PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

Our fortnightly meeting is next Monday, 31st July, at 9 pm UK time.  Robert T will send us the zoom link.  All are welcome.

I've not come across any burning issues for discussion at the meeting, so suggestions are welcome.  However, at last someone in authority, namely the UN Secretary General, Guterres, has declared that we are facing extremely dangerous climate change.  This has never been acknowledged by IPCC, who are supposed to be preventing dangerous climate change: it is in their terms of reference.  How should we react?  How can we take advantage of this turn of events?  On another thread ("Radical thinking") I posited this:

As a society "we" have indeed failed, because we've relied on the IPCC and their emissions reduction only strategy.  We have believed that geoengineering was intrinsically dangerous and not worth the risk.  We have believed that global warming and sea level rise could be kept within reasonably safe limits, so geoengineering was not necessary.  We have been told that keeping below 1.5C was desirable to prevent the activation of tipping points, yet IPCC kept quiet about tipping points having already been activated.  We have been lulled into a false sense of security.  The fossil fuel industry must be partly to blame: they wanted to maintain the status quo, and this is what they have done remarkably successfully, leaning on governments when necessary.  Human nature also comes into it, with wishful thinking superseding rational argument.

So now "we", as a group of individuals in PRAG and HPAC, have some messages to get across to society:

• global warming is much more dangerous than had been realised;
• global warming and climate change could be reversed with a determined effort;
• reversal may take time and may not be entirely successful, so society will still have to prepare for continued warming, climate change and sea level rise, together with the disruption that these will cause (as Robert points out).
  

This reversal involves geoengineering, hitherto widely considered as a last resort.  But the required geoengineering techniques are essentially benign and their cooling effects have all round benefits for ecosystems as well as humanity (at least I believe that is true for mid to high latitude SAI).

BTW, the deadline for submissions for AGU 2023 is next Tuesday I believe.  I am wondering whether to submit a risk analysis to compare geoengineering with not geoengineering; but time is short and I don't feel inspired.  As usual there is a session at the AGU on climate intervention, with a request for submissions.  Monica might have suggestions.

Cheers, John

[Monica Morrison]

Hi John,

Thanks for including me in your email list. I am glad to receive updates from your efforts. I will try to join on Monday but recently began a new job and am already behind on a couple of deadlines. 

I think you should submit to our session. For the abstract I don't think there is a need to have something long and formal. You are welcome to send me some text for the abstract and I can take a look at it to help prepare it for submission. 

I am pretty inspired to have as many people from as many backgrounds, disciplinary perspectives, experiential standpoints, cultures, etc. to join this conversation. I think that having a community focused on responding to the challenge is the way we get traction and attention, and move things forward so the worst possibilities for the future aren't realized. And we appreciate having you as part of this conversation. 

Best,

Monica 

--

Dr. Monica Ainhorn Morrison

Philosophy PhD | Program Specialist III: Scientific Convergence Manager 

Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory | National Center for Atmospheric Research

Boulder County sits upon the traditional territories of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Ute Nations.

[John Nissen]

Hi Monica,

 

I have an idea for an abstract for AGU 2023 as follows (283 words) with the title heading “Reducing extremes of heat and flooding in the Northern Hemisphere”:

 

We argue that the observed trend towards ever more extreme heat and flood events in the Northern Hemisphere is due to a combination of an increasingly immobile polar jet stream with the rise in global temperature and humidity.  This trend affects economies, health and food production, and, without intervention, could lead to widespread conflict, famine and mass migration.

 

While attribution of extremes to global warming is now generally accepted, there seems to be hesitancy to combine that attribution with the sticking jet stream phenomenon.  The tendency for the jet stream to get stuck for longer periods is arguably due to the reduced energy for the eastward movement of the Rossby wave as the Arctic-to-tropics temperature gradient reduces.  The Arctic has been warming at about four times the speed of global warming since 1980, which also saw the beginning of an exponential decline in sea ice volume.  The albedo positive feedback as snow and sea ice retreat has led to the Arctic amplification of global warming. This suggests that cooling and refreezing the Arctic would have an excellent chance of reducing extremes of weather in the Northern Hemisphere.  It would also slow sea level rise from ice sheet meltwater and reduce the methane emissions from thawing permafrost.

 

The cooling sufficient to refreeze the Arctic could be produced by SO2 injection into the stratosphere from locations between 40N and 60N.  The lifetime of SO2 injected at such latitudes would be only a few months due to the Brewer-Dobson circulation; therefore if there were any serious adverse effects, the deployment could be stopped relatively quickly.  Other less controversial methods of cooling the Arctic will also be considered, with estimates of their cooling power, relative advantages and drawbacks.

 

Cheers, John

 

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89101098507?pwd=TlhaVFgvR2RKbk1HRU1wd254cXBSZz09 

9pm Monday UK = 1pm Pacific = 6am Tuesday AEST Australia

 

Recording of last meeting: https://youtu.be/gHxc1w73UvU

 

Regards

Robert Tulip

[Stephen Salter]

John

You write below that the required geoengineering techniques are essentially benign . . . . at least for mid to high latitude stratospheric aerosol. This could imply to our semi-technical leaders  that tropospheric sea salt was not benign. Is this what you intended?

Stephen

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: 31 July 2023 06:22
To: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Monica Morrison' <moni...@ucar.edu>
Subject: RE: PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

--
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/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[Douglas Grandt]

John and Robert et al.

I was on holiday at the time of the July 17 PRAG zoom and just now have watched the recording. I would like to rebut incorrect statements and misunderstandings.

(BTW, my circadian cycle is way off due to having contracted a debilitating flu 11 days ago and now being treated for pneumonia.)

My concerns regarding dispersal drone operations were misrepresented, and I hope there will be time today’s PRAG zoom to go over them and make some important decisions in that regard.

The following July 3rd email in response to Rebecca’s recap of the MCB Soros funding zoom meeting clearly stated my concerns were operations-related, not in any way related to dispersal drone “design flaws.”

Some time before July 3rd (and multiple occasions since), I expressed concerns that a service vessel would have difficulty transferring crew onto a drone on the high seas, and suggested that an operating plan be researched and put to the test in what naval architects refer to as a “tank test”—and “sea trials” I would now add.

The assumption seems to be that the autonomous drone vessels will operate flawlessly in perpetuity—no need to access for servicing, maintenance and repairs.

Ironically, Stephen has quipped that the Royal Navy could use disabled drones for target practice.

On multiple occasions, Robert has quashed discussion on the need for operation plan research and testing priority equal to nozzle research, initially in either an email or a version of the “pitch deck,” and most recently as a verbal pronouncement and again in this July 17 PRAG recording.

On this, we disagree, and I believe it is in the best interest of Stephen’s successful and expeditious deployment that both aspects be given equal urgent priority. 

What would George Soros demand?

