On: 1) a recent NOAC meeting, 2) SRM Research Support Letters, and 3) Make Sunsets deployments

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

1) At a recent 3/6/2023 NOAC meeting there was an extra ordinarily lively and fruitful discussion on this topic that featured representatives of a very broad spectrum of views that (as one participant remarked) was unusual in that it was a respectful discussion and airing of view points rather than a debate.  Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this meeting but was able to view the recording of it, and strongly encourage all who are able to, to access this recording to view it.  As recordings of NOAC meetings are not generally distributed more broadly than the NOAC list I don’t feel at liberty to include a link to this recording in this post to other lists.  For this reason, and also because I will likely misinterpret or not do justice to them, I will refrain from attaching (my understanding of) viewpoints discussed to particular persons at the meeting.

2) The letters supporting SRM research (letter #1 and letter # 2 are commendable developments that should be welcome by all direct climate cooling (DCC) advocates. However (as noted by some in the NOAC meeting) they are:

 a) Cautious to a fault on quick or gradual piloting and deployment (depending on method see below), given the urgency of triggering irreversible tipping points potential to prevent or reduce increased catastrophic harm to humans and the fact that (mentioned by some participants) that the Mt. Pinatubo volcano for example lofted about 17 million tons of SO2 to the stratosphere (far more at one time than any SAI planned deployment that I am aware of) and cooled the globe by roughly 0.6 C for 15 months without any (at least prominently publicized) adverse impacts.

b) Too narrowly focused on SRM and particularly (global) SAI to the exclusion of other generally lower-leverage and lower-risk possible direct climate cooling methods (DCC), in spite of emphasizing (in the spirit of “not placing one’s eggs all in one basket”) the need to study MCB and CCN as well as SAI as “outcomes might be optimized if multiple techniques are used in combination” (Letter 1).  Letter 2 is less specifically directed at these three species of SRM but still exclusively focused on SRM and from the points made on p. 7 for example that “the provision of SRM is organized by a globally legitimized body, and not based on private interests” on high-leverage SRM with global scope. For example, as recent modeling suggests that if and when we achieve (human and natural) net-zero GHG emissions global temperature will not significantly drop for at least another 50 years due to legacy heat from the Ocean (where 90% of it is being stored), and even more recent modeling suggests that 7-10 C may be “in the pipeline” (most of which is undoubtedly related to ocean warming where 90% of legacy warming is being stored) even if net-zero were achieved today, it would seem that we should urgently begin researching and when prudent implementing methods to reduce (and possible use for economic benefit) this excess ocean “heating from below” in addition to doing the same for “heating from above (see OTEC summary here).  Another example is cooling based on efforts to enhance water cycle cooling through evapotranspiration and convection that may also regenerate nature (just as important as reducing GHG’s in the long run) and provide economic benefits (see for example Seatomizers summary here).

c) Assume an overly binary view of (and direct climate cooling) “global SAI deployment or not” (my guess is with a now outdated (per research in b) view of SAI “shaving the peak” (Shepherd and Long napkin diagram) deployment that may be necessary in the future),  and  “research and deployment” of direct climate cooling in general.  Regarding the first binary there is no reason why any of the less risky direct climate cooling methods discussed in b) should not (if found to be indeed effective and with little risk) deployed asap, and (as mentioned by at least one participant per the  “Cornell SAI group”) the most prudent roll-out of SAI not be based on “nailing down the research” and then deploying, but rather researching as much as possible while gradually deploying and evaluating and researching further depending on outcomes in the spring  in polar regions where the stratosphere is lower so that lofting with more conventional aircraft may be possible , and the aerosol is likely to drop out of the Stratosphere more quickly in months rather than years reducing “termination shock” risk (see SAI summary here).  And with regard to the “research and deployment” binary, assume (as one NOAC meeting participant opined) that controlled experiments in laboratories are inherently more valuable than field experiments as causal factors can be elevated to extreme levels to facilitate signal (or outcome) detection. But it seems to me that, as many have opined, atmospheric processes and chemistry are so complex that we will never be certain that we have adequately pinned it down with laboratory or small-scale empirical research.  One participant asked a key question in this regard. At what empirical scope do we need to research to be confident that risk is low enough to start deploying. It seems to be rather self-evident that the best and only way to reach this point would be to proceed with very small localized deployments in the poles and constantly monitor, adjust, and learn by doing, that is that a good part of the “research” is the “gradually deployment”.  After all we’re not addressing nuclear radiation or the Manhattan project here, we’re primarily talking about a natural substance millions of tons of which have (and will be continued in the future) to be lofted into the atmosphere by natural methods!  In this sense I would suggest that empirical research on, particularly atmospheric and cloud-based DCC, will likely require more “social science” non-controlled experiment statistical techniques in the “real atmosphere” that can only be accomplished with small-scale deployment.

