Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

18 views
Skip to first unread message

H simmens

unread,
Mar 18, 2024, 9:56:53 AM3/18/24
to healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

Harvard announced this morning the termination of the SCoPEx atmosphere geoengineering experiment that was first proposed a decade ago. 

It was originally planned for Arizona around 2018 and was then moved to Sweden in 2021  

As many of you know due to local opposition in Sweden by the Sami people that experiment was canceled several years ago. 

The project itself has now been officially canceled. 

The explanation given was quite generic as the article details. 

There a link to a lengthy final report by the Harvard SCoPEx advisory committee. 

Whether this decade long utter fiasco is a clear signal that even micro-scale DCC direct climate cooling atmospheric research remains a non-starter or whether future endeavors - if there are any - will be more successful remains to be seen. 

The cancellation of SCoPEx along with the announcement of the release of reflective particles into the atmosphere by Make Sunsets leading immediately to the prohibition of such releases in Mexico and Mexican advocacy against such experimentation at the UNEA in Nairobi earlier this month demonstrates the risk of attracting immense backlash even to the most microscopic of baby steps. 

Which leads me to once again share my perspective that unless and until an extremely well funded international NGO with a clear mission and a superb staff focused on the deployment of DCC in the context of climate restoration is established the prospects for effective cooling in time to make a difference will remain negligible. 

That’s what the advocacy efforts of any group supportive of the essential need for DCC must focus on IMHO. 

Herb 


Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

Michael MacCracken

unread,
Mar 18, 2024, 10:29:09 AM3/18/24
to H simmens, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

Hi Herb--And yet Elon Musk et al. shoot big rockets through the stratosphere with an increasing pace, not to mention the sort of ballistic missiles that North Korea and Houtis are firing, etc. This fear of the slippery slope hangs on and on while the lowering cost of renewable energy continues to reverse the original argument.

Mike

--
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/8FDD77AD-3CC3-4350-83B4-5DB7261FEC67%40gmail.com.

Clive Elsworth

unread,
Mar 18, 2024, 1:07:55 PM3/18/24
to Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

I agree with both of you (Alan and Robbin)

 

Perhaps a trusted messenger might be Sabine Hossenfelder?

 

In this video Sabine says climate scientists are probably guilty of confirmation bias on equilibrium climate sensitivity: https://youtu.be/uEZ9HFlqzms

 

In this one she says climate engineering is a bad idea, but it’s probably going to happen anyway because it’s the cheapest solution: https://youtu.be/MZiEcx0F_CM  However she only mentions SAI, and a method of removing water vapour from the stratosphere, which would make almost no difference.

 

She appears unaware of MCB, and the many other proposals listed on the NOAC website.

 

Does anyone have access to Sabine?

 

Clive

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robin Collins
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 3:40 PM
To: Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com>
Cc: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

 

If we are still asking the question we need to talk to them directly, frankly, to understand. So far everything I’ve read suggests 1. they don’t think human geo-measures will work (even if they are unwilling to test to see) and/or because the human track record is abysmal; 2. they think these measures will divert from decarbonization; 3. They think decarbonization is sufficient. 

 

All these lead to the same point: #3. 

That’s the one to focus on. 

 

Robin 

 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:26 AM Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Herb,

 

Is it plausible that the opponents of DCC are cognizant of the present danger and the urgency of action? Personally I don’t think so. Would opposition soften if they better understood the situation. I think it’s at least possible, perhaps likely.

 

Before a doctor advises a patient to go through chemotherapy that will almost kill them, the doctor confronts the patient with the prognosis. (Of course, DCC will not do anything like ‘almost kill’ the planet, but that seems to be the mentality out there.) Sorry for repeating myself, but the circumstances call for hammering away at the prognosis until opposition to DCC softens, setting aside advocacy of DCC until then. This must be done by trusted messengers, who are few and far between these days. The needed steps go from scientific luminaries like James Hansen to trusted messengers to the general public and other stakeholders.

 

That said, I agree about the need for the NGO that you suggest, but it needs to be cagey regarding its public pronouncements.

 

Regards,

Alan

 

--
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.

--
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.

H simmens

unread,
Mar 18, 2024, 2:20:33 PM3/18/24
to cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk, Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, Michael MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
Alan, Robin and Clive,

We all have our theories that attempt to explain and understand the almost visceral opposition to any effort to directly cool the climate. 

The three arguments you cite Robin certainly account for some signiicant proportion of the opposition. And as you point out Alan the lack of information about the urgency of the situation and that there are remedies that could turn things around is I believe beyond dispute. 

I have attempted to engage with many leading Climate scientists and activists on Twitter about cooling.  I’m amazed at how superficial their responses have been to my comments and questions when they bother responding at all. (And several have blocked me entirely as I guess my questions were too inconvenient.) 

One question I have never been able to get ANY knowledgeable Climate scientist or activist opposed to cooling to answer is a very simple one: 

Is there a point when the climate worsens so much more that you would support the deployment of cooling if shown to be reasonably safe and effective? 

