward!

Best,

Ron Baiman

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB593262F86C05F03194A2D19CDB242%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:12:24 PM3/13/24

to Suzanne Reed, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Oh yeah, forgot to add: I will need a few more hours writing tomorrow to clean up the draft proposal before circulating it for your review and input. There are lots of details yet to be sorted out, and versions will have to be drafted tailored to different target audiences, i.e. super short versions for überbusy prospective funders, detailed versions for the review of anoraks who work as technical assistants to the high-level funder people, and so on.

And we'll need a version written to appeal to the climate modelers who we'll want to recruit.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:03 AM Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Progress report, y'all:

I've spent the past several hours writing a draft CMIP research project proposal. I'm hopeful you will like it. It's motivated by the strategic necessity of recruiting a global network of climate modellers to put the question of whether Emissions Reductions Alone will be enough to prevent imminent climate disasters and tipping-point exceedances (they won't be enough, I think most of us are agreed on that) or whether, IN ADDITION to even the most strenuous and extreme mitigation efforts, efforts so extremely ambitious that their feasibility strains credulity, we will not be able to prevent climate disasters without ALSO implementing SRM.

If we can get climate modelers to explore whether we are right about that being the case, and organize a conference and a bunch of papers and a lot of press attention and YouTuber attention and so on to propagate the results of the research, then (assuming their results show our hypothesis to be correct - there's a tiny chance we're wrong), then we will have the tools in hand to defeat the anti-SRM dogmatists.

So I have formulated a base-case scenario for the climate modelers to model which sets out a wildly ambitious 'green-shift' that gets us out of fossil fuels by mid-century, builds a highly prosperous renewable energy based global economy (also by mid-century), restores huge areas of land to biodiverse, carbon-sequestering wilderness, AND achieves insane levels of CDR, i.e. 55 GtCO2 per year (which most climate scientists won't believe is even technically possible), to get us back to 350 ppm CO2 by 2100 and 275 ppm by 2130. The point is precisely to offer the greenies the most ambitious scenario that any of them could ever hope for. Green Nirvana.

And we'll ask the climate scientists to model whether that scenario would - absent SRM - reliably prevent the world from crossing the various tipping-point thresholds we're all worried about: the Amazon forest, the tropical coral reefs, the GrIS and WAIS ice sheet irreversible meltdown dynamics threshold, the permafrost zone outgassing, the AMOC collapse, all of it. We'll ask them to model this wildly ambitious greenshift scenario twice: once WITHOUT SRM, and once WITH SRM... in multiple variants across many different models (hence CMIP, climate model intercomparison project).

The results will put the matter of whether or not we can do without SRM definitively to rest.

We'll publicize the living hell out of the results.

I don't presume to know for sure in advance what the results will show, but if I were a betting man, I would bet every dollar I own that the results of the model runs will show that we are much much safer if we add SRM to the greenshift scenario than if we don't, and that even the hyper-ambitious greenshift scenario I've concocted will entail a high risk of crossing multiple critical climate tipping thresholds.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:09 PM Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:12:34 PM3/13/24

to Jasper Sky, Suzanne Reed, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Dear Jasper,

SRM is a very ambiguous term, could you please be more precise?

We are strictly against SAI, but do support low-key albedo enhancement such as MCB …

Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

https://wcrp-cmip.org/towards-a-new-set-of-scenarios-for-cmip7-an-update-from-scenariomips-reading-meeting/

Von: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Jasper Sky

Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. März 2024 08:04
An: Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Peter D Ward <ar...@uw.edu>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; JOHN ENGLANDER <johneng...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Hunziker <rlhun...@gmail.com>; Viktor Jaakktola <vik...@operaatioarktis.fi>; gta...@bestfutures.org; peter....@gmail.com

Betreff: Re: Jaspers's proposal RE: [HPAC] RE: Recording of Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7

Progress report, y'all:

I've spent the past several hours writing a draft CMIP research project proposal. I'm hopeful you will like it. It's motivated by the strategic necessity of recruiting a global network of climate modellers to put the question of whether Emissions Reductions Alone will be enough to prevent imminent climate disasters and tipping-point exceedances (they won't be enough, I think most of us are agreed on that) or whether, IN ADDITION to even the most strenuous and extreme mitigation efforts, efforts so extremely ambitious that their feasibility strains credulity, we will not be able to prevent climate disasters without ALSO implementing SRM.

If we can get climate modelers to explore whether we are right about that being the case, and organize a conference and a bunch of papers and a lot of press attention and YouTuber attention and so on to propagate the results of the research, then (assuming their results show our hypothesis to be correct - there's a tiny chance we're wrong), then we will have the tools in hand to defeat the anti-SRM dogmatists.

So I have formulated a base-case scenario for the climate modelers to model which sets out a wildly ambitious 'green-shift' that gets us out of fossil fuels by mid-century, builds a highly prosperous renewable energy based global economy (also by mid-century), restores huge areas of land to biodiverse, carbon-sequestering wilderness, AND achieves insane levels of CDR, i.e. 55 GtCO2 per year (which most climate scientists won't believe is even technically possible), to get us back to 350 ppm CO2 by 2100 and 275 ppm by 2130. The point is precisely to offer the greenies the most ambitious scenario that any of them could ever hope for. Green Nirvana.

And we'll ask the climate scientists to model whether that scenario would - absent SRM - reliably prevent the world from crossing the various tipping-point thresholds we're all worried about: the Amazon forest, the tropical coral reefs, the GrIS and WAIS ice sheet irreversible meltdown dynamics threshold, the permafrost zone outgassing, the AMOC collapse, all of it. We'll ask them to model this wildly ambitious greenshift scenario twice: once WITHOUT SRM, and once WITH SRM... in multiple variants across many different models (hence CMIP, climate model intercomparison project).

The results will put the matter of whether or not we can do without SRM definitively to rest.

We'll publicize the living hell out of the results.

I don't presume to know for sure in advance what the results will show, but if I were a betting man, I would bet every dollar I own that the results of the model runs will show that we are much much safer if we add SRM to the greenshift scenario than if we don't, and that even the hyper-ambitious greenshift scenario I've concocted will entail a high risk of crossing multiple critical climate tipping thresholds.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:09 PM Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfzVD2M3mZNYZXnafS02HCR1we5zC855A1Krc%2By4WN1vNg%40mail.gmail.com.

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:12:42 PM3/13/24

to Oswald Petersen, Suzanne Reed, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter....@gmail.com

Oswald, it isn't for me, or for the proposed CMIP project, to presuppose which SRM method will gain favor. My project proposal will suggest, inter alia, that different SRM methods shall be modeled to help shed light on which appears to have the best combination of characteristics in terms of avoiding climatic and ecological disruptions, and effectiveness at achieving desired cooling outcomes. But it's unlikely to be the last word on the "which SRM" topic.

As you know, there are heated differences of opinion amongst SRM proponents on this question. It is not a settled issue, even amongst bona fide SRM experts. It would be an intellectual and strategic mistake for a research project on the question of whether SRM is necessary to choose a side in the "which SRM" debate at this point, before the CMIP models explore the matter. Hopefully the outcome of the research will move the "which flavor of SRM" discussion a step further into focus as an ancillary benefit of the project.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, 08:11 Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:

oswald.petersen

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:13:22 PM3/13/24

to Jasper Sky, Suzanne Reed, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, healthy-planet-action-coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter.wadhams

Dear Jasper,

SRM does not restore the climate. From our point of view SRM is not an option we would want to put forward. Not one single SRM method. MCB is a co-benefit of our GRAP (GeoRestoration Action Plan) and we think it is rather harmless, so we accept it, not as a goal but as a freebie.

Please put strong emphasis on all GeoRestoraton methods, not on SRM. Please include our GRAP in your proposal.