Best regards,

Doug

Responding to Robert at 1:02:18

Responding to Stephen at 1:03:23 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Date: July 3, 2023 at 2:16:12 PM EDT
To: Rebecca Bishop <rebe...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>, Brian von Herzen <br...@climatefoundation.org>, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>, Alan Gadian <ala...@gmail.com>, Daniel Kieve <dki...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MCB Draft Investment Proposal

Rebs,

No, sorry to say you missed the points, and I am not sure how the final paragraph pertaining to "the extra $US2m is for planning of logistics & monitoring” is attributable as “one of my main issues.”  It sounds like a good idea, but I have not suggested it.

My main issues are the apparent lack of documentation of an operating plan, as well as contingency plans for repairman crew to access vessels for maintenance, repairs to wayward, rogue, malfunctioning, damaged and capsized vessels, and consideration for scuttling irretrievable drones.  Until Stephen’s vision is  explained, I cannot see how a rescue vessel and crew would tend to drones in distress on the high seas.  

To me, these considerations are equal to or exceed nozzle design research priority.  Robert has summarily rejected my perspective as you know.

Cheers,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

=============================

On Jul 31, 2023, at 1:22 AM, Rob...@rtulip.net wrote:



--
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/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

If you put Flowcopter into Google you will get information about high payload drones being developed by one of my former students, Uwe Stein, that may be relevant. To get a sufficiently high frequency control system with Diesel power they use the same digital hydraulics technology as the spray vessels use for spray generation.  They will be sharing lab space and a machine shop with Ocean Cooling Technology Ltd.

 

Stephen Salter

Ocean Cooling Technology Ltd.

Unit 3 Edgefield Industrial Estate

EH20 9TB

Scotland

S.Sa...@oceancooling.org

0131 662 1180

 

 

 

 

From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 31 July 2023 10:53
To: Rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Monica Morrison <moni...@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

John and Robert et al.

1.       global warming is much more dangerous than had been realised;

2.       global warming and climate change could be reversed with a determined effort;

3.       reversal may take time and may not be entirely successful, so society will still have to prepare for continued warming, climate change and sea level rise, together with the disruption that these will cause (as Robert points out).

This reversal involves geoengineering, hitherto widely considered as a last resort.  But the required geoengineering techniques are essentially benign and their cooling effects have all round benefits for ecosystems as well as humanity (at least I believe that is true for mid to high latitude SAI).

 

BTW, the deadline for submissions for AGU 2023 is next Tuesday I believe.  I am wondering whether to submit a risk analysis to compare geoengineering with not geoengineering; but time is short and I don't feel inspired.  As usual there is a session at the AGU on climate intervention, with a request for submissions.  Monica might have suggestions.

 

Cheers, John

 

 

 

--
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/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3F2E6C5B-E273-4A69-839C-117F48D0396D%40mac.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Nissen]

Hi Stephen,

No.  I did not mean to imply that other techniques such as MCB might not be benign.  I think I had better mention MCB and sea ice thickening explicitly.

Cheers, John

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/PAXPR05MB80480209D25D36CF184CB9D0A705A%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[daleanne bourjaily]

Here is Walter Jehne's view on the water cycle and albedo.

Regards,

Dale Anne

Op ma 31 jul. 2023 13:06 schreef John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>:

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/CACS_Fxq-xUnbwr0%3DWCbug8gTMpGb_YT2oCc5eVjMQgSMUYY9EQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Doug

 

Thanks for raising your concerns.  Your suggestion to seek funding to research MCB delivery technology at the same time as research for aerosol generation makes a lot of sense.  If we were confident of raising the funds easily I would completely support you.  The problem is that we are still not sure that we can generate submicron monodisperse salt water spray mist at scale.  That is a vital proof of concept requirement for the feasibility of MCB that has to be established as an initial step along the critical engineering path.  If it is successful I am sure follow up funds will be found to design delivery methods.   There could be a whole series of intermediate steps before Stephen Salter’s autonomous spray vessel design can be tested.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip  

 

 

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

Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:53 PM
To: Rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>

Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Monica Morrison <moni...@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

 

John and Robert et al.

 

I was on holiday at the time of the July 17 PRAG zoom and just now have watched the recording. I would like to rebut incorrect statements and misunderstandings.

 

(BTW, my circadian cycle is way off due to having contracted a debilitating flu 11 days ago and now being treated for pneumonia.)

 

My concerns regarding dispersal drone operations were misrepresented, and I hope there will be time today’s PRAG zoom to go over them and make some important decisions in that regard.

 

The following July 3rd email in response to Rebecca’s recap of the MCB Soros funding zoom meeting clearly stated my concerns were operations-related, not in any way related to dispersal drone “design flaws.”

 

Some time before July 3rd (and multiple occasions since), I expressed concerns that a service vessel would have difficulty transferring crew onto a drone on the high seas, and suggested that an operating plan be researched and put to the test in what naval architects refer to as a “tank test”—and “sea trials” I would now add.

 

The assumption seems to be that the autonomous drone vessels will operate flawlessly in perpetuity—no need to access for servicing, maintenance and repairs.

 

Ironically, Stephen has quipped that the Royal Navy could use disabled drones for target practice.

 

On multiple occasions, Robert has quashed discussion on the need for operation plan research and testing priority equal to nozzle research, initially in either an email or a version of the “pitch deck,” and most recently as a verbal pronouncement and again in this July 17 PRAG recording.

 

On this, we disagree, and I believe it is in the best interest of Stephen’s successful and expeditious deployment that both aspects be given equal urgent priority. 

 

What would George Soros demand?

 

Best regards,

Doug

 

Responding to Robert at 1:02:18

Responding to Stephen at 1:03:23 

 

1.       global warming is much more dangerous than had been realised;

2.       global warming and climate change could be reversed with a determined effort;

3.       reversal may take time and may not be entirely successful, so society will still have to prepare for continued warming, climate change and sea level rise, together with the disruption that these will cause (as Robert points out).

This reversal involves geoengineering, hitherto widely considered as a last resort.  But the required geoengineering techniques are essentially benign and their cooling effects have all round benefits for ecosystems as well as humanity (at least I believe that is true for mid to high latitude SAI).

 

BTW, the deadline for submissions for AGU 2023 is next Tuesday I believe.  I am wondering whether to submit a risk analysis to compare geoengineering with not geoengineering; but time is short and I don't feel inspired.  As usual there is a session at the AGU on climate intervention, with a request for submissions.  Monica might have suggestions.

 

Cheers, John

 

 

 

--
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/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3F2E6C5B-E273-4A69-839C-117F48D0396D%40mac.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

Robert, 

You wrote:

 Your suggestion to seek funding to research MCB delivery technology at the same time as research for aerosol generation …

That is not true.  This is my concern:

My main issues are the apparent lack of documentation of an operating plan, as well as contingency plans for repairman crew to access vessels for maintenance, repairs to wayward, rogue, malfunctioning, damaged and capsized vessels, and consideration for scuttling irretrievable drones.  Until Stephen’s vision is  explained, I cannot see how a rescue vessel and crew would tend to drones in distress on the high seas. 