Your guess is as good as mine as to why they refuse to answer but it would sure be important to find out! 

What is needed to answer these and other questions at the risk again of being annoyingly repetitive is a carefully researched and developed plan of action that starts out with the development of a strategic power map that identifies who the individuals, groups and other entities are that make decisions to advance or stymie the acceptance of cooling. 

Perhaps those of us on these lists and our allies will be fortuitous enough to convince or persuade a person who is trusted by other key people who could then positively change the dynamic. 

But would any of us be willing to bet the future of humanity and the natural world on the ability of some of us - who are essentially almost totally unorganized - to achieve that? 

If we were a multinational corporation who developed not just a new product but a new product category (cooling) and we wanted to market it to a world that didn’t even know that there was such a product category or even the need for one we would do what virtually every entity with the means to do so would do: 

We would invest considerable resources in market research, in focus groups, in power mapping and In understanding the competition’s strengths and weaknesses in the greatest of detail. To do all this we would hire the brightest most experienced and most relevantly influential people on the planet including those who specialize in particular countries or institutional sectors. 

Only then would we determine what our strategy would be to introduce the product - Do we start in one country, do we start with one demographic  do we promote the product by denigrating the competition and or by pointing out the superiority of our product or do we simply decide to invest a considerable amount of our resources in a kind of brute force campaign to persuade every potential buyer. 

This process - done with the ultimate professionalism - is exactly what is necessary in my view to “sell” cooling as the first order of business for a brand new NGO committed to cooling the planet in the context of a restored climate. 

I probably have written too long an answer. 

But my point is that none of us have anywhere near the information needed to determine the most effective way to change the prevailing ERA paradigm of emission reductions alone- which generates tens of millions of promotional messages every single day throughout the planet versus essentially none for cooling the planet - to a paradigm that humanity can restore a safer climate and a healthier Ecosystem through the urgent deployment of direct cooling along with continued emission reductions, large scale carbon removal and a reduction in unnecessary consumption.  

My comments should not be interpreted to mean that we shouldn’t be reaching out to people like Sabine as you suggest Clive and others who have potentially large influence as many of us have been doing for the past couple of years. 

But if we don’t do it in a way where we know exactly what we want Sabine and others to do and how we can assist them then it may be of limited value. 

What I would suggest be done first would be to prepare the most powerful and compelling presentation imaginable to present to people and institutions with the means or with access to others with the means to establish and generously endow such an NGO. 

And then systematically identify all those contacts that we individually and collectively have with people who may be able to provide access to those with the means and influence to create such an NGO. 

Any significant actions that are not intended to directly or indirectly lead to that result seem like little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it goes closer and closer to colliding with the largely unseen (and now dramatically shrinking) iceberg that will make all of our efforts moot. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com


On Mar 18, 2024, at 1:07 PM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:



Sev Clarke

unread,
Mar 18, 2024, 6:45:02 PM3/18/24
to Herb Simmens, Clive Elsworth, Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
Herb,

Grandiose solutions and strategies are appropriate only for those who can command grandiose resources. We do not. Having our DCC paper published in the Oxford Open Climate Change journal would be a good start; and persuading research organisations (following more the community consultative lead of the Great Barrier Reef MCB experiment, rather than that of SCoPEx/SAI) to model, experiment with, and publish the results from, our many proposed climate solutions would give the article both intellectual and possibly public & political support/funding. Many such experiments and modelling do not require international governance and approval if done in the confines of the EEZ waters of one or more nation states. Successful experiments, followed by gated trials, seem to me to provide our best chance of gaining widespread support for further, cautious deployment. Learning by doing should allow us to minimise any adverse effects whilst maximising the net benefit.

Sev 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/98BA1786-5ED0-4170-82F2-267B150DE85C%40gmail.com.

Alan Kerstein

unread,
Mar 19, 2024, 5:37:25 PM3/19/24
to Michael MacCracken, H simmens, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

Dear Herb,


Is it plausible that the opponents of DCC are cognizant of the present danger and the urgency of action? Personally I don’t think so. Would opposition soften if they better understood the situation. I think it’s at least possible, perhaps likely.


Before a doctor advises a patient to go through chemotherapy that will almost kill them, the doctor confronts the patient with the prognosis. (Of course, DCC will not do anything like ‘almost kill’ the planet, but that seems to be the mentality out there.) Sorry for repeating myself, but the circumstances call for hammering away at the prognosis until opposition to DCC softens, setting aside advocacy of DCC until then. This must be done by trusted messengers, who are few and far between these days. The needed steps go from scientific luminaries like James Hansen to trusted messengers to the general public and other stakeholders.


That said, I agree about the need for the NGO that you suggest, but it needs to be cagey regarding its public pronouncements.


Regards,

Alan


On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:29 AM Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/382552ea-1bf4-4d54-a13a-be657abd1436%40comcast.net.

Robin Collins

unread,
Mar 19, 2024, 5:37:34 PM3/19/24
to Alan Kerstein, H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
If we are still asking the question we need to talk to them directly, frankly, to understand. So far everything I’ve read suggests 1. they don’t think human geo-measures will work (even if they are unwilling to test to see) and/or because the human track record is abysmal; 2. they think these measures will divert from decarbonization; 3. They think decarbonization is sufficient. 