d) And as one NOAC meeting participant noted, Letter 1 includes a rather gratuitous (in the offering any evidence in support) swipe at the Make Sunsets effort particularly with regard to selling “cooling credits that I too think is unwarranted and counterproductive (see discussion of Make Sunsets initiative in 3) below):  “The state of scientific knowledge about SRM is also currently insufficient for it to be included as part of a climate credit system or other commercial offering, as some have started to propose. Even for stratospheric aerosol injection (the most well-understood SRM approach), the amount of cooling achieved by the injection of a given mass of material and how SAI will affect the climate system are still highly uncertain. Even with improved understanding of these effects, since SRM does not address the cause of climate change, nor all of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, it likely will never be an appropriate candidate for an open market system of credits and independent actors.”

3) Finally, I believe that this entire topic of “how can best move the ball forward on urgently necessary DCC” should be considered in a broad political as well as scientific frame. 

a) If I may say so, as a social scientist, and especially as a radical economist, I believe that I am particularly a-tuned to the political dimensions of social change and “social ideology” as mainstream economics is a prime example of the latter (I wrote a book on this that I will send to anyone upon request). Similarly, I think the broad NOAC discussion that included members of our broader “climate cooling community” including but not exclusively climate scientists or climate change professionals who (consciously or not) understandably may have to be more careful and conservative in their public positions on these issues. All of us (people and organizations) are (again not always consciously) playing a strategic role in this sense.

b) My own view (that comes without personal cost to my livelihood, status, and/or strategic and practical efforts to make the world a better place) is that anything that stimulates awareness, debate, and hopefully action on the need for urgent direct climate cooling, and that is physically or economically beneficial, or at the very least, does not cause harm, is a positive step forward. For example, I believe that all of us (including the founders of Make Sunsets) understand that an effective high-leverage (and therefore high-risk) direct climate cooling method like SAI should be researched and implemented publicly and transparently, or with extensive public monitoring and oversight, per the two recent letters on this topic discussed in 2) above. And since the Make Sunsets’ lofting of “de-minimis” amounts of SO2 to the stratosphere is not “effective” in terms of climate cooling, and thus does not cause any harm and has the same temporary cooling affect as a much large amount of GHG reduction  would permanently (see below) it is on balance a positive step toward cooling.  

c) I believe that the Make Sunsets selling of DDC credits that can be roughly estimated in this case, as generally speaking (see below) global SAI cooling can be viewed (like GHG removal) as a pure “public good” that has the same result no matter where and when it is applied, has enhanced it’s political impact and has the potential to create a broad group of citizen/consumer climate cooling advocates among the general public. Hopefully, this will facilitate kick start this possibility for other (likely more local and geographically priced) legitimate private cooling credits.  As I’ve said in prior blogs, I believe that we are in an “all hands on deck” for cooling moment, and therefore need to harness whatever institutional (public, non-profit, private) methods we can to ramp this up as fast and as much as possible.

d) Finally, though what Make Sunsets is currently doing is not “effective” in terms of climate, it is (modestly) physically beneficial as each gram of SO2 actually lofted to the stratosphere is roughly equivalent to the removal of 0.476 metric tons of CO2 for 2.1 years (see blog) as 1/2.1= 0.476), so that (as pointed by Make Sunsets in the NOAC discussion) lofting a kilogram of SO2 would be roughly equivalent to removing 476 metric tons of CO2 for 2.1 years. And this linking of temporary cooling to temporary GHG drawdown adds another useful “direct climate cooling” public education dimension to the Make Sunsets effort as it shows how much temporary cooling “bang for the buck” lofting a still “de-minimis” amount of SO2 can provide relative to temporary removal of GHG.

e) Similarly, I believe that Andrew Lockley’s balloon lofting experiment, though unfortunately named, can be viewed as a politically positive DCC intervention.

As I said, that NOAC meeting stimulated a lot of good discussion!