To me, these considerations are equal to or exceed nozzle design research priority. 

No mention of Soros’ funding of nozzle or drone technology or construction of a prototype or beta test fleet.

When Rebecca engaged me in daily WhatsApp conversations aimed at soliciting Soros to fund £26million, it was for island-based ISO ocean containerized units and extensive scientific satellite observation to verify the MCB validity and effectiveness once CCR’s and Stephen’s perfection of nozzle and filtration.

No intention of requesting Soros’ financial support until completion of those tasks.

During one of those WhatsApp calls, I expressed concern as to whether the drones could be brought alongside a service vessel for maintenance and repair—it seemed to be a potential show stopper.

How could we dare approach Soros for £26million without having the slightest clue whether such operational challenges and conundrums at least explained to us by Stephen. 

That was when you were heading to Edinburgh and I expressed to Rebecca my expectation you would come away with answers. 

Later, I asked Stephen myself and failed to glean how he envisioned servicing malfunctioning and damaged vessels.

My request has simply been to ponder—not to seek funding—real life scenarios on the high seas that would give Soros confidence that £26million would be well spent on a well-thought operation.  I certainly expect Soros—any critical thinking investor for that matter—to ask tough questions, and to expect convincing answers.

So sorry for your misunderstanding.

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Jul 31, 2023, at 9:25 AM, Rob...@rtulip.net wrote:



Hi Doug

 

Thanks for raising your concerns.  Your suggestion to seek funding to research MCB delivery technology at the same time as research for aerosol generation makes a lot of sense.  If we were confident of raising the funds easily I would completely support you.  The problem is that we are still not sure that we can generate submicron monodisperse salt water spray mist at scale.  That is a vital proof of concept requirement for the feasibility of MCB that has to be established as an initial step along the critical engineering path.  If it is successful I am sure follow up funds will be found to design delivery methods.   There could be a whole series of intermediate steps before Stephen Salter’s autonomous spray vessel design can be tested.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip  

 

 

From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:53 PM
To: Rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Monica Morrison <moni...@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: PRAG meeting, Monday 31st July, 9 pm UK time

 

John and Robert et al.

 

I was on holiday at the time of the July 17 PRAG zoom and just now have watched the recording. I would like to rebut incorrect statements and misunderstandings.

 

(BTW, my circadian cycle is way off due to having contracted a debilitating flu 11 days ago and now being treated for pneumonia.)

 

My concerns regarding dispersal drone operations were misrepresented, and I hope there will be time today’s PRAG zoom to go over them and make some important decisions in that regard.

 

The following July 3rd email in response to Rebecca’s recap of the MCB Soros funding zoom meeting clearly stated my concerns were operations-related, not in any way related to dispersal drone “design flaws.”

 

Some time before July 3rd (and multiple occasions since), I expressed concerns that a service vessel would have difficulty transferring crew onto a drone on the high seas, and suggested that an operating plan be researched and put to the test in what naval architects refer to as a “tank test”—and “sea trials” I would now add.

 

The assumption seems to be that the autonomous drone vessels will operate flawlessly in perpetuity—no need to access for servicing, maintenance and repairs.

 

Ironically, Stephen has quipped that the Royal Navy could use disabled drones for target practice.

 

On multiple occasions, Robert has quashed discussion on the need for operation plan research and testing priority equal to nozzle research, initially in either an email or a version of the “pitch deck,” and most recently as a verbal pronouncement and again in this July 17 PRAG recording.

 

On this, we disagree, and I believe it is in the best interest of Stephen’s successful and expeditious deployment that both aspects be given equal urgent priority. 

 

What would George Soros demand?

 

Best regards,

Doug

 

Responding to Robert at 1:02:18

Responding to Stephen at 1:03:23 

 

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

Here are some topics which we might discuss at the meeting later today.

Dangerous climate change

"The era of global boiling has arrived and it is terrifying".  How true.  Average temperatures are rising precipitously globally as well as in the Arctic.  Tipping processes have no chance of halting, let alone reversing, without extremely rapid intervention.  That has to be our plea to leaders.  The emissions reduction strategy has failed dismally to avoid the immediate crisis now confronting us.

Yet the 1.5C Paris target is still being discussed as if it were possible to keep global warming below this temperature.  So there is still huge denial of what is happening in front of our eyes.  The only hope of keeping to 1.5C is through cooling intervention, yet this is never mentioned by scientists in the media.  Net zero is insufficient, yet the MCB intervention suggested by Shaun in "The Briefing Room" on BBC Radio 4 [1] wasn't picked up by the presenter as being relevant for the current crisis.

Stratospheric aerosol injection

SAi is the obvious candidate for cooling, since it could be rapidly deployed at comparatively low cost and it is scalable.  So why the hesitation?

I did a google search on pro-geoengineering and all the articles I was given were about scientists against it.  Then when I did a search on stratospheric aerosol injection, I was shocked to receive a definitive message that SAI is extremely dangerous: no ifs or buts.  Thus if the public do any research they will have the idea cemented that this is the case.  Yet my own research suggests that actually SAI is essentially benign.  There has been every possible downside suggested since SAI was first mooted by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Laureate in chemistry; but only a couple of downsides stand up to any scrutiny.  These known downsides are negligible compared to the positive effect of cooling to avert major global catastrophe.  Unknown unknowns can be dealt with by halting SAI deployment if and when they appear.  For SAI between 40 and 60 degrees latitude (north or south), the aerosol has a lifetime of a few months.  

The general public looks to scientists to be responsible about identifying risks, but scientists have let down the public by failing to establish the essentially benign nature of stratospheric aerosol injection, especially at mid to high latitude.

Estimating SO2 cooling

One of the actions from the last meeting was to ponder the unexpectedly sudden global warming.  There hasn't been a sudden increase in CO2 or methane, but there might have been a quite sudden decline in SO2.  Hansen says that the effect of SO2 has been underestimated by IPCC.  

Undoubtedly some of SO2's cooling effect is from cloud brightening.  Twomey noted satellite images of tracks of cloud banks where ships had been.  Satellites can now quantify albedo change.  The effect of tropospheric SO2 could be estimated by having tanks of different grade fuel in ships, and switching to low grade for defined periods of a ship's voyage. If satellite images show this up, the cooling effect could be estimated, both from increased cloud and from increased brightness of existing cloud above the ship's path.  This would be a good test to do before embarking on MCB using saltwater spray.  