All these lead to the same point: #3. 
That’s the one to focus on. 

Robin 


On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:26 AM Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

David Price

unread,
Mar 19, 2024, 5:37:48 PM3/19/24
to Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
This article in NYT looks relevant and interesting.  But paywall!


David

From my cellphone

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



On 18 Mar 2024, at 08:40, Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com> wrote:



Jim Baird

unread,
Mar 19, 2024, 5:38:09 PM3/19/24
to Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk, Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

I agree. This video in particular is germane https://www.yo utube.com/watch?v=9vRtA7STvH4 . The whole issue of waste heat is totally overlooked. Particularly with respect to fission and fusion.

Terence Harvey

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 12:38:35 PM3/21/24
to chris....@btinternet.com, Oswald Petersen, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
That's a shame we needed their research input to test different particulate reflective capabilities. Perhaps another NGO will pick up the program, But there is already enough particulate in the atmosphere to charge via charging with negative ions to reflect solar radiation. This technology can be developed to cool the planet and cool the poles. Research research research. we can reduce our GHG emissions vis ocean iron fertilization but it has to be worth 100 per ton CO2 E and budgeted to remove twenty gt per year. otherwise, the carbon removal industries will not survive. So that takes care of the oceans and atmosphere now all we need is a project on the lands. Agroforestry and biofuel and food crops. With and serviced by water desalination with coastal hydrogen hubs, powered by offshore wind servicing the most deserted desert regions of the planet, so as not to compete with existing croplands, 1 trillion trees over 100 years is realistic  and a hundred million barrels of biofuel per day is achievable, We will not need any fossil fuels  to be dug out of the ground, carbon neutral fuels,, I would suggest we outlaw all fossil fuels by 2060, And the food crops and water generated will be gratefully appreciated by the nearly 10 billion soles predicted to roam the planet by 2050, Its not just climate that is the problem its water and food and fuels, thanks for reading, Absolutely
T J Harvey

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, 11:50 pm 'Chris Vivian' via geoengineering, <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Oswald,

 

It’s fine in theory to say “All we have to do is remove the GHG which cause Global Warming” but few people believe it can be scaled up fast enough to avoid tipping points, worsening climatic effects etc. How do you think it can be done fast enough?

 

Best wishes

 

Chris.

 

From: 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:10 PM
To: 'Robin Collins' <robin.w...@gmail.com>; 'Sev Clarke' <sevc...@icloud.com>
Cc: 'Alan Kerstein' <alan.k...@gmail.com>; 'Clive Elsworth' <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; 'Herb Simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; 'Mike MacCracken' <mmac...@comcast.net>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

 

Hi Robin,

 

we do not need SRM. All we have to do is remove the GHG which cause Global Warming. It is safe, natural and much more efficient than SRM (any variety),

 

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 Robin Collins
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 14:01
An: Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>
Cc: Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com>; Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; Herb Simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

 

I think Herb’s question directed at a core of environmentalists is key:

Is there a point when the climate worsens so much more* that you would support the deployment of cooling if shown to be reasonably safe and effective? 

 

*Note: this can mean too late. 

I have raised the same question and I think the answer is that unambiguous critics of SRM methods (“anti-human interventionists”) see the question as a trap, and therefore it “shouldn’t” be answered. 

 

The only rational response to the question is, of course: a resounding Yes. But if you acknowledge that possibility, then you must deny the arguments against testing SRM. And you also have to believe (or pretend) that decarbonization-only IS sufficient, on track, and that the evidence is available to show this. If the evidence points in the opposite direction, then — to stick with your ideology — you must deny, refute or hide it. This is why the problem is now ideological and very dangerous if it spreads into governance. (UNEA!)

 

I agree with Sev that the publication of the paper (and more of them) will be very important (although I disagree with a MCB-only approach.) I wonder if the publication will be blocked?

 

We need bullet-proof publications to point to, to build the case in public and government circles. We need a breakthrough or two. 

--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/05cf01da7ba7%247a24fc10%246e6ef430%24%40btinternet.com.

H simmens

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 12:41:39 PM3/21/24
to Alan Gadian, chris....@btinternet.com, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Mike MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
Hi Alan,

I was somewhat startled when I first saw you present an analysis at an HPAC meeting last year about the central role of water vapor. 

Are there published papers that support the case that water vapor is a much more important GHG than CO2? 

And if so do these or other papers examine the implications of such a conclusion? 

Thanks,

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com


On Mar 21, 2024, at 12:26 PM, Alan Gadian <alang...@gmail.com> wrote:


Sorry. 

 I keep emphasising this. H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas contributing ~ 51% of the warming, CO2 is ~ 19%.  So with clausius clapeyron, for each degree C rise we have 7% more water vapour ( therefore approx a 3.5%) larger contribution.  With 3C which we will be at in about 20years at most, you can forget any increase in CO2. The only way to get water vapour down is to cool the planet. 