Best,

Ron

,

[Clive Elsworth]

Hi Ron and All

 

As far as I’m concerned, you’re welcome to summarise NOAC meetings. I think people will realise it’s your own view.

 

Anyone who would like to be added to the NOAC-meetings google group please let me know. It means you’ll be invited to the fortnightly meetings, with links to recordings of the last two.

 

One contribution from the last meeting I’d like to highlight is an offer from Herb Simmens to present to his Congressman Raskin (who called for climate restoration four years ago) to present “budget language”. This was requested by the Congressman’s aide, in a recent meeting with Herb and Mike McCracken.

 

Herb: We would like consideration given for funding to test the TOA-EDARA technology proposed by Franz Oeste and me, which safely (by mimicry of tropospheric dust aerosol) addresses all the ‘oxidable super-pollutants’. These are: Methane, Tropospheric Ozone, Black Carbon Aerosol, Brown Carbon Aerosol, and Haloalkanes. In combination, these pollutants are producing over half of today’s total warming influence. Since the last three of them often end up in the stratosphere and lead to stratospheric ozone destruction, their removal from the troposphere by TOA-EDARA aerosol would also help to protect the ozone layer.

 

Clive

--
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 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CAPhUB9Akk1t36bEeKQucsSw34udVsLKSQ_YVrFcxiH2sDpSmbg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Clive.

When I read this after I had posted it, I realized that (apart from the many typos, parentheses, and other language issues - unfortunately typical for my early drafts!), is probably best thought of as my opinions, interspersed with, and/or based-on or added-to, those of participants at the meeting, so I think it was good that I didn't attempt personal attribution!

Best,

Ron

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/008c01d9539d%2498a659f0%24c9f30dd0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Ye Tao]

A healthy regular dose of carbon capture propaganda and green washing, courtesy of the BBC.  Sorry, no technical details provided for you nerds... As usual, only dates and Gtons numbers thrown around without justification and exactly zero evidence of feasibility.  

I suppose the report could be referring to a recent article I remember (forgot where exactly) about degasing CO2 out at low pressure after acidification, and neutralization before water release.  Anyways, whoever proposing this probably has not gotten their hands dirty worked with vacuum pumps and distillation systems, or read their power consumption specs.

Hope everyone is enjoying their weekend.

Ye

[Robert Chris]

Sorry I missed last Monday's NOAC meeting.  I was at the theatre for a superb production of Medea.  One of my favourite plays.  I have been wracking my brains to discern a climate change link to the play but so far it has defeated me.  But the original play, although not this version, has a deus ex machina that extracts Medea from certain death after her heinous acts of revenge.  That's what we need to rescue us from climate change - a deus ex machina.

Attached is a rather lengthy note (almost 4 pages) I have prepared having twice watched the recording of the meeting.  I think it was a excellent discussion that touched on a range of really key questions.  I hope that my quiet reflection on everyone's contributions will be helpful.

The attached poster is referenced in the other attachment.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9CyU6iB88wBu7S9xJq6ZEF4qSwxy6AF-4EUtj8AtV3Etg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H simmens]

Hi Robert,

I find little to question or disagree with in your well argued AE Research or Deploy paper. 

It’s quite instructive to examine the “international non-use agreement “ - see below - paper. The authors - who are largely governance academics - totally bypass the risk - risk framing, implicitly treating decarbonization almost axiomatically as sufficient to address the climate crisis. Responding to the paper thus requires a vigorous and well sourced argument that the risks of relying on ERA - emission reductions alone - are unacceptably high by any standard of risk analysis, or moral reasoning. 

They focus on governance impossibility as the primary argument for demanding a worldwide ban on development activities, outdoor testing, and of course deployment. (They also make the now obligatory moral hazard argument.) It’s not surprising of course, that they would focus primarily on the challenges of governance, because as the saying goes if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.  

Can anyone provide a paper or papers that attempts to describe in detail how a planetary direct climate cooling - that’s my preferred term - governing regime could be instituted? I have yet to come across one though I haven’t systematically searched the literature. 

My somewhat flip response when someone attempts to argue that governance is an insurmountable issue is simply to assert that there’s been no international effort to date that has attempted to formulate a comprehensive governance agreement, so how do we know one can’t be achieved?

If the scholars who wrote that article were convinced that the risk of proceeding without cooling is too high, one would hope (naively?) that their analysis would shift from arguing for the impossibility of governance to rapidly exploring opportunities to create a viable governance structure. 

Finally, I would note that non-use appears to focus exclusively on endeavors of planetary scale, thus exempting the many approaches including MCB and MEER that are designed to operate at the local or regional scale. 

“a non-use agreement could provide for exceptions to reflect the considerable and important differences between technologies for solar geoengineering in terms of scale, aim and geopolitical risks, for example by allowing the use of localized surface albedo-related technologies.”

It would be interesting to reach out to the authors to see if they would be willing to sign a statement that proactively called for appropriately scaled solar geoengineering research, development and field testing. 

Herb

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you for this Robert!  I was hoping to stimulate just such a broader discussion and you have taken up the challenge. I dare say you probably didn't need much encouragement from me. Just an awareness that a discussion, that it appears you have been engaged in with Shaun and others  for a long time, had taken place at the NOAC meeting was enough!

Per the similar (though much less elegantly argued points) in my initial post, I wholeheartedly agree in principle with our comments. I think your parsing of the two opposing interpretations of the precautionary is particularly constructive and helpful.  And I think that this agreement in principle is really all that is essential and important for all "direct climate cooling" (DCC) advocates to agree on, to motivate us individually and collectively do everything we can, depending on our abilities, positions, and any other strategic assets that we may possess, to try to move global DCC forward as quickly as possible.  I think we all agree that this is "an all hands on deck" moment, i.e. that we have very limited time to urgently implement global climate cooling to prevent the collapse of human civilization as we know it as you have stated.

I think this discussion is immensely useful, and in spirit of further honing down and clarifying what we mean by DCC and how it might be quickly and effectively implemented,  I offer (per my initial post) the following mostly overlapping but in some respects somewhat different perspective on some of these points:

a) You have defined deployment as "acting at scale with the immediate intention of delivering climatic impacts". But in some cases (as with Make Sunsets), there is an "intention to deliver climate impacts" but the precise actions that have been taken are physically "de minimis" in the sense that they have significant effect on climate cooling, but, I think, are politically quite important in furthering the cause of DCC.  In this regard, as I've stated above, I think it's important to have a broad political and activist perspective on the change in social thinking and action that we're trying to engender, and understand that all of us are working within different institutional and personal constraints.

b) This leads me to frame the two approaches that you define ( a) "that there should be a commitment to deployment and its operationational precursors should be start to be put in place whilst the necessary research to optimize the technologies was undertaken in parallel", and b) "here should be no commitment to deployment of AE until research has shown that it is acceptably safe") as both stipulating a false dichotomy between research and deployment.

c) A third, and I believe more realistic, approach is not necessarily to commit to (large scale) deployment of a (high-leverage high-risk) DCC method, but, for methods that don't pose any significant harm from small (de-minimis) "deployment" like SAI, or not so "de minimis" pilot deployments of MCB now being done in the Great Barrier Reef) engage in small scale "piloting" and gradual increases in scale, or not, depending on constant evaluation and monitoring of the results. The point is not that laboratory and modeling research should stop, but that it appears to me that, at least in the cases above, the line between research and implementation is not hard and fast, and indeed needs to be breached for realistic real-world testing of a non-controlled laboratory variety that is more common in the social sciences.  Related to this a second false dichotomy regarding "global deployment or not" that I find is used in most discussions of SAI.

d) Finally, I'd like to reiterate that there are many other DCC methods besides SRM, or AE or even "short wave" focused approaches (see cooling document link in my comments above) and that, particularly given the latest two "pipeline" papers (again see links in my comments above) on potential long-term global warming due to legacy heat in the oceans, we need to urgently explore ocean cooling "from below" as well as methods to enhance water cycle evapotranspiration and convection, and possible other methods. It is in my view past-due time to open the DCC discussion to explore all possible options, many of which  are low-risk so that they could be evaluated now, and some with potential direct economic benefits that could be both locally and globally important. I think we all understand that it would be foolish to place all of our bets on any one, or even any one group of (SRM or AE or other) DCC methods.

I  hope this has fewer typos and language problems than my initial post!

Best,

Ron

 

 

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/bb585f93-675a-f08a-f0ec-8fe24bc900e8%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ron Baiman]

Ugh!  Two important typos in my most recent post:

In a) *they don’t have significant impact*

In d). *can be implemented now*

Apologies!

Best,

Ron

[Clive Elsworth]

Hi Robert and All

 

Thank you - that is an excellent assessment of the Albedo Enhancement policy situation, which as you say was hotly debated in Monday’s NOAC meeting.

 

The recording of that meeting is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAPObMAXW70&t=796s  It can be shared with trusted colleagues. Please do not post it publicly, e.g. to a website or social media. (I’m assessing risk/risk here.)

 

Here’s a link to your treatise (a couple minor typos fixed): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z2XizQ-oKbCQr1wabtNg-fgWwMPCvmnp/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=114954647783797253223&rtpof=true&sd=true

 

And your poster: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RA9G7WQpclmpCfu3X9XakWwNxO-PYa1i/view?usp=share_link

 

 

Something we haven’t discussed yet is Arctic Haze: https://www.earth.com/earthpedia-articles/arctic-haze/  Peter Wadhams has seen the effect of sedimenting black carbon on Greenland’s ice, and describes it as “like mud”. It’s no wonder the ice is melting so fast there.

 

In the meeting we also discussed the low angle of the sun during Arctic summers, making it a “thick atmosphere” for the sun’s radiation to get through. It strikes me that with high concentrations of black carbon aerosol in the Arctic troposphere especially during the spring (see link above), again it’s no wonder the Arctic is warming so fast.

 

If I may, the most recent TOA-EDARA proposal from Franz and me is highly photosensitive, therefore even in high latitudes it can significantly enhance the oxidative capacity of the troposphere. One of the effects is to turn black carbon aerosol from hydrophobic to hydrophilic, making it more easily rained out. So, perhaps TOA-EDARA applied to polluted air over the ocean (and perhaps remote areas of tundra) before it reaches the Arctic and Greenland could go some way to lowering those temperatures. That is the kind of research we would like to see carried out.

 

Clive

--

[Ron Baiman]

Ugh! Two important typos in my most recent post:
In a) *they don’t have significant impact*
In d). *can be implemented now*
Apologies!
Best,
Ron

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 12, 2023, at 7:19 PM, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

[Sev Clarke]

Using my Ice Shields concept, with the wind turbines anchored in shallow Arctic waters, and their summertime power used to sublimate ISA nanoparticulates from masts surmounting each turbine nacelle or satellite pumping station; and at the same time to brighten marine cloud with seawater-based CCNs at lower levels would seem to be a better way of both ensuring strong, regional AE and of destroying airborne pollutants such as haze, black carbon, PFAS, and methane as it is emitted. The additional snow generated by the Ice Shields operation in winter should be enough to bury previously blackened snow such that it ’never’ is exposed to strong sunlight.

Sev 

On 13 Mar 2023, at 9:55 pm, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk> wrote:

Hi Robert and All

 

Thank you - that is an excellent assessment of the Albedo Enhancement policy situation, which as you say was hotly debated in Monday’s NOAC meeting.

 

The recording of that meeting is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAPObMAXW70&t=796s  It can be shared with trusted colleagues. Please do not post it publicly, e.g. to a website or social media. (I’m assessing risk/risk here.)

 

Here’s a link to your treatise (a couple minor typos fixed): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z2XizQ-oKbCQr1wabtNg-fgWwMPCvmnp/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=114954647783797253223&rtpof=true&sd=true

 

And your poster: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RA9G7WQpclmpCfu3X9XakWwNxO-PYa1i/view?usp=share_link

 

 

Something we haven’t discussed yet is Arctic Haze: https://www.earth.com/earthpedia-articles/arctic-haze/  Peter Wadhams has seen the effect of sedimenting black carbon on Greenland’s ice, and describes it as “like mud”. It’s no wonder the ice is melting so fast there.

 

In the meeting we also discussed the low angle of the sun during Arctic summers, making it a “thick atmosphere” for the sun’s radiation to get through. It strikes me that with high concentrations of black carbon aerosol in the Arctic troposphere especially during the spring (see link above), again it’s no wonder the Arctic is warming so fast. 

 

If I may, the most recent TOA-EDARA proposal from Franz and me is highly photosensitive, therefore even in high latitudes it can significantly enhance the oxidative capacity of the troposphere. One of the effects is to turn black carbon aerosol from hydrophobic to hydrophilic, making it more easily rained out. So, perhaps TOA-EDARA applied to polluted air over the ocean (and perhaps remote areas of tundra) before it reaches the Arcticand Greenland could go some way to lowering those temperatures. That is the kind of research we would like to see carried out.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/053701d9559a%24540c5840%24fc2508c0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.