A similar experiment could be performed for SO2 in the stratosphere.  Aircraft could switch tanks to lower grade fuel for periods of their flight through the stratosphere at high latitudes.  Observations from satellites could show whether the contrails from lower grade fuel were brighter or longer lasting.  If so, the cooling effect could be estimated.

Wildfires

Another reason for unexpectedly sudden global warming could be from wildfires.  Do we have any research on this?  Whether or not, wildfires have become an increasing menace especially in tundra because of the blackening of snow and ice caused.  A rapid-response international firefighting force could be set up, akin to the task-forces for dealing with earthquakes.

Cheers, John

[1] The Briefing Room: can we meet the net zero challenge?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001p20w

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Further to the arguments at yesterday’s meeting I wish to make it clear that rather than attacking stratospheric aerosol I am trying to defend marine cloud brightening against the attacks made by John Nissen.

 

It is important to understand Brewer Dobson. The descent of aerosol from the stratosphere is not like the movement of a block of train passengers as they  arrive at rail terminus. It is more like the movement of pedestrians after they leave it. A single spot value can be calculated  but there is a spread to either side .

 

The paper by Flury at https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/4563/2013/   explains how the Brewer Dobson velocity is measured. The movement of air from high over the equator has randomly variable amounts of water vapour and other species.  You could think of this as different colours and weights of a line of road vehicles.  If they are moving past road-works with no overtaking, the random pattern could act like a morse-code signal.   If we later detected the same pattern further down the road we could calculate the speed of the vehicle group.  The signal-to-noise ratio of the estimate would steadily reduce past the road works if vehicles are allowed to overtake one another.

 

The patterns of variability of humidity in the stratosphere will lose their detectability when the air moves into the troposphere. But just because we cannot measure the velocity does not mean that it is zero. For every molecule that comes north, one will go south. Reflective material that the air contains will fall downwards with the still-air Stokes velocity and southwards with the remaining but not easily measured Brewer Dobson velocity and sometimes further combined with very much higher random turbulence velocities in all directions if it goes near the jet stream. If the vertical components are small, quite a lot of material will go in the opposite direction and some round the circuit again.

 

If the Flury et al. figure of 1.15 metres per second for the horizontal north-going component applies to the south-going part, the round trip period over the full pole-to-equator-to-pole distance is 0.55 years. The paper does not give a figure for the descent at the polar end but if it is the same as the 0.2 mm per second ascent at the equator then the time to fall 12 km is nearly 2 years.  An interesting question is how CFCs, much of which are released into the bottom of the troposphere from air conditioning plant in hot places, can get up to the ozone layer of the Antarctic.

 

The loops in the Wikipedia figure below convey a gross distortion of the vertical to horizontal distances. It is more like two, very thin playing cards sliding against each other. What goes one way must eventually come back.

 

Knowing how much stratospheric aerosol will remain over the polar winter when it will reflect outgoing longwave radiation back down like a cloudy night is not an easy question but getting it wrong could be serious because it will stay wrong for many months or even a few years.  Jan-Egil Kristjansson showed that spray from marine cloud brightening in winter would do the same but it can be stopped with a single mouse click and will be completely forgotten in a few days. I much prefer driving without the steering locked.

 

The key figure from Flury is below showing that at the equator the vertical upwards velocity and may allow an estimate of what happens later. We might also get an insight by adding cream to coffee and stirring.

 

 

 

John’s criticism of marine cloud brightening would be stronger if he could provide references to the table below to contradict the ones I have given.

 

Nissen 1 May email pasting	Contradicting evidence	error
MCB would be used to cool the Atlantic and Pacific surface water flowing into the Arctic by brightening clouds over perhaps a maximum of 10% of the world's ocean.	Charlson and Lovelock at https://doi.org/10.1038/326655a0 write that low but not high clouds are found over 18% of the oceans. High clouds will reduce the Twomey effect but not to zero.	1.8
. . . solar radiation of 300 w	NASA data of solar input as a function of latitude and season shows > 450 watts per square metre.	1.5
Cloud albedo might be increased by 0.05 reflecting an extra 5%	Schwartz and Slingo showed that double the initial concentration of condensation nuclei increases reflection by 5.8% and that quadruple by 11.6% .  Quadruple is possible in clean regions.	1.16 To 2.32
Suppose suitable cloud cover for brightening is 20% and that it can be fully brightened for 50% of the time	From   Y. Liu et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 124 (2012) 159–173   give Arctic cloud fraction	4 x 2

 

All John’s  mistakes are in the same direction. The cumulative product is between 25 and 50.

 

Stephen

 

Ocean Cooling Technology Ltd.

Unit 3 Edgefield Industrial Estate

EH20 9TB

Scotland

S.Sa...@oceancooling.org

0131 662 1180

 

 

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[Tom Goreau]

You say presciently:

 

“We might also get an insight by adding cream to coffee and stirring”:

 

Photo 1937 by Fritz Goreau, coffee and cream after stirring, showing intricate vortex sheet mixing before homogenization.

 

These motions are not easy to model, especially on large scales!

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer

 

 

 

 

--

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/PAXPR05MB80489B50DE1D5C52487B1DA3A70AA%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[daleanne bourjaily]

Please see enclosed blog estimating practical limitatiins on renewables.

https://open.substack.com/pub/climatepodnotes/p/practical-limitations-on-renewables?r=16wat4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Op ma 31 jul. 2023 07:21 schreef <rob...@rtulip.net>:

--
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/055901d9c36e%24e78aea40%24b6a0bec0%24%40rtulip.net.

[John Nissen]

Hi Monica,

I am submitting on behalf of PRAG, hence the use of "we".

I can change the last sentence from:

"Other less controversial methods of cooling the Arctic will also be considered, with estimates of their cooling power, relative advantages and drawbacks"

to:

"We will consider other methods, such as marine cloud brightening and sea ice thickening, which could be deployed in parallel with stratospheric aerosol injection.  We will estimate their relative cooling power, advantages and drawbacks, including uncertainties."

and add:

"Successful refreezing of the Arctic is a prerequisite for restoring the planet to a safe, sustainable, biodiverse and productive state"

I aim to submit within the next hour or two.  I believe that changes may be made up to the end of 2nd August.

BTW, I see there is GC100 on SRM as well as your session, GCO28, on climate restoration more generally.

Cheers, John

Submitted text:

We argue that the observed trend towards ever more extreme heat and flood events in the Northern Hemisphere is due to a combination of an increasingly immobile polar jet stream with the rise in global temperature and humidity.  This trend affects economies, health and food production, and, without intervention, could lead to widespread conflict, famine and mass migration.

 

While attribution of extremes to global warming is now generally accepted, there seems to be hesitancy to combine that attribution with the sticking jet stream phenomenon.  The tendency for the jet stream to get stuck for longer periods is arguably due to the reduced energy for the eastward movement of the Rossby wave as the Arctic-to-tropics temperature gradient reduces.  The Arctic has been warming at about four times the speed of global warming since 1980, which also saw the beginning of an exponential decline in sea ice volume.  The albedo positive feedback as snow and sea ice retreat has led to the Arctic amplification of global warming. This suggests that cooling and refreezing the Arctic would have an excellent chance of reducing extremes of weather in the Northern Hemisphere.  It would also slow sea level rise from ice sheet meltwater and reduce the methane emissions from thawing permafrost.

 

The cooling sufficient to refreeze the Arctic could be produced by SO2 injection into the stratosphere from locations between 40N and 60N.  The lifetime of SO2 injected at such latitudes would be only a few months due to the Brewer-Dobson circulation; therefore if there were any serious adverse effects, the deployment could be stopped relatively quickly.  We will consider other methods, such as marine cloud brightening and sea ice thickening, which could be deployed in parallel with stratospheric aerosol injection.  We will estimate their relative cooling power, advantages and drawbacks, including uncertainties.

Successful refreezing of the Arctic is a prerequisite for restoring the planet to a safe, sustainable, biodiverse and productive state.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:57 AM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Monica,

Although SAI is likely to be powerful and safe enough for refreezing the Arctic, it is advisable to consider other techniques which could help in refreezing the Arctic, particularly if they can be deployed in parallel.  MCB and sea ice thickening are examples.  Our investigations so far indicate that neither of these could do the job on their own, though we think that any cooling of the Arctic and restoration of sea ice would have benefits.

Cheers, John

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:00 AM Monica Morrison <moni...@ucar.edu> wrote:

Hi John,

I think this is a very interesting abstract, and the only addition I might suggest is to say something about the associated sources of uncertainty for interventions that might be effective at reducing the climate change impacts to the Arctic. Either way though, we welcome this as a submission and point of discussion in the Climate Interventions session. 

Please let me know if there is anything else I can help with. 

Monica

P.S. I will unfortunately be absent at tomorrow's meeting as I am not where I need to be with respect to my new job's deadlines. Please keep me on future emails as I hope to be able to join another meeting of the group. Thank you.

[John Nissen]

It is now submitted.

They have my affiliation incorrect: John Nissen, Retired, Washington, DC, United States

Cheers, John

[Dana Woods]

Hello Everyone,

I'm relatively new to this group and have some basic procedural questions as to how this group functions, and some thoughts and comments about the above statement submitted to AGU :

What is the procedure for a statement , such as the one submitted to AGU, to be 1) written/formulated ? and 2) approved by the group ? There doesn't seem to be any "vote" for majority approval of something such as this and certainly not a consensus process

Also 1) what are the duties and privileges of the "president," currently John and 2) How were/are officers chosen ?

John, you're submitting a statement in the name of this group, which so far as I've observed in my time so far in the group (reading a lot of emails and having watched the meeting before last) many to most people in this group, including people who attended the meeting aforementioned , don't agree with !!- ie the last paragraph, in that many people in this group, with the  limited understanding , study (and no field testing) of various technologies , including SAI with either sulfates or calcium carbonate ,so far at least , do not favor or approve of SAI.

Also, I don't think that there's any consensus or much agreement here , that this group is capable of adequately studying , least of all on its own , any SRM technology such that we would know and agree upon its effects, including its cooling ability or degree , and certainly not to be able to ask for funding of deployment.  

How is it that you have the right to falsely speak for people who don't agree with you ? On a more personal note, how are you able  oncsionably able to do that

Dana Woods

[Dana Woods]

Pardon, typo, the last word above was meant to be "conscionably"

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:06 PM Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:

sorry typo I mean to say "consionably" ie with good conscience 

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 7:53 PM Anton Alferness <an...@paradigmclimate.com> wrote:

My apologies, what does oncsionably mean?

--

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/af8ae894-c8b1-44b9-a2ae-a86f2dc26365n%40googlegroups.com.

[Dana Woods]

ie the last misspelled word above

Anyone could , if you would be so kind, answer my questions about offices and procedures, such as approving a statement to another group or org. They seem to me to be pretty reasonable , basic and important questions. Also does there happen to be a mission statement? Bylaws?

Is this group Democratic or is it not and of so by what processes?

By the way, I'm not opposed to SAI but I'm not in favor of it either, using either sulfates or calcium carbonate , or doing it everywhere or sub-polarly, without further study and field testing , and the same with any SRM

It seems to me like the main goal of this group, at least at this point , should be to get SRM studied and field tested more comprehensively. That in itself is a huge hurdle

No remotely democratic or responsible government , nor any wealthy person with their head on straight is going to fund implementation of any SRM without further study and field testing

I'm a US citizen and, for example the US congress , or some part of it, mandated a report from the Biden Administration about it's intention to study SRM . On the other hand from what I've read , Biden isn't pushing for that to happen at this time and, as well , apparently many Congresspeople don't even know what SRM is or about the report (how that happens I have no idea) Senator Markey even proposed a law to make its study illegal (I guess most of you know the Un passed a resolution to make its study illegal. I;d really like to know which countries voted which way)

So Americans should be writing to the Biden Admin and asking it to immediately promote it to Congress (and explain why that's essential) As well we should write out Senators and Congresspeople (and any extra lawmakers we may want to communicate with, in my case Bernie Sanders is one) to fund and promote its study and citizens of other countries should be doing the same

One of people's greatest fears about SRM is that it will be implemented without sufficient study or without all of their question answered

I personally am very aware of the late "hour" we're in so far as horrific and even human (and other life) extinction causing tipping points likely to happen at any time now and I'm frustrated, angry (and anxious at times ) that there''s any hesitance to study SRM and some other types of geoengineering. That really should have been done by now but since it hasn't all I see that we can do it to push for its EXPEDITED study and funding of such study and explain WHY we think it's THE priority so far as addressing the climate hell , soon to be the climate apocalypse

So far as this group determining the radiative forcing of any SRM under any conditions I have my serious doubts, in part because for over a week now John continues to avoid responding to  Stephen Salter about the facts Stephen presented about MCB at least a week ago now. Also, that seems like something that should be in a respected peer-reviewed journal , though. *IF* John and Stephen and anyone else with an SRM that want to promote could genuinely work together I can see how it might be helpful *within this group*

Thanks for hearing me out (and I hope someone answers my basic questions about the group and its governance)

~ Dana

[daleanne bourjaily]

Hello all, 

I agree, it is incorrect to speak for a group without it's approval.  The goal should be to establish the conditions for regulated field trials and to exchange ideas and resources.  Any statements should be à titre personnel.

Regards,

Dale Anne

Op wo 2 aug. 2023 01:40 schreef Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com>:

--

[Douglas Grandt]

Dear Dana and Dale Anne,

John is en route to the wilds of Wales off-line for several days and has asked me to post the following on his behalf:

Dana, what you may not know is that I have presented papers to the AGU on behalf of PRAG before and check with the group before I make the final submission for presentation.

PRAG's mission is for planetary restoration and PRAG has agreed on the need to refreeze the Arctic as well as the need for cooling intervention in other places and more globally. We have also agreed that Arctic Amplification is the cause of the trend towards ever greater extremes of weather in the Northern hemisphere but our argument has only recently been supported by a climate attribution expert. Therefore establishing means to refreeze the Arctic should be of huge importance for those, like Guterres, who recognise that we have a climate emergency. 

Our group has been debating how best to refreeze the Arctic and so far it seems that SAI is the only technique which can definitely provide enough cooling power.  The claims that MCB could do a better job is disputed in the group. So what we have agreed internally is that the calculation of MCB cooling power needs to be checked again.  Meanwhile to the outside world including the AGU we advocate pulling out all the stops and recommend the consideration of MCB and sea ice thickening in addition to SAI. Of course safety issues have to be taken into account for all methods, but failure to refreeze the Arctic could lead to catastrophic climate change and sea level rise.

Hayho 

I concur with all of the above.

Best regards,

Doug Grandt

(PRAG member nearly since its inception)

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Aug 2, 2023, at 8:59 AM, daleanne bourjaily <dalean...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CANhw0zzgi%2BNyD6JUOhRsOL75dNjzTKppqzxP8RTbRUOmqjg65Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rebecca personal em]

Hello Dana and Dale Anne, and all, 

Thanks to John N. and Doug G.  for their comments about PRAG’s governance & mission. 

In relation to Dale Anne‘s comments:  from what I’m aware, there is no actual governance structure in PRAG.  The statements have been made by John N. after some group discussion, and yes, there is still disagreement about the detail.  There is also a letter to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and that has been signed by some people - I’m not sure where it’s up to, as I suggested some amendments.

I was very pleased at the last PRAG meeting about four days ago.  There was a cordial, considered, deep discussion about the science and the approach to testing and building social acceptance. I am happy enough to let things go on as they are, and focus on the work we’re doing, including these deep discussions.  

John’s statement that we have agreed to check the climate impacts of the various methods is very important. I am not sure how that is going to be done, but it is the crux of it all. At the moment, I am backing Stephen Salter‘s approach, because it’s based on published papers & input by Stephen & Alan Gadian.  I have done some work on this myself. However, there is no conclusion until someone has sat down at a desk, with a computer, and pulled it together and then consulted with various experts to check sources, assumptions and calculations.  If anyone has the ability to do that, please let us all know.

A few people (members of PRAG) are also putting together a funding proposal for trial on marine cloud brightening, exactly along the lines of what you have said, Dale Anne.  It’s not on PRAG letterhead, we have three sponsoring organisations and will be looking for more once it is tightened up.

If there are more questions, then our Chairperson, John Nissen and our meeting chair, Robbie Tulip are will qualified to answer, as well as other long-standing members of the group such as Doug Grandt, Brian Von Herzen, & Robert Chris.  

Fond regards to all from the lands of the Gadigal people, Sydney, Australia,

Rebecca Bishop

On 3 Aug 2023, at 3:17 am, 'Douglas Grandt' via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CCB7255B-7175-46DF-A1AD-BCC71EC8F894%40mac.com.

[Dana Woods]

Rebecca you said and I respond :

"Thanks to John N. and Doug G.  for their comments about PRAG’s governance & mission."

Give me a break,  John himself has said nothing about that

  "from what I’m aware, there is no actual governance structure in PRAG.  The statements have been made by John N. after some group discussion, and yes, there is still disagreement about the detail.  There is also a letter to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and that has been signed by some people - I’m not sure where it’s up to, as I suggested some amendments."

Um......Without more feedback from other members it sounds like this is essentially John's fiefdom, to which I say WTF?! There should be a governance structure if anyone wants other people inside or outside to respect the group to take it seriously

 "I was very pleased at the last PRAG meeting about four days ago.  There was a cordial, considered, deep discussion about the science and the approach to testing and building social acceptance. I am happy enough to let things go on as they are, and focus on the work we’re doing, including these deep discussions. "

I look forward to viewing the recording of the meeting . Obviously I'm not at all convinced at this point that this group is democratic as opposed to a one man and his followers and/or cronies operation

"John’s statement that we have agreed to check the climate impacts of the various methods is very important. I am not sure how that is going to be done, but it is the crux of it all"

It was, specifically and only, the relative opposition to radiative forcing/cooling ability that John said would be checked out by the group.or  another party(ies) for the group.  Again, if he can't even respond to Stephen obviously he should not be involved in this. And, again it seems like a topic for a peer-reviewed published study, though if you can get some people with some real credentials worth taking seriously to do this it might possibly be at least semi legit and informative

" At the moment, I am backing Stephen Salter‘s approach, because it’s based on published papers & input by Stephen & Alan Gadian.  I have done some work on this myself. However, there is no conclusion until someone has sat down at a desk, with a computer, and pulled it together and then consulted with various experts to check sources, assumptions and calculations.  If anyone has the ability to do that, please let us all know."

It seems A-ok to me for a given member(s) in the group to favor a specific approach at least unless and until it's indubitably been proven to be too dangerous or not efficacious .

"A few people (members of PRAG) are also putting together a funding proposal for trial on marine cloud brightening, exactly along the lines of what you have said, Dale Anne.  It’s not on PRAG letterhead, we have three sponsoring organisations and will be looking for more once it is tightened up."

Sounds good to me - studies and especially  field trials are what is needed  the most

"If there are more questions, then our Chairperson, John Nissen and our meeting chair, Robbie Tulip are will qualified to answer, as well as other long-standing members of the group such as Doug Grandt, Brian Von Herzen, & Robert Chris."

The same questions I asked above remain unless "John basically makes the decisions" is the final answer, which doesn't bode well at all with me and I don't understand why it would with anyone. It certainly wouldn't with most of the public, potential or current SRM activists (including me) most scientists and engineers nor sources from which funding might come , for study and ultimately  , hopefully, implementation . Also is John called the "Chairperson" or "President" and why are there not (elected) co-chairs as there are in most egalitarian groups?

I blew a couple of hours here again  , hopefully to some good end though I'm doubtful.  Now I need to go feed my poor goats and take them outside

~ Dana Woods

[Anton Alferness]

Can I be removed from this Google group please, thank you. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/a71270a8-da64-4fba-be63-c27630c94388n%40googlegroups.com.

[Dana Woods]

Actually I realized John did respond, via Douglas. Still my questions and serious concern remain

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 5:28 PM Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:

sorry Anton that  was meant for the group

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 5:27 PM Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actally I see John did respond via Douglas. However my questions and concerns remain

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Dana

 

PRAG was founded by John Nissen in July 2021 with support from others including myself and Doug Grandt.  I established the PRAG google group and website, although there has not been much discussion relating to the website.  I also convene and facilitate and record the fortnightly Zoom calls and publish them at my YouTube channel along with videos of meetings of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition.

 

We have not established any procedures governing PRAG operation.  If anyone wishes to establish procedures you are welcome to make suggestions.  I would be happy to host a Zoom call on this topic.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dana Woods

Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 9:40 AM
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>

--

[Douglas Grandt]

Dear Dana and Dale Anne et al,

John is in is car returning from the wilds of Wales having mechanical car troubles which compounds difficulty sending … and my laptop has been misbehaving for the past 24 hours so this reply is several hours delayed … he asked me to repeat the following

Dana, what you may not know is that I have presented papers to the AGU on behalf of PRAG before and check with the group before I make the final submission for presentation.

PRAG's mission is for planetary restoration and PRAG has agreed on the need to refreeze the Arctic as well as the need for cooling intervention in other places and more globally. We have also agreed that Arctic Amplification is the cause of the trend towards ever greater extremes of weather in the Northern hemisphere but our argument has only recently been supported by a climate attribution expert. Therefore establishing means to refreeze the Arctic should be of huge importance for those, like Guterres, who recognise that we have a climate emergency. 

Our group has been debating how best to refreeze the Arctic and so far it seems that SAI is the only technique which can definitely provide enough cooling power.  The claims that MCB could do a better job is disputed in the group. So what we have agreed internally is that the calculation of MCB cooling power needs to be checked again.  Meanwhile to the outside world including the AGU we advocate pulling out all the stops and recommend the consideration of MCB and sea ice thickening in addition to SAI. Of course safety issues have to be taken into account for all methods, but failure to refreeze the Arctic could lead to catastrophic climate change and sea level rise.

Hayho 

Best regards,

Doug Grandt

[Douglas Grandt]

Dana and Dale Anne et al,

Excuse my laptop technical failures … I also discovered the following text which John requested that I send ob hus behalf..

One reason for setting up the group was to establish the urgency for refreezing the Arctic which does not seem to be appreciated in academic circles and rarely elsewhere. The ability to refreeze the Arctic quickly using SAI is fairly well established by academics but they do not seem to appreciate the urgency, despite all the key tipping points in the Arctic being already activated.  Arctic news supports us in pointing out the urgency. MCB could be a useful complement to SAI but it's not established whether it could be a substitute. 

Cheers John 

Apologies for duplicate messages, better to duplicate than to inadvertently omit …

Best regards,

Doug

[Dana Woods]

Seen Doug  Thanks,

Thanks for posting. I agree about the urgency !! and emphasized that in one of my recent emails. I'm unclear as to whether or not it's acknowledged and to what extent in any or academic circles but I've sometimes had that feeling as well. I've written to David Keith about it and to Ye Tao and I've frequented David's Twitter page a few time to "pester" him and others about the urgency . Now that he has a new position at University of Chicago focusing entirely on this hopefully things might move a little faster so far as his work , I don't know. Maybe his approach is a little too conservative though I'm not certain about that either

In any case , to repeat myself , it's  still essential that all technologies be tested for potential negative side effects and that scientists and SRM advocates be honest with the public

Still more research is needed including to know what negative side effects any technology might have as to whether and how it will work. I consider that to be the case with MCB as well as SAI though there may be fewer questions with MCB. A major question that almost everyone, and by the way including Ye Tao (who isn't here anymore to speak for himself but who I've asked personally and got no answer from) is "Will and if so how will this SRM technology effect photosynthesis ?

 Then there's always the question of how implementing SRM in only part of the globe will and could effect the rest of the globe . I know modeling for using SAI uniformly over the whole globe , done by Keith et Al showed that it would not cause any more extreme weather events (or effect seasonal monsoons by more than a couple inches of rain if that. I don't know if there's been any modeling done for subpolar SAI  or regional MCB (?)

Another HUGE question with SAI is how would it effect the ozone ? It seems that even using calcium carbonate it's there's some thought (by Keith et Al and another group) that it could damage the ozone . When I have more mental energy I intend to try to decipher the newer one by Keith et Al . We cannot live without the ozone layer anymore than we can live without food or in 150 to 500 degree weather

Finally (though I may be missing something) it's important to know and to be honest with oneself and the public about how either sulfates or calcium carbonate (if there's any chance it could work and the study Ye Tao quoted might be refuted ) would or might effect people , other living organisms and rain and water sources when it leaves the stratosphere. I have a chemistry smart friend who maintains even calcium carbonate would cause acid rain, though he agrees with me that  if and when we eliminate emissions then we might not end up with any additional acid rain

I have and do spend a lot of time on social media groups and I assure you that there are A LOT of people, and good people , who would rather see all life on Earth die than to see humans make another Frankenstein Monster mess of the planet with technology and a lot of them fear that SRM, especially SAI would or could.

*I* personally am willing to make SOME trade offs to keep humans and most life from going extinct fairly soon but i and everyone needs to know what the tradeoffs are. And I suggest that if there are any and this group presents them we have someone with VERY good public speaking and emotional IQ skills do that presenting

Thanks again for hearing me out

Sincerely, Dana

[Douglas Grandt]

Dana,

Regarding this which is the essence of PRAG’s deliberations:

In any case , to repeat myself , it's  still essential that all technologies be tested for potential negative side effects and that scientists and SRM advocates be honest with the public 

 

We are keenly aware that there are things “we don’t know we don’t know” and nobody is jumping the gun … all our discussions are focused on getting into the right “church”, and then request research funding to validate or refute the scientific theory of the most appropriate “pews.”

After over two years of brainstorming, we seem to be narrowing the viable field to a few realistic prospects worthy of heavy investment in research and controlled regional field testing.

I think we align with your every concern.

Urgent with caution is paramount.

Best,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Aug 4, 2023, at 7:42 PM, Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Seen Doug  Thanks,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/39b38e11-9501-4f41-a4f9-1568b9efa07en%40googlegroups.com.

[daleanne bourjaily]

Dear Robert et al.,

Two possible guidelines for the group:

It seems to me that a chairperson may represent the view of the group to external parties only if all participants agree. 

And there needs to be agreement on who is the chairperson.  That does not necessarily have to be the most knowledgeable person on a certain topic but someone who has broad multidisciplinary knowledge and can present succinctly and professionally to a diverse group of climate scientists and policy makers .

Your view?

Best regards,

Dale Anne

Op vr 4 aug. 2023 05:52 schreef <rob...@rtulip.net>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/047d01d9c687%240cba4980%24262edc80%24%40rtulip.net.