 The green lobby has created this massive geo engineering experiment , which as Lovelock said , will cause massive destruction of human life by 2040 .  

SAI will destroy much of the ozone layer.  It has to be MCB 

Alan Gadian

Clive Elsworth

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 1:09:47 PM3/21/24
to Alan Gadian, chris....@btinternet.com, Alan Kerstein, Herb Simmens, Mike MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Alan

 

No need to apologise. Your message needs to be repeated over and over until it sinks in.

 

As to the concern that MCB benefits some and not others, stratocumulus clouds seem to form at least 25% of the time over most of the ocean. See map on p12: https://atmos.uw.edu/~robwood/teaching/535/StratusStratocumulus_Wood_July22.pdf

 

Is that a correct interpretation?

 

That is the basis on which we are proposing the placement of cheap, remotely controllable aerosol dispersal buoys in many ocean areas. That way meteorologists will have maximum control over which areas of ocean to brighten stratocumulus clouds in, and when. That seems to us the best way to produce the most favourable weather patterns. Obviously it’s controversial, but once water vapour takes over as the main warming agent we must hope that good sense will prevail.

 

Buoys can easily produce nano-sized ammonium chloride salt particles by mixing low concentrations of ammonia and HCl gases in the air. It should also be easy to control particle size by varying flowrates and concentrations.

 

Ammonium chloride is a food additive, hygroscopic like NaCl, and is no more toxic than NaCl. Dispersing low concentration ammonia and HCl over remote ocean areas poses essentially no risk to any lifeforms.

 

Do you see any flaws?

 

Clive

Robin 

--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/05cf01da7ba7%247a24fc10%246e6ef430%24%40btinternet.com.

Chris Vivian

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:54:13 PM3/21/24
to Sev Clarke, Herb Simmens, Clive Elsworth, Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Sev,

 

As I have pointed out before, your statement “Many such experiments and modelling do not require international governance and approval if done in the confines of the EEZ waters of one or more nation states” is incorrect as international governance does apply for various purposes in EEZ waters. The EEZ does not give states total control of what can take place within the EEZ.

 

Under Part V, Article 56(a) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the EEZ gives states:

“sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as production of energy from the water, currents and winds”

 

Chris.

Robin Collins

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:54:27 PM3/21/24
to Sev Clarke, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
I think Herb’s question directed at a core of environmentalists is key:
Is there a point when the climate worsens so much more* that you would support the deployment of cooling if shown to be reasonably safe and effective? 

*Note: this can mean too late. 
I have raised the same question and I think the answer is that unambiguous critics of SRM methods (“anti-human interventionists”) see the question as a trap, and therefore it “shouldn’t” be answered. 

The only rational response to the question is, of course: a resounding Yes. But if you acknowledge that possibility, then you must deny the arguments against testing SRM. And you also have to believe (or pretend) that decarbonization-only IS sufficient, on track, and that the evidence is available to show this. If the evidence points in the opposite direction, then — to stick with your ideology — you must deny, refute or hide it. This is why the problem is now ideological and very dangerous if it spreads into governance. (UNEA!)

I agree with Sev that the publication of the paper (and more of them) will be very important (although I disagree with a MCB-only approach.) I wonder if the publication will be blocked?

We need bullet-proof publications to point to, to build the case in public and government circles. We need a breakthrough or two. 

Robin 

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:45 PM Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com> wrote:

Oswald Petersen

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:55:11 PM3/21/24
to Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hi Robin,

 

we do not need SRM. All we have to do is remove the GHG which cause Global Warming. It is safe, natural and much more efficient than SRM (any variety),

 

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

 

 


Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 14:01
An: Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>

Chris Vivian

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:55:19 PM3/21/24
to Oswald Petersen, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Oswald,

 

It’s fine in theory to say “All we have to do is remove the GHG which cause Global Warming” but few people believe it can be scaled up fast enough to avoid tipping points, worsening climatic effects etc. How do you think it can be done fast enough?

 

Best wishes

 

Chris.

 

From: 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:10 PM

Alan Gadian

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:55:27 PM3/21/24
to chris....@btinternet.com, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Mike MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
Sorry. 

 I keep emphasising this. H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas contributing ~ 51% of the warming, CO2 is ~ 19%.  So with clausius clapeyron, for each degree C rise we have 7% more water vapour ( therefore approx a 3.5%) larger contribution.  With 3C which we will be at in about 20years at most, you can forget any increase in CO2. The only way to get water vapour down is to cool the planet. 

 The green lobby has created this massive geo engineering experiment , which as Lovelock said , will cause massive destruction of human life by 2040 .  

SAI will destroy much of the ozone layer.  It has to be MCB 

Alan Gadian


On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:50, 'Chris Vivian' via geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/05cf01da7ba7%247a24fc10%246e6ef430%24%40btinternet.com.

Oswald Petersen

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:55:37 PM3/21/24
to Chris Vivian, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Dear Chris,

 

well, it’s the same as with SAI, nobody believes that either.