To be honest I do not know what function you have in this and cannot judge your role and its restrictions. I am just keen to change the agenda of this initiative from SRM to more palatable methods, which have a realistic chance to be accepted.

IPCC is not our enemy but our ally, we should be cooperative, friendly and respectful. IPCC is the authority, and we are modest applicants. Terms like ERA or similar are divisive and unhelpful, they alienate the recipient.

Everything I say is my opinion, just like everything you say is yours. Your role in this is to be established. Sue can you help?

Regards

Oswald

Am 12.03.2024 um 17:05, Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com> schrieb:

Oswald, it isn't for me, or for the proposed CMIP project, to presuppose which SRM method will gain favor. My project proposal will suggest, inter alia, that different SRM methods shall be modeled to help shed light on which appears to have the best combination of characteristics in terms of avoiding climatic and ecological disruptions, and effectiveness at achieving desired cooling outcomes. But it's unlikely to be the last word on the "which SRM" topic.

As you know, there are heated differences of opinion amongst SRM proponents on this question. It is not a settled issue, even amongst bona fide SRM experts. It would be an intellectual and strategic mistake for a research project on the question of whether SRM is necessary to choose a side in the "which SRM" debate at this point, before the CMIP models explore the matter. Hopefully the outcome of the research will move the "which flavor of SRM" discussion a step further into focus as an ancillary benefit of the project.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, 08:11 Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfzu%3DGZR21zhLroxBX2dpbNd5yvmkXpNk60ayZcKu7Y6vg%40mail.gmail.com.

Peter D Ward

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:13:33 PM3/13/24

to Robert Chris, Jasper Sky, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

I for one have been bemused by the backs and forths. I am so heartened to see the strong emotions. I am not surprised at the disagreements.

My original volunteerism after my talk was to try to craft an article for newspaper publication, hopefully by NYT, hopefully signed by most of us as I think we see the dangers. on addressing sea level change as a fundamental risk to civilization as we know it, and to me, the primary risk of runaway nuclear warfare that starts out as a nuclear armed country trying to stop its borders from being overrun by climate refugees sent over borders by starvation and sea level rise which all its attendant dangers and economic consequences.

I have learned a lot about cooling the planet and absolutely agree we must somehow stop the runaway greenhouse extinction that was a hallmark of past times and faces us over the next millennium. The hard part is selling to society great changes needed to ensure the lives of humans not only not yet born but perhaps not to be born for centuries. Yet what we do and do not do now affects future humans in ways unprecedented in human history, all 150,000 years or so of Homo sapiens sapiens.

I am still ready to take a stab at such an Op ED

Peter Ward

David Price

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:13:52 PM3/13/24

to Jasper Sky, Michael MacCracken, oswald.petersen, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, healthy-planet-action-coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter.wadhams

Hi Jasper

It has occurred to me that there is probably a plan for the next round of climate modelling scenarios and GCM intercomparison. Info on the early stages of CMIP7 is here:

From the website:

The primary objectives of Scenario-MIP are to:

Facilitate integrated research leading to a better understanding of the physical climate system consequences of future scenarios and their impact on natural and social systems, including adaptation and mitigation considerations.

The first meetings were held last summer. So I suggest it would make sense to contact the CMIP7 Scientific Steering Committee. Of course it would be good to get some consensus from HPAC and other groups favouring SRM on what the scenarios should be; it might also be useful to consult with the CMIP SSC members to find out what they would consider feasible and who else to talk to.

Regards

David

From my cellphone

I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional Territory

of the Secwépemc People

On 12 Mar 2024, at 18:23, Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Mike McC, that all makes very good sense to me.
Just to be clear, once again, the research project proposal will set out a core scenario of an aggressive "green-shift" policy package, and model the consequences of its implementation over the time frame 2025-2130, using multiple different global climate models, in a CMIP, climate model intercomparison project.
The core scenario will not include any solar radiation management of any kind. It will include a very aggressive fossil fuels ramp-down schedule, a very ambitious ramp-up of renewable energy deployment, a rewilding of substantial areas of previously deforested lands, and net negative emissions on an almost implausible scale and pace, to get from the peak of perhaps 460 ppm in about 2060 (tbd) back down to 350 ppm by 2100 and 275 by 2130.
Why this core scenario?
Because it's the most green of green transitions. It is everything the most ardent Sierra Club or WWF or Greenpeacer could hope for at their most dreamy.
And we'll ask the climate modelers to work out whether this ultra-ambitious greenshift scenario, this rapid transition to green nirvana and back to Holocene climate conditions, would suffice to avoid major deleterious climate tipping points from being crossed between now and 2130 (for a given risk tolerance and probability range estimate of the climate model experiment ensemble).
My hypothesis is that this ultra ambitious green-shift scenario will not suffice to avoid dangerous tipping thresholds from being crossed in the time horizon between now and 2130, because some of the affected Earth systems are already phase-shifting now, e.g. Amazon forest, coral reefs, AMOC, Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. And oceans will continue to warm up for many decades due to the already accumulated excess GHGs, which will take a century (maybe more) to remove.
But this is the hypothesis to test, not a conclusion to pre-determine, via the CMIP experiments.

We will also ask the climate modelers to re-run precisely the same core scenario, except this time, add solar radiation management to the package.
Since there is contestation over which SRM method (SAI or MCB or any other) or mixture of SRM methods is best, we will work with climate modelers and SRM experts to define several distinct SRM method scenarios (five different ones, perhaps), and run each as a separate climate model experiment, always IN ADDITION TO; NOT INSTEAD OF, the details of the core scenario. I.e. it will always be "aggressive greenshift alone" to compare to "aggressive greenshift plus SRM(n)", where SRM(n) is one of (say) five different SRM scenarios.

I personally have no opinion on which SRM method is best. What Dr. MacCracken has written today seems very plausible to me: i.e. perhaps some combination of SAI plus regional MCB might be optimal... always IN ADDITION TO, NEVER INSTEAD OF an aggressive green-shift to a fully defossilized renewable energy powered world economy with ambitious levels of CDR to bring atmospheric ppm CO2 back down to safer levels ASAP.

The purpose of the project will be to determine whether the world needs some form of SRM in addition to an aggressive greeenshift trajectory to prevent the loss of the Amazon forest biome, the tropical coral reefs, the GrIS and WAIS ice masses, the AMOC circulation, and other key Earth systems.

It would be thoroughly inappropriate for me, or anyone, to presuppose which SRM method or combination of methods will serve best to cool down the Earth and oceans while we bring ppm CO2 back down to late Holocene levels. Hopefully the CMIP experiments will shed some light on it. But our main purpose in this CMIP ensemble is to determine definitively whether or not we can get away witthout using SRM at all -- or whether things have gone so far with global heating and GHG levels that we will need SRM over the study period (to 2130) even if we implement an extremely ambitious and rapid greenshift.

Jasper N. Zimmermann

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:52 PM Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:

Dear Jasper (and Oswald)--I would like to offer a different view.

The El Nino versus La Nina show very clearly that different patterns in surface temperature lead to changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warmer Arctic makes the same point. What persistent MCB will do is alter the surface temperature pattern--if it is doing this is it working at all? So, MCB can lead to changes in the atmospheric circulation--that is how the teleconnection of MCB works having some remote effect as Stephen Salter has talked about. So, let's not say MCB won't have some regional influences on the circulation, which is to say it will affect the weather, and not just how much solar is absorbed in the area of the ocean where it is done (and ocean circulation might change as well. Given the CO2 forcing is relatively uniform around the world, one would really like to be counterbalancing that and that would require a relatively uniform negative focing over the Earth--and MCB is not globally uniform.

On the other hand stratospheric aerosol injection does lead to relatively uniform influence around latitudes since that is how the winds spread aerosols--and can be made to be relatively uniform by latitude as well, depending on how injected (or non-uniform if that is what would provide most benefit). Ruling it out makes no sense at all. There has actually been a good bit of experience with stratospheric aerosol injections due to volcanic eruptions and knowledge gained. And this does indicate that there can be seasonal patterns in the response in terms of circulation and temperature pattern (possibly due to the different ocean-land characteristics even though forcing might be longitudinally and even latitudinally uniform).

Note that changes in vegetation can also lead to changes in circulation and precipitation--indeed, just look at how changes in the Amazon are affecting conditions, and deforestation does too. In fact, the first climate change assessment in the US was done by Thomas Jefferson who evaluated how the deforestation of North America's coastal Atlantic Plain affected the sea breeze regime, etc. I don't mean to say don't do it, just don't claim that it has no effect--the whole hope is to have less change than currently being induced.

All this said, I simply don't understand the argument that it is less palatable--it is rather key that the effects induced do have large scale/global influence, and that is just not the case with doing MCB in any one location and doing MCB in different places can't just simply be added together as if everything can just be added together, etc.

We need studies of the various approaches working together in a various reinforcing ways, etc. I'd suggest (as I did some days/weeks ago) that stratospheric aerosol intervention can tend to get the world on average back to earlier conditions and MCB and other approaches can help to moderate apparent negative adverse consequences. I don't see how the reverse can work.

Mike MacCracken

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHFOvfyERoFwAxMCQ%3DdPUsNEu_Z6ywf%2BkY2%3Dn6862jp2thS6Uw%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/CAE0%3DaUDAygSvQAfjnrrWGDV1_-MMRHeVBG2kD5P9VQ3rFXyGOA%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/CAHFOvfzVD2M3mZNYZXnafS02HCR1we5zC855A1Krc%2By4WN1vNg%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/CAHFOvfzu%3DGZR21zhLroxBX2dpbNd5yvmkXpNk60ayZcKu7Y6vg%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/c919ed1f-8bad-4e35-801e-e89c5d73e08b%40edison.

--
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/CAHFOvfx0B_v_sC4NhM8S4aVTdagK8bS2-0DjHvE4%2BhKgtjYjDw%40mail.gmail.com.

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:13:53 PM3/13/24

to Michael MacCracken, oswald.petersen, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, healthy-planet-action-coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter.wadhams

Thanks, Mike McC, that all makes very good sense to me.

Just to be clear, once again, the research project proposal will set out a core scenario of an aggressive "green-shift" policy package, and model the consequences of its implementation over the time frame 2025-2130, using multiple different global climate models, in a CMIP, climate model intercomparison project.

The core scenario will not include any solar radiation management of any kind. It will include a very aggressive fossil fuels ramp-down schedule, a very ambitious ramp-up of renewable energy deployment, a rewilding of substantial areas of previously deforested lands, and net negative emissions on an almost implausible scale and pace, to get from the peak of perhaps 460 ppm in about 2060 (tbd) back down to 350 ppm by 2100 and 275 by 2130.

Why this core scenario?

Because it's the most green of green transitions. It is everything the most ardent Sierra Club or WWF or Greenpeacer could hope for at their most dreamy.

And we'll ask the climate modelers to work out whether this ultra-ambitious greenshift scenario, this rapid transition to green nirvana and back to Holocene climate conditions, would suffice to avoid major deleterious climate tipping points from being crossed between now and 2130 (for a given risk tolerance and probability range estimate of the climate model experiment ensemble).

My hypothesis is that this ultra ambitious green-shift scenario will not suffice to avoid dangerous tipping thresholds from being crossed in the time horizon between now and 2130, because some of the affected Earth systems are already phase-shifting now, e.g. Amazon forest, coral reefs, AMOC, Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. And oceans will continue to warm up for many decades due to the already accumulated excess GHGs, which will take a century (maybe more) to remove.

But this is the hypothesis to test, not a conclusion to pre-determine, via the CMIP experiments.

We will also ask the climate modelers to re-run precisely the same core scenario, except this time, add solar radiation management to the package.

Since there is contestation over which SRM method (SAI or MCB or any other) or mixture of SRM methods is best, we will work with climate modelers and SRM experts to define several distinct SRM method scenarios (five different ones, perhaps), and run each as a separate climate model experiment, always IN ADDITION TO; NOT INSTEAD OF, the details of the core scenario. I.e. it will always be "aggressive greenshift alone" to compare to "aggressive greenshift plus SRM(n)", where SRM(n) is one of (say) five different SRM scenarios.

I personally have no opinion on which SRM method is best. What Dr. MacCracken has written today seems very plausible to me: i.e. perhaps some combination of SAI plus regional MCB might be optimal... always IN ADDITION TO, NEVER INSTEAD OF an aggressive green-shift to a fully defossilized renewable energy powered world economy with ambitious levels of CDR to bring atmospheric ppm CO2 back down to safer levels ASAP.

The purpose of the project will be to determine whether the world needs some form of SRM in addition to an aggressive greeenshift trajectory to prevent the loss of the Amazon forest biome, the tropical coral reefs, the GrIS and WAIS ice masses, the AMOC circulation, and other key Earth systems.

It would be thoroughly inappropriate for me, or anyone, to presuppose which SRM method or combination of methods will serve best to cool down the Earth and oceans while we bring ppm CO2 back down to late Holocene levels. Hopefully the CMIP experiments will shed some light on it. But our main purpose in this CMIP ensemble is to determine definitively whether or not we can get away witthout using SRM at all -- or whether things have gone so far with global heating and GHG levels that we will need SRM over the study period (to 2130) even if we implement an extremely ambitious and rapid greenshift.

Jasper N. Zimmermann

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:13:57 PM3/13/24

to Suzanne Reed, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Healthy Planet Action Coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, gta...@bestfutures.org, peter....@gmail.com

Progress report, y'all:

I've spent the past several hours writing a draft CMIP research project proposal. I'm hopeful you will like it. It's motivated by the strategic necessity of recruiting a global network of climate modellers to put the question of whether Emissions Reductions Alone will be enough to prevent imminent climate disasters and tipping-point exceedances (they won't be enough, I think most of us are agreed on that) or whether, IN ADDITION to even the most strenuous and extreme mitigation efforts, efforts so extremely ambitious that their feasibility strains credulity, we will not be able to prevent climate disasters without ALSO implementing SRM.

If we can get climate modelers to explore whether we are right about that being the case, and organize a conference and a bunch of papers and a lot of press attention and YouTuber attention and so on to propagate the results of the research, then (assuming their results show our hypothesis to be correct - there's a tiny chance we're wrong), then we will have the tools in hand to defeat the anti-SRM dogmatists.

So I have formulated a base-case scenario for the climate modelers to model which sets out a wildly ambitious 'green-shift' that gets us out of fossil fuels by mid-century, builds a highly prosperous renewable energy based global economy (also by mid-century), restores huge areas of land to biodiverse, carbon-sequestering wilderness, AND achieves insane levels of CDR, i.e. 55 GtCO2 per year (which most climate scientists won't believe is even technically possible), to get us back to 350 ppm CO2 by 2100 and 275 ppm by 2130. The point is precisely to offer the greenies the most ambitious scenario that any of them could ever hope for. Green Nirvana.

And we'll ask the climate scientists to model whether that scenario would - absent SRM - reliably prevent the world from crossing the various tipping-point thresholds we're all worried about: the Amazon forest, the tropical coral reefs, the GrIS and WAIS ice sheet irreversible meltdown dynamics threshold, the permafrost zone outgassing, the AMOC collapse, all of it. We'll ask them to model this wildly ambitious greenshift scenario twice: once WITHOUT SRM, and once WITH SRM... in multiple variants across many different models (hence CMIP, climate model intercomparison project).

The results will put the matter of whether or not we can do without SRM definitively to rest.

We'll publicize the living hell out of the results.

I don't presume to know for sure in advance what the results will show, but if I were a betting man, I would bet every dollar I own that the results of the model runs will show that we are much much safer if we add SRM to the greenshift scenario than if we don't, and that even the hyper-ambitious greenshift scenario I've concocted will entail a high risk of crossing multiple critical climate tipping thresholds.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:09 PM Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:14:04 PM3/13/24

to Michael MacCracken, Jasper Sky, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, healthy-planet-action-coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter.wadhams

Dear Michael,

would you mind commenting on the suggestion we make?

SAI is the most known GeoEngineering (GE) method. Virtually all media comments work the same pattern.

They say that they will look at GE as a concept for fighting global warming.
They take the “Example” SAI.
They find that SAI is too risky, unpredictable, irresponsible (which can be argued to be true).
They throw out GE altogether, never looking at the other options.

So, in a way, SAI (inadvertently) blocks all other GE methods!

We want to do GHG removal the big way. We want to remove legacy GHG, not to be confused with “negative emissions”. We can cool the planet faster, safer and more efficient than SAI or any other SRM method can. This is the way to go, forget SRM.

Global Warming is caused by GHG, not by solar radiation. Curing it means taking out the GHG, not enhancing albedo. Work the cause, not the symptoms.

Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Von: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Michael MacCracken

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. März 2024 01:59
An: oswald.petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Jasper Sky <jasp...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/5143e1ba-381b-42b0-b3ad-857ea4e416d5%40comcast.net.

AMR - GeoRestoration Action Plan.pdf

AMR - GeoRestoration.pdf

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:14:13 PM3/13/24

to rob...@rtulip.net, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hi Robert,

«mitigation» and «negative emissions» are the terms used by IPCC for their respective and well-known purposes. I use these “official” terms, because our goal is to cool the planet, not to be right about some terminology,

Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Jasper Sky

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:14:34 PM3/13/24

to David Price, Michael MacCracken, oswald.petersen, Suzanne Reed, Peter D Ward, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, healthy-planet-action-coalition, JOHN ENGLANDER, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Viktor Jaakktola, Graeme Taylor, peter.wadhams

Very good suggestion, David, thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Jasper

Robin Collins

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:14:44 PM3/13/24

to Oswald Petersen, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Graeme Taylor, JOHN ENGLANDER, Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Suzanne Reed, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition, peter.wadhams

Oswald

I think most of us realize that the media have a built in bias against SAI. That does not mean the proposals that are being advanced to give SRM and SAI a fair hearing are therefore misinformed. The “media” are often wrong about a lot of things. There is no consensus here (HPAC) either but not touching SAI as an option seems highly premature and possibly complete wrong.

Robin

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/004501da7510%2418d2b6c0%244a782440%24%40hispeed.ch.

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Mar 13, 2024, 2:14:54 PM3/13/24

to Robin Collins, Anderson, Paul, Anton Keskinen, Graeme Taylor, JOHN ENGLANDER, Jasper Sky, John Nissen, Michael MacCracken, Peter D Ward, Planetary Restoration, Robert Hunziker, Suzanne Reed, Viktor Jaakktola, healthy-planet-action-coalition, peter.wadhams

Dear Robin,

I would not want SAI. But that does not mean that I expect SAI to be out. That’s no “contradictio in adjecto”. Let me explain:

I am completely aware that this process is one that requires discussions and compromises till the final document has been agreed upon. In that discussion my position is “No SAI”. But I will lose that point, if I am in a minority position, which is probably the case. That’s completely ok, I do not (have to) win every time. Then again that does not bend my position, it still is “No SAI”.

What is more important is that our GRAP (enclosed) is also included. We think it is the better alternative and we want the scientific world to discuss it.

Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Robin,https://amr.earthear