[Dana Woods]

sorry to keep forwarding things, i continue to forget, at times, that i i just hit send my response will go to the past person who posted and not the group)

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 3:34 PM Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Robert to giving the history of the group and volunteering to take suggestions, possibly in a Zoom meeting, and thanks Dele Anne for your suggestions

I'm definitely no expert on governance of grass roots activist groups. At one time, long ago, I belonged to a state Green Party and we had two co chairs (one had to be female and one male.-

that was before the preponderance of people identifying as gender neutral or society knowing that they did ) We did everything by consensus, which might be good for a relatively small group but which I  honestly

 don't recommend for a larger group because it's often impossible to get  a larger group to agree.

Also, should there be some requirement for voting membership? I honestly don't know if even I should be a voting member, nor every person who signs up for this email group even if they don't often participate
in discussion here. I personally don't know how that should work..I can envision a scenario in which someone who wants (a) decision(s) to go a certain way recruits other people to join who think the same just to
control the decision making process of the groop eg what if a member was totally opposed to SRM? ot totally opposed to geoengineering period and invited a bunch of like minded friends and acquaintances to

 join the group to sway decisions against  either or both of those ?

So far as a Chairperson(s) I'm used to that being someone(s) who is good at communicating with the group and guiding the agenda of meetings and/or online discussions about decisions.  In the case of PRAG
is there someone who does that? I tend to think there should be someone who does that and who's good at LISTENING to everyone and treating everyone fairly and reasonably courteously . I personally would
suggest that the person who conveys information and decisions to third parties might be someone else who fits the description Dele Anne described.

By the way, is Stephen Salter still an active member of this group? I certainly think he's a valuable person /member and should be or should have been an active and  decision making member of the group one
of my concerns without having viewed the last meeting   but reading what he said (plus the fact he sent some info about MCB as a "parting gift" to some of us , is that he didn't agree with the statement

I likely need to take a short break from this group.by the way. I'm on a very late sleep schedule that I want to change and have been reading and posting here first thing in my day when I really should be getting
my goats fed and out to pasture. Also I'm just not "feeling myself" mentally and emotionally at the moment for personal reasons starting a couple of days ago

The long and , for me, confusing threads in this group are also kind of exhausting.and I often have a hard time /spend too much time trying to find a given post in a given thread. Perhaps there could be a
seperate thread started to discuss the structure and procedure of the group if we're going to talk about it here?

Also I'm not at all used to using google groups. can anyone comment on why some posts extend beyond the margins of the page/computer  screen and if I can do something to change that on my screen?
I'm finding that to be a little exhausting and tedious as well . This post would have gone outside the a margains of my screen if I hadn't deliberately kept it from doing so (pardon is that is a "dummy" question

issued to AGU

Cheers, Dana

[Dana Woods]

This is what i write a couple hours ago and meant to send to the whole group

Thanks Robert to giving the history of the group and volunteering to take suggestions, possibly in a Zoom meeting, and thanks Dele Anne for your suggestions

I'm definitely no expert on governance of grass roots activist groups. At one time, long ago, I belonged to a state Green Party and we had two co chairs (one had to be female and one male.-

that was before the preponderance of people identifying as gender neutral or society knowing that they did ) We did everything by consensus, which might be good for a relatively small group but which I  honestly

 don't recommend for a larger group because it's often impossible to get  a larger group to agree.

Also, should there be some requirement for voting membership? I honestly don't know if even I should be a voting member, nor every person who signs up for this email group even if they don't often participate
in discussion here. I personally don't know how that should work..I can envision a scenario in which someone who wants (a) decision(s) to go a certain way recruits other people to join who think the same just to
control the decision making process of the groop eg what if a member was totally opposed to SRM? ot totally opposed to geoengineering period and invited a bunch of like minded friends and acquaintances to

 join the group to sway decisions against  either or both of those ?

So far as a Chairperson(s) I'm used to that being someone(s) who is good at communicating with the group and guiding the agenda of meetings and/or online discussions about decisions.  In the case of PRAG
is there someone who does that? I tend to think there should be someone who does that and who's good at LISTENING to everyone and treating everyone fairly and reasonably courteously . I personally would
suggest that the person who conveys information and decisions to third parties might be someone else who fits the description Dele Anne described.

By the way, is Stephen Salter still an active member of this group? I certainly think he's a valuable person /member and should be or should have been an active and  decision making member of the group one
of my concerns without having viewed the last meeting   but reading what he said (plus the fact he sent some info about MCB as a "parting gift" to some of us , is that he didn't agree with the statement

I likely need to take a short break from this group.by the way. I'm on a very late sleep schedule that I want to change and have been reading and posting here first thing in my day when I really should be getting
my goats fed and out to pasture. Also I'm just not "feeling myself" mentally and emotionally at the moment for personal reasons starting a couple of days ago

The long and , for me, confusing threads in this group are also kind of exhausting.and I often have a hard time /spend too much time trying to find a given post in a given thread. Perhaps there could be a
seperate thread started to discuss the structure and procedure of the group if we're going to talk about it here?

Also I'm not at all used to using google groups. can anyone comment on why some posts extend beyond the margins of the page/computer  screen and if I can do something to change that on my screen?
I'm finding that to be a little exhausting and tedious as well . This post would have gone outside the a margains of my screen if I hadn't deliberately kept it from doing so (pardon is that is a "dummy" question

issued to AGU

Cheers, Dana

[Dana Woods]

I had an additional idea, what if a smaller group of people , maybe 5 or 6 (?) were the ultimate decision makers (for me, ideally this smaller group would decide by CONSENSUS.and if anyone wanted to

 abstain from the vote they could do so and would be on record /announced as having done so).
And if that smaller group were *elected* by a larger group which would contain people who at least participate in some way.

And since the people who participate most in this group are people who at least support MORE RESEARCH, INCLUDING FIELD TRIALS into some kinds of SRM technologies that that would be a

 prerequisite to be a member of the larger voting group , or you could make it *willingness*  to have research and controlled field trials of SRM technology including MCB and SAI (or just SAI since that's most 

contentious of technologies among the larger populace (of the world) but  which would in no way mean that either group by default doesn't want MCB studied as well. It also could be stated that that  wouldn;t
mean that a voting member agrees to have anything studied/trialed in a specific  way ,  nor implemented.

And anything we /you could agree upon could be in bylaws, and then there would need to be a process to democratically change bylaws if needed (my brain hasn't gotten to the suggested "how" of that yet

Cheers, Dana

 

[rob...@rtulip.net]

https://youtu.be/utLjM85Fzu8

[daleanne bourjaily]

Dear Dana et al.

Sorry about the late response. This is a workable idea. Robert and John obviously, possible one other from each technology expert area. Example Stephen for MCB and so on.

Regards,

Dale Anne

Op zo 6 aug. 2023 00:22 schreef Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAD7Z-DBNHYZJhCVPSZQ%3Dsp8bByhAbmMZrsOVdnGxVr5XG4JfjA%40mail.gmail.com.