 

That’s why I keep repeating the message like a mantra. We CAN remove enough CH4 and CO2 to stop GW. Because apparently nobody is willing and able to read the pdfs I attached recently to almost all my emails in this forum (enclosed again) we have now created a website to get the message across.

 

You can find it here:

 

https://georestoration.earth

 

With the GeoRestoration Action Plan we can cool the climate within 20 years by 0.5 to 1.0 °C. That’s sufficient to avert the worst scenarios.

 

If, as you say, nobody believes it, could one of those non-believers please explain why? This would be most interesting for us.

AMR - GeoRestoration.pdf
AMR - GeoRestoration Action Plan.pdf

Alan Gadian

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:55:45 PM3/21/24
to H simmens, Dr Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Alan Gadian, Alan
Herb,

I would say that it is of equal contribution, but I do notwant to quibble about a few %

I will look up, but I just assumed everyone knew from high school (16 year olds) Physics.

Below are some plots from `Wikipedia .  This has been known about for years far as I am aware.  When EEA say its is now 1.75C warmer (though UK MO , MOSAC 4th March, refuse to say it is more than 1.49C) , Europe is over 3C warmer, then there are implications.   With 1C warmer it doesn’t mean much, 3C warmer it means a lot!.  Lovelock, Asilimar 2010 said the planet had 30 years.  What is new? Nothing.  I wish those who make lots of statements about  global warming understood some basic physics and meteorology

Best wishes
Alan


From wikipedia

Screenshot 2024-03-21 at 17.00.44.png
PastedGraphic-1.pdf
PastedGraphic-2.pdf

Dave King

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:55:54 PM3/21/24
to H simmens, Alan Gadian, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Mike MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
.Hi Herb,

Alan Gadian is quite right. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation is indisputable! And the capture of radiated heat by water vapour also fully  established many decades ago. The argument about avoided overheating has been that increased anthropogenic GHG emissions cause water vapour pressure in the atmosphere to increase as ocean surface temperatures rise, but reversing the process is very different. This result is a very large hysteresis in reversing the temperature rise.  Completely eliminating GHG levels is impractical and in any case will not significantly reduce atmospheric temperatures in a reasonable time.  Thank you Alan.  This is the strongest argument for preparing for large scale MCB.And of course for deep and rapid emissions reduction.  Or, at the current rate we are cooked. And James Lovelock would be proved right.

This must be mainstreamed!  

Best,

Dave King



Alan Gadian

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 2:56:05 PM3/21/24
to <Clive@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Herb Simmens, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Robbie Tulip, Brian von Herzen, Rebecca Bishop, Alan
Clive,

I wa a little rude I think .. so apologies are in order.

Rob wood is right ( I would ay that as I taught him meteorology when he came to do his PhD) , so I am very biased!!

Danny Rosenfeld has always argued that if we seed spray of the right size all over the oceanic high pressure areas , then it will work , not quite as well but effectively.  I did some runs years ago and found that if it worked , the artic ice would come down to Iceland!  Danny and I always argue about the details of cloud microphysics , butvthtv is good.  I want to do a few more runs to optimise the 0.2 -0.8 micron CCN salt size.  Rob W thinks we can go a lot smaller,  I (agreeing with Latham) am not sure hence why I want to do some runs.

In the global runs, we only assumed we were seeding 10% of the ocean, where the large patches are.  But yes 25% and  may be more, but good as in the calm subtropics.

As for the type of CCN, I will pass as I am not knowledgeable in the difference CCN and their activation, but yes in principle, any hydroscopic CCN would do!

Best wishes
Alan



Alan Gadian
0775 451 9009


Michael MacCracken

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 3:03:46 PM3/21/24
to Dave King, H simmens, Alan Gadian, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Dear Alan et al.--While I agree with the discussion on the importance of water vapor feedback, I must disagree with you that SAI will destroy much of the ozone layer. That does not happen with large volcanic eruptions, so why do you think that SAI, done thoughtfully, "will destroy much of the ozone layer"? If we really get mitigation going, including especially of the short-lived species and our aim is to get back to under 1 C, we would need to basically increase the global albedo by about 1% (so the equivalent of about half of a CO2 doubling), which is a good bit less than has happened with large volcanic injections. There have been a good number of simulations done, including models with stratospheric ozone chemistry, and I don't think these show serious effect on ozone layer and they do push climate back toward the average conditions when conditions were cooler, so sort of within the boundaries of typical variability and far from the conditions without such intervention.

While MCB is interesting, it is going to be a real challenge to do well given the variability of the weather and of the levels of CCN in various locations, etc., plus in creating regional cool spots, there is the potential (even likelihood) that there will be regional effects on the atmospheric circulation, etc. (after all, El Nino and La Nina events that change regional energy balance have clear, but varying, downstream effects on weather, including on precipitation). I'm all for reducing energy uptake by the ocean, which is where 90+% of the trapped heat ends up, but I would expect there to be both beneficial and adverse changes occurring due to the gradients created. It would be interesting to explore this potential by seeking understanding of the effects on circulation and weather that the sulfate aerosol loading, so a mostly regional effect, has had and is having--so when it was concentrated over the eastern US across the Atlantic to Europe during the 20th century and now mostly in south and east Asia--has anyone done such studies (so ensemble set of runs with sulfate layer in and out, etc.)?

As I've made the point elsewhere, it seems to me the primary global cooling effort would be most readily implemented with global SAI (and I think the modeling results suggest that injections in upper mid-latitudes yields the smoothest latitudinal response) and then focus the MCB efforts on dealing with the most intractable impacts, such as the very warm waters contributing to the most intense tropical cyclones, high latitude temperature amplification, warming ocean waters contributing to melting of ice shelves and glacial stream faces, areas that might be facing persistent drought, and so on. I just think that getting just the right amount of CCN increase in the changing set of appropriate locations and conditions around the world will be a very difficult logistical challenge both to determine and to implement. Thus, my sense is that SAI complemented by MCB makes the most sense (the interesting criticism I've heard is that aggressively attacking the enhanced methane concentration with iron salt aerosols might be an alternative to SAI as the baseline intervention--I don't yet know enough about this idea to consider it a viable, cost-effective alternative).

Best, Mike MacCracken

PS--I would note that in that it is not clear to me that the increase in water vapor pressure is determined by the increase in global average temperature rather than by, for example, the average increase in temperature over the ocean. Also, the average temperature increase in low latitudes, which are mostly ocean, is a good bit less than the global average increase, and much less than the temperature increase in the Arctic that helps to raise up the global average temperature increase. And I think what matters in terms of the strength of the water vapor feedback is the increase in absolute humidity--so the temperature increase is greatest where the increase in absolute humidity per degree is the lowest, and lowest where the increase in absolute humidity per degree is greatest. Now, these nuances really don't matter as we are headed to 3 C and even higher, but I'd suggest we do need to keep them in mind. I'd also note that while the temperature increase is lowest in low latitudes where most of the additional trapped energy goes into evaporation, everything that goes up has to come down and so this has been leading to greater likelihood of very intense precipitation even though the temperature increase is not so much.

Michael MacCracken

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 4:51:43 PM3/21/24
to Oswald Petersen, Chris Vivian, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Dear Oswald--For the benefit of others in the discussion, what my follow-ups with you suggested was that the real key to quickly getting the temperature reductions that you are talking about would be iron aerosol injection to bring the methane concentration down to its preindustrial level. As I indicated, I'm not an expert on such chemistry, but the key seems to be having the iron aerosol be the catalyst for this happening and happening quite rapidly for each bit of iron salt aerosol injected (so a thousand or more methane molecules destroyed before the iron aerosol molecule falls or is rained out). That the iron falling out into the ocean might promote some additional CO2 uptake was nice, but not really the key to the short-term drop in temperature. And for longest life of the iron salt aerosol, injecting it into the free troposphere above the boundary layer was the place to put it.

The other aspects of the plan focused on long-term efforts to bring the CO2 down by, for example, ocean fertilization, which is a bit more speculative and, if done with nutrients from land, might well deplete land fertility by sinking a lot of nutrients into the ocean, something that could be avoided if one brought nutrients up from deeper in the ocean by wave pumping of similar renewable approach.

Focusing on the iron salt aerosol component of the effort that you describe, so there would be the initial efforts to bring down the CH4 concentration to of order 700 ppb, and then the need for an ongoing effort to offset the methane emissions that are coming off each year and sustaining the present methane concentration that is nearing 2000 ppb. With the new methane detecting satellite, the expectation is that there will be a lot of learning about the sources and the potential for addressing the issue through emissions reductions versus the need for deploying iron salt aerosols.

Have there been global atmospheric chemistry simulations of the iron aerosol injection proposal that you have made, indicating whether there might be other consequences from the methane reductions? Presumably, location of the injections does not make much difference as atmospheric mixing will tend to pretty quickly fill any hole that is created--is this correct? What sort of testing has been done of iron aerosol injections?

Mike MacCracken

Alan Gadian

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 5:56:31 PM3/21/24
to Michael MacCracken, Dave King, H simmens, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
Dear Mike,
 
I agree with a lot of what you say and a combined approach may well be necessary, but recent papers like this frighten me.

Best wishes
Alan

- - - - - - -

This paper highlights some of my concerns with SAI
Thanks
Alan 

 

Abstract
The Chilean volcano Cerro Hudson erupted between August 8th and 15th, 1991, injecting between 1.7 and 2.9 Tg of SO2 into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. We simulate this injection using the Goddard Earth Observing System Earth system model with detailed sulfur chemistry and sectional aerosol microphysics, focusing on the resulting aerosols and their contribution to the 1991 Antarctic Austral Springtime ozone hole. The simulations show a column ozone deficit (12 DU) in the Southern Hemisphere vortex collar region. The majority of this effect is between 10 and 20 km and due to heterogeneous chemistry. The model shows a 26% decrease in ozone from background levels at these altitudes, compared with in-situ observations of a 50% decrease. Above 20 km, the dynamical response to the eruption also causes lower ozone values, a novel modeling result. This experiment highlights potential interactions between proposed solar radiation management geoengineering aerosols and volcanic eruptions.


On 21 Mar 2024, at 19:03, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:



Sev Clarke

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 6:44:29 PM3/21/24
to Dr Chris Vivian, Herb Simmens, Clive Elsworth, Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
Thanks, Chris,

I must have missed or forgotten your earlier points. Nonetheless, the UNCLOS phrase “and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation…” would seem to cover Buoyant Flake usage in EEZ waters because of their effects on boosting fisheries & royalties, on albedo, on carbon sequestration, and possibly on re-oxygenation all have potential economic exploitation effects. Furthermore, governance and approvals in oligotrophic, non-EEZ, territorial waters, where the territory was not such as to have nutrient-rich continental runoff, means that the experiments and trials could be run there under pretty much only national approval and governance.  

Sev  

Michael MacCracken

unread,
Mar 21, 2024, 9:26:11 PM3/21/24
to Alan Gadian, Dave King, H simmens, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hi Alan--It would have been helpful if that paper provided a bit more information. So, they define the boundary of their ozone hole as the area inside the 220 Dobson Unit (DU) boundary--and this is for total column ozone. They then say the effect of this eruption is mainly at the end of the ozone hole and enlarges it, which sort of implies the effect of 12 DU reduction they talk about is in the region where the total column ozone is about 220 DU, so about a 5% reduction in the total ozone column around the edge of the ozone hole at that time. Now, they do talk about 50% reductions, etc., but is at the particular level of the volcanic debris and, as I read it, not in the total column ozone.

Also, I'd note this paper was for an even in 1991, in the 30+ years since then the stratospheric concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons have gone down and so I think the ozone hole has been closing so not as vulnerable when the modeling was done.

Now, this does not mean there should be no concern when large volcanic injections occur--they can have large effects (it is interesting that the paper does not talk about the consequences of the much larger Pinatubo eruption on the ozone hole--perhaps because by the time the aerosol reached that latitude, it was so spread out the effect was less than the effect of a good bit smaller volcanic eruption right at the edge of the ozone hole at just the right season for there to be an effect). The particular volcanic eruption injected roughly as much S all at one time and one place as early SAI would have spread out over the globe and the year, which is I would assume is the reason that the SAI effect on the ozone layer is generally found to be low in the various simulations that have been done.

So, yes, the issue should be looked at, and I think this has been done and the effect is not considered a significant issue (e.g., see https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/4557/2022/)

Best, Mike

Michael MacCracken

unread,
Mar 22, 2024, 11:20:17 AM3/22/24
to Adrian Tuck, Alan Gadian, Dave King, H simmens, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Hi Adrian--Thanks, I was just drawing result from that paper.

Mike

On 3/21/24 11:44 PM, Adrian Tuck wrote:
The boundary of the ozone hole is not at 220 DU, it is at 252 DU, as determined by the NASA ER-2 during AAOE in 1987, see M H Proffitt et al, A chemical definition of the boundary of the ozone hole, J. Geophysical. Res. 1989, 94, 11437-11448. The in situ edge measured by the ER-2 coincided with 252 DU contour of the TOMS column observations, as measured from Punta Arenas. There was a statistical average 10 degree latitude mixing zone centered at the edge. The 220 DU was used by the NASA GSFC team analysing the TOMS data; it is unnecessarily tight. The 1994 ASHOE-MAESA mission from Christchurch, NZ, also saw unequivocal evidence of exchange at the edge of the vortex as measured by observed wind speeds, see Q J R Meteorol Soc, 1997,123, 1-69. 

Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas

unread,
Mar 22, 2024, 4:14:20 PM3/22/24
to Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

There is more than brain-donor myths that are deeply concerning here. When I heard this piece of comedy coming from a legislature that wasn't Texas', I was pleased, then, well... Yes, the chemtrail myth is quite stupid, but...

I read several articles and they all said about the same thing. I chose this article from the Tennessean to critique:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2024/03/20/tennessee-senate-passes-bill-banning-chemtrails-what-to-know/73027586007/

"The research group [Harvard] has debunked the theory [chemtrails], saying that there is no credible evidence for the existence of chemtrails." The myth literally has its origins in rainmaking or cloud seeding where various substances are released from plains in an effort to increase rainfall. The practice is widespread globally with seven ongoing projects in Texas alone. That the Harvard interviewee did not know this is deeply concerning.

"Are contrails used for geoengineering? No. Contrails, the white streaks of water vapor left in the sky from planes, are not used for geoengineering. The contrails are simply water clouds resulting from jet exhaust, said Alan Robock, a climate science professor at Rutgers University who studies geoengineering, in a statement to USA TODAY." Contrails are certainly responsible for geoengineering with warming created by the blanket effect. The magnitude of warming is poorly understood, but not the sign of the effect. 

And marine cloud brightening (MCB) geoengineering... We have been practicing MCB geoengineering cooling for 150 years with sulfur in ships fuels, and tropospheric cooling for the same time with sulfur in the rest of fossil fuels.

"The technology does not exist," Robock said. "There is no mechanism to get sulfur gases into the stratosphere. People have created designs for such airplanes, but they have not been built." Tropospheric sulfur does mix into the stratosphere a bit. But, the biggest concern here is that this expert mentions nothing about the grand inadvertent global cooling sulfate geoengineering experiment that we have been practicing for 150 years that to this day is responsible for masking a third of all warming that should have taken place due to current atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

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


Adrian Tuck

unread,
Mar 24, 2024, 10:26:30 AM3/24/24
to mmac...@comcast.net, Alan Gadian, Dave King, H simmens, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition
The boundary of the ozone hole is not at 220 DU, it is at 252 DU, as determined by the NASA ER-2 during AAOE in 1987, see M H Proffitt et al, A chemical definition of the boundary of the ozone hole, J. Geophysical. Res. 1989, 94, 11437-11448. The in situ edge measured by the ER-2 coincided with 252 DU contour of the TOMS column observations, as measured from Punta Arenas. There was a statistical average 10 degree latitude mixing zone centered at the edge. The 220 DU was used by the NASA GSFC team analysing the TOMS data; it is unnecessarily tight. The 1994 ASHOE-MAESA mission from Christchurch, NZ, also saw unequivocal evidence of exchange at the edge of the vortex as measured by observed wind speeds, see Q J R Meteorol Soc, 1997,123, 1-69. 

Oswald Petersen

unread,
Mar 24, 2024, 10:26:46 AM3/24/24
to Michael MacCracken, Chris Vivian, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Herb Simmens, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Dear Mike,

 

Thanks!

 

I completely agree with all you say. We treat benefits from OIF and MCB (the particles are also CCN) as freebies, benefits unknown in their efficiency. Bringing down methane levels alone would actually be sufficient to avert GW spiralling into the nevernever.

 

So let us concentrate on CH4. As you say, there are a number of variables which influence the efficiency, and all our efforts in the last two years did indeed concentrate on that efficiency. The most important parameters are:

 

  • Height of dispersal point.
  • Location of dispersal point
  • Time of dispersal e.g. windspeed, weather conditions.
  • Size of particles
  • Dispersion method

 

We have recently changed our dispersion technology from high, ocean-based steel-towers to planes. Those planes have jet-engines which we use for the dispersal of FeCl3 particles. Because of their speed and power jets are the best dispersion tool imaginable. Moving the dispersion point guarantees a large air room to be filled, plus, of course, planes are able to adapt their flight altitude to current weather conditions, which makes the model completely scalable. Today I wonder why it took us so long to understand this, but… there you go…

 

With this dispersion technology we can basically decide ourselves what concentration of ISA we want on the ground. From our expert in toxicology we know that all concentrations below 1 ppm are harmless. Actually FeCl3 is quite harmless, non-toxic, so there is nothing to fear from that side. We work with much higher concentrations in our lab on a daily basis. The only small problem it poses is the fact that in its fluid state it is corrosive, but I am quite rusty anyway 😊

 

Back to the point: We think that we can keep the particles afloat for 14 days and more, which would give us the needed time to oxidise around 10.000 CH4 molecules per FeCL3 molecule. So that’s fine in theory.

 

What we really need is modelling. We are desperately looking for some university which can do the modelling. We have great experts here in Switzerland (e.g. Ulrike Lohmann at ETH), but they declined / ignored our letters up to now. Can you help ? Or anybody?

 

We would love to do a field test but still have to find 20 Million USD somewhere to buy and modify a plane for our needs. However I think this will be doable…

 

This is, in a nutshell, where we stand today.

 

Thanks again

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

Chris Vivian

unread,
Mar 24, 2024, 10:26:54 AM3/24/24
to Sev Clarke, Herb Simmens, Clive Elsworth, Robin Collins, Alan Kerstein, Mike MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Sev,

 

While what you say may be true for buoyant flakes, it may not be for other all ocean climate intervention techniques. Also, it does not remove the requirement to comply with international treaties that cover the EEZ e.g., Part XII of UNCLOS ‘Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment and the LC/LP that both cover territorial waters. So your final statement “…means that the experiments and trials could be run there under pretty much only national approval and governance” is not true although the national authorities would be implementing international requirements.

--

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.

Adrian Tuck

unread,
Mar 24, 2024, 10:27:04 AM3/24/24
to mmac...@comcast.net, Alan Gadian, Dave King, H simmens, Chris Vivian, Alan Kerstein, Clive Elsworth, Oswald Petersen, Planetary Restoration, Robin Collins, Sev Clarke, geoengineering
Hi Mike,

There’s more in : -

On the distribution of cold air near the vortex edge in the lower stratosphere

First published: 20 February 1994
 
I might add that there’s more to micron sized aerosol droplets than is currently incorporated in atmospheric models: -
Tuck, A.F. Gibbs Free Energy and Reaction Rate Acceleration in and on Microdroplets. Entropy 2019, 21, 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21111044
Best,
Adrian

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages