ARCTIC MOMENTUM – International Event on Arctic Climate Intervention

[Anton Keskinen]

Hello everyone,

I wish to inform you that Operaatio Arktis (operaatioarktis.fi/en) is organizing a public event ARCTIC MOMENTUM on 31st August in Helsinki, Finland. This event is about the state of the Arctic, and why we should conduct more research on climate interventions. Event page with more information on the high level goals, as well as the program: https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/arcticmomentum

We are a group of climate activists, turned from the street movement to advance and lobby for climate intervention research. Our goal is to preserve the Arctic Summer Sea Ice. For that we urge the Finnish government to take lead on the research needed. We are open for the possibility of finding several complementing methods to achieve this – perhaps some direct sea ice growth manipulation and SRM combined with the obvious emission reductions and GHG removal. Part of our mission is to bring different stakeholders and research teams together to enable visioning how climate intervention methods could compliment each other, instead fo focusing on debating which one is better or worse idea. 

The public session on 31st August is part of a larger three-day gathering, where we bring together indigenous leaders, activists, scientists, government officials and policy makers, to discuss who, if at all, should we move forward with preserving the Arctic. 

One of our main messages is that we must shift from the old climate paradigm (Climate Mitigation) to a new climate paradigm (Climate Repair). The old paradigm is about reducing emissions, accepting the damage that's unavoidable with emission cuts, and adapting when possible. The new paradigm states that we must reduce emissions, and try to prevent and repair the damage that's unavoidable even with sharp emission cuts, and adapt when possible. While the old paradigm presents what we call in our publication Arctic Endgame "politics of accepted victims", the new paradigm is antidote for this. 

We aim to change this climate paradigm first in Finland, and then in the whole World. 

You can read Arctic Endgame here: https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/en/arctic-endgame 

For those of you (I assume most) who cannot attend our public event on 31st in person, the event will be streamed on our Youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/@operaatioarktis2193 

Follow us on

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/operaatioarktis/ 
Twitter: https://twitter.com/OperaatioArktis
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OperaatioArktis

Subscribe our news letter on the bottom of our website: operaatioarktis.fi/en  

Attached the program of our public event: 



All the best and thanks for reading,
Anton Keskinen
Operaatio Arktis

[rob...@rtulip.net]

The Healthy Planet Action Coalition welcomes Mr Anton Keskinen, organiser of the just completed Arctic Momentum Conference in Finland, as our guest speaker this week.

 

Date: Thursday 7 September

Time: 10pm Finland (=3pm EST, 8pm UK, 5am Friday Australia AEST)

Duration: 90 minutes

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09

 

Anton will explain key outcomes from the Conference followed by discussion with meeting participants.  All welcome.

Operaatio Arktis (operaatioarktis.fi/en) organized the public event ARCTIC MOMENTUM on 31st August in Helsinki, Finland, about the state of the Arctic, and why we should conduct more research on climate interventions.

Event page with more information on the high level goals, as well as the program: https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/arcticmomentum

Description

“We are a group of climate activists, turned from the street movement to advance and lobby for climate intervention research. Our goal is to preserve the Arctic Summer Sea Ice. For that we urge the Finnish government to take lead on the research needed. We are open for the possibility of finding several complementing methods to achieve this – perhaps some direct sea ice growth manipulation and SRM combined with the obvious emission reductions and GHG removal. Part of our mission is to bring different stakeholders and research teams together to enable visioning how climate intervention methods could complement each other, instead of focusing on debating which one is better or worse idea. 

The public session on 31st August is part of a larger three-day gathering, where we bring together indigenous leaders, activists, scientists, government officials and policy makers, to discuss who, if at all, should we move forward with preserving the Arctic. 

One of our main messages is that we must shift from the old climate paradigm (Climate Mitigation) to a new climate paradigm (Climate Repair). The old paradigm is about reducing emissions, accepting the damage that's unavoidable with emission cuts, and adapting when possible. The new paradigm states that we must reduce emissions, and try to prevent and repair the damage that's unavoidable even with sharp emission cuts, and adapt when possible. While the old paradigm presents what we call in our publication Arctic Endgame "politics of accepted victims", the new paradigm is antidote for this. 

We aim to change this climate paradigm first in Finland, and then in the whole World. 

You can read Arctic Endgame here: https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/en/arctic-endgame 
For those of you (I assume most) who cannot attend our public event on 31st in person, the event will be streamed on our Youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/@operaatioarktis2193 

Follow us on

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/operaatioarktis/ 
Twitter: https://twitter.com/OperaatioArktis
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OperaatioArktis

Subscribe our newsletter on the bottom of our website: operaatioarktis.fi/en  

Regards

Robert Tulip

https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Whether or not you're able to attend Anton's presentation and discussion, I highly recommend viewing Anni Pokela's introduction in the first 30 minutes of the Arctic Momentum conference here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-OwNu_8Uo&t=1333s    

The Arctic Momentum movement and Anni's  statement (that in addition to Anton's and the Momentum group's organizing efforts - inspired I believe by the June 6, 2023, CCRC Workshop on Albedo Enhancement and Refreezing the Arctic initiated by Robert Tulip - also benefited from the input of Daleanne Bourjaily and others) is in IMO brilliant!

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/024001d9df1e%24fb765730%24f2630590%24%40rtulip.net.

[Anton Keskinen]

Hi Ron and all,

Thank you for your kind words.

We finally got the edited versio  of Anni's talk (sound/image sync, etc corrections) on Youtube: https://youtu.be/0It_xZnLdyo?si=C3IZGGKhD-5VGGDf

Please do share it on platforms if you like!

See you tomorrow,

Best,

Anton

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9BXD3EP9w9K1OebKbgPThGAJ%3D33P2XBO%3DzFZygoZAee7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

The recording of this meeting is at https://youtu.be/unPOcBY3idU

 

Thank you very much Anton for joining us.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/024001d9df1e%24fb765730%24f2630590%24%40rtulip.net.

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Anton et al.,

Excellent meeting!  I'm really sorry that I missed it!  I got the time wrong but just finished viewing the recording!

I was going to ask a question related to a proposal to begin to test the SAI polar approach (proposed by the "Cornell SAI group") - direct cooling of the Arctic (and Antarctic - as they both need to tackled together for symmetry - see Bala reference in the paper) based on the International Space Station model. 

This could be approached as a method to try to quickly slow down or reverse Arctic and Antarctic melting and restore previous conditions as much as possible - along with other possible Direct Climate Cooling and intervention approaches.  My thinking is that collaboration and support by Finland, Norway, Canada, the US and Arctic indigenous peoples would be critically important. It could be framed as a "save the poles" effort but could potentially be the platform to start a serious global climate cooling effort.

Suggested comments to this proposal welcome!: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing

Thank you all!

Best,

Ron

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/147901d9e268%240929c9b0%241b7d5d10%24%40rtulip.net.

[Sev Clarke]

Folks,

I have a mixed response to this post by Ye. Those ideas I somewhat disagree with, or which require greater nuance, I respond to in bold print below.

On 9 Sep 2023, at 3:15 pm, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

Dear Ron,

First, I also applaud Anton for an excellent presentation and thank the whole team at Operatioo Arktis for being excellent hosts. I thank you, Ron, for your enthusiasm, which I sadly find problematic. Ron’s and our enthusiasm has many legs to its' stool, several of which seem likely to be both feasible and effective. This is far better than fatalism, denial, obstruction, BAU, mild or delayed action, or apathy. 

A major learning, or rather realization, for many of us at Arctic Momentum is how little we understand the science of SAI, MCB, and any of the many proposed regional techniques presented at the conference.  Some discussion groups also mentioned that we don't yet have a clear idea on how to decide among various climatic outcomes, even if assuming the science and engineering eventually advance to such a point that climate and weather could be designed with high fidelity. We cannot afford to wait for high fidelity. Nor do we need to decide now on which are to be the specific climate interventions and locales in which to deploy them.    Our general state of ignorance inspired my recent post about starting to develop  "figure of merit function(s)" to evaluate climate outcomes based on globally agreed upon targets ultimately stemming from a set of morally robust values.  A small group at NOAC/HPAC/PRAG are now developing those very same figure of merit functions. Given ubiquitous chasms in knowledge gaps, we would be mistakenly putting the horse before the cart try leveraging the moment for the specific end of getting SAI implemented. There are several NOAC-based methods that are safer and often easier, cheaper and quicker to develop that is SAI.  

There is no skipping steps to good science and engineering, and SAI and MCB are a couple decades of research away from acceptable scientific understanding and technical readiness. I disagree, several NOAC methods might well be sufficiently developed to warrant testing within just a few years.   There are so many known unknowns and known problems with SAI, some of which I have mentioned before here on this forum and which have yet to be addressed. But less so with some of the other methods.  

In the interim, there are a variety of local geoengineering methods that need to be given priority.  Global safety must be prioritized in our line of work. In the emergency situation we find ourselves, and using gated, localised testing, global safety means that some risks must be taken as they are far less than not acting. One needs to balance risk and likely effect against risk and likely effect, just as do professional risk managers.  Promising local methods include mechanically slowing down ice melting by raising kinetic barriers, MEER for adaptive mitigation to help victims of our excesses here and now, ice thickening methods to preserve annually average albedo, and targeted preservation of Arctic ice by new methods Agreed, though our figure of merit assessments may well rule out many such methods. I will hopefully soon share in a HPAC talk.

While collaboration and support by Finland, Norway, Canada, the US, [RUSSIA], and Arctic indigenous peoples would be critically important, they are insufficient for ensuring that modifying global climate is done in a factually democratic fashion In an emergency situation democracies typically delegate decisions to those best placed to make them, by the people and for the people.  While we know very little about SAI, what we do know is that anything SAI with polar impact would have a global impact elsewhere.   All sovereign states need to be included in this conversation, at the very beginning. But not where the effects of gated testing are likely to be localised. Then, only early notification and published EIS’s should be required. 

Since the science is simply not there.  Let's start here.   Experimental science is where priority must be place, not computer simulations which not event the coders trust. Right, but do not stop trying to model the effects.  It is insufficient to appear to be inclusive.  I see a growing trend towards building a facade of inclusiveness.  It is suspect to fund a selected few high profile and visible Global South researchers to participate in research using computer codes developed by academics from the Northern,  studying specific methods proposed by a handful of individuals from the North.  If we were truly undertaking this endeavor for justice and a future worth fighting for, we must do much more and much better. I repeat my words on emergency situations. Inclusion is great if it can be achieved with little loss of development speed. Moreover, as developing nations are likely to be first and most adversely affected by global warming (Arctic nations excluded), these are just the locales where early testing should take place - inclusively. 

Best

Ye

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/CAPhUB9DTULJvQO1eFgeTxsw%3DsHxMQuFw0UL6eWXdDxWNqS_ayg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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/192e2074-8cb9-91ab-2910-c7209f89b602%40rowland.harvard.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Robert Chris]

Really important issues being touched on here.  I've been otherwise occupied in recent days but plan to watch the recording shortly and offer some further thoughts then.  I sense we're getting to the core of why decisive and effective action is so challenging.  I don't think it's impossible, but to make it happen we need to calibrate our expectations across a number of interconnected realms of which the technology is possibly the least demanding.

Regards

Robert

On 09/09/2023 12:20, 'Douglas Grandt' via Planetary Restoration wrote:

Thanks, Sev -

I had similar reaction and you’ve expressed my thoughts more precisely and clearly.

Especially your references to gated, localised testing while intensely monitoring for global responses, ramping up in discrete steps, making adjustments as appropriate.

Cheers,

Doug 

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Sep 9, 2023, at 3:15 AM, 'Sev Clarke' via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 Folks,

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/2508F0E1-A018-477F-9475-AA406235F691%40icloud.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/F9C06843-163C-4382-94BD-A7B6023AFFF7%40mac.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Tom and Ye, cc many

1.  Might this sentence from your cite add a CDR aspect?

Also, biological material affects the fluid mechanics of the water surface, resulting for example, in long-lasting surface foams.58

2.  Reference 58 is entitled: Thalassorheology, organic matter and plankton: towards a more viscous approach in plankton ecology

Is found (non-fee) at 

            https://academic.oup.com/plankt/article/37/6/1100/2380093

3.  The paper has a quite impressive foam albedo improvement photo:

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Ye, Sev, Dale et. al.,

Thank you for your responses. As I have repeatedly stated, I believe that multiple Direct Climate Cooling methods will be necessary in the short-term and possibly in the long-term future as well as, per the papers cited in the HPAC cooling paper (non-edited pre-print here: https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023 ), recent climate modeling suggests that even if humanity achieves anthropomorphic zero-emissions, warming will likely plateau and not decline for at least 50 years in spite of a declining stock of GHG in the atmosphere from ocean uptake and short-term species decay, due to increased warming from the oceans (where over 90% of excess heat is now accumulating). This should probably not be addressed by massive GHG draw down (to below pre-industrial levels) as when ocean and atmospheric heat finally reach equilibrium, this could result in an insufficient GHG in the atmosphere situation.

One of the points of my question to Anton would have been to suggest that any method (local or global), if effective in achieving significant cooling over a significant area of the planet, would have to take global considerations such as the need for things like hemispheric symmetry into account. Thus to the extent that significant cooling is achieved, I don't think we can avoid thinking about global impacts of cooling efforts whether or not they are initially "local" or "global".   In this sense even effective polar SAI would probably not provide adequate cooling to "re-freeze" the Arctic as much of the heat is coming from ocean currents from other parts of the globe.

Second, I second Dale's comment.  We are in an emergency situation.  We need to get beyond the conventional concern about the "extreme known, and unknown", risks of high leverage methods like SAI, and start incrementally piloting and testing them. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is after all a "nature based" cooling method as it attempts to imitate volcanoes that have been doing this throughout geological and human history, generally without significantly harmful climate consequences. As far as I can tell the most often cited natural science "extreme risks" do not appear to be that risky (see the detailed references in my proposal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing ).  We simply do not have 10 years to do "pure research" and than decades to try to roll out global SAI in a giant "hail Mary" if this becomes necessary. We should be doing pilot testing, monitoring, and gradual implementation, in addition to, and as part of, continued research.

Third, for this reason, many commentators (if my memory serves, I believe this was stated in the Arctic Momentum conference as well) suggest that the major difficulties of SAI are not natural but geopolitical, i.e. problems of governance and regulation.  I view the International Space Station Analogy, and incremental polar strategy as a possible way to move forward and begin to address these issues (see the last part of the proposal). Furthermore, as Mike MacCracken has often pointed out, one of these political issues, that SAI is too inexpensive and "high leverage" and thus poses a too easy a "moral hazard" or "get out of jail free" card for vested interests opposed to emissions cuts and the green transition,  appears increasingly moot as with the decline in the cost of renewables, market incentives are now forcing a green economy transition even in places like Texas where the politics are still dominated by fossil fuel interests.  The biggest problem we now face is time, not moral hazard. The real "moral hazard" is in not implementing Direct Climate Cooling fast enough.

Finally, again I firmly believe that we should not put "all of our eggs in one or another direct climate cooling (or intervention) basket", but rather be testing and piloting, if and when prudent, the 18 DCC methods in the HPAC paper cited above, and others that folks such as Ye may propose in the future. My guess is that effective local cooling will be important even under a global cooling regime as geographic flexibility and targeting will be necessary (as Stephen Salter often points out).

Best,

Ron

On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 6:01 PM daleanne bourjaily <dalean...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ye, all,

Last year I spoke to General Gus Perna who headed the covid vaccine task force in the US.  The scientists were reluctant to approve the science, there was so much more research to be done. 

What the general said was that he took into account the strategic risk to health and the economy of waiting for a 100% consensus as he would do in a conflict situation. 

On those grounds he decided that 75% would translate to approval. So that is when the vaccine was launched.  To wait in a situation of that magnitude was no longer an option.  Have we not reached the same point on planetary cooling?

So given that there are three or four nature -based/biomimetic  interventions that could be immediately deployed in field trials, should we not together identify and choose the ones that have the most potential right now? That will allow us to seek funding and priorities for both governance and the trials themselves.  

Looking forward to your advice, as many of you as possible.

Best regards,

Dale Anne

Op za 9 sep. 2023 01:15 schreef Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>:

Dear Ron,

First, I also applaud Anton for an excellent presentation and thank the whole team at Operatioo Arktis for being excellent hosts. I thank you, Ron, for your enthusiasm, which I sadly find problematic. 

A major learning, or rather realization, for many of us at Arctic Momentum is how little we understand the science of SAI, MCB, and any of the many proposed regional techniques presented at the conference.  Some discussion groups also mentioned that we don't yet have a clear idea on how to decide among various climatic outcomes, even if assuming the science and engineering eventually advance to such a point that climate and weather could be designed with high fidelity.  Our general state of ignorance inspired my recent post about starting to develop  "figure of merit function(s)" to evaluate climate outcomes based on globally agreed upon targets ultimately stemming from a set of morally robust values.  Given ubiquitous chasms in knowledge gaps, we would be mistakenly putting the horse before the cart try leveraging the moment for the specific end of getting SAI implemented.

There is no skipping steps to good science and engineering, and SAI and MCB are a couple decades of research away from acceptable scientific understanding and technical readiness.  There are so many known unknowns and known problems with SAI, some of which I have mentioned before here on this forum and which have yet to be addressed. 

In the interim, there are a variety of local geoengineering methods that need to be given priority.  Global safety must be prioritized in our line of work.   Promising local methods include mechanically slowing down ice melting by raising kinetic barriers, MEER for adaptive mitigation to help victims of our excesses here and now, ice thickening methods to preserve annually average albedo, and targeted preservation of Arctic ice by new methods I will hopefully soon share in a HPAC talk.

While collaboration and support by Finland, Norway, Canada, the US, [RUSSIA], and Arctic indigenous peoples would be critically important, they are insufficient for ensuring that modifying global climate is done in a factually democratic fashion, by the people and for the people.  While we know very little about SAI, what we do know is that anything SAI with polar impact would have a global impact elsewhere.   All sovereign states need to be included in this conversation, at the very beginning.

Since the science is simply not there.  Let's start here.   Experimental science is where priority must be place, not computer simulations which not event the coders trust.  It is insufficient to appear to be inclusive.  I see a growing trend towards building a facade of inclusiveness.  It is suspect to fund a selected few high profile and visible Global South researchers to participate in research using computer codes developed by academics from the Northern,  studying specific methods proposed by a handful of individuals from the North.  If we were truly undertaking this endeavor for justice and a future worth fighting for, we must do much more and much better. 

Best

Ye

On 9/8/2023 6:08 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:

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/CAPhUB9DTULJvQO1eFgeTxsw%3DsHxMQuFw0UL6eWXdDxWNqS_ayg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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/192e2074-8cb9-91ab-2910-c7209f89b602%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I am attaching a note about a way to concentrate plastic which came out of a surprising result from tank tests of wave energy devices. If the freeboard is low there can be downward forces during the crest and the trough of a wave and a net force into the wind direction.

Big rings would find their own way to the centre of a gyre in the same way that the plastic does. 1 km diameter high tensile steel would not survive but 250 micron poly ethylene can take 17% strain and so would be safe.

Stephen

 

From: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Sent: 10 September 2023 14:25
To: Bhaskar M V <bhaska...@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>; Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>; Ellen Haaslahti <el...@operaatioarktis.fi>
Subject: Re: Does plastic pollution cause more sea foam?

 

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.

Thanks Bhaskar,

Fascinating field of study indeed. 

Fig 2 in this review suggests possibly significant radiative impact.  Getting to the bottom of the diurnal cycle in aerosol emissions might inform ongoing brightening methods and inspire new ones.  This study finds enrichment of biomolecules in the ocean surface microlayer relative to the bulk sea water, but the enrichment ratios are rather modest.  Given the thinness of the surface layer, this modest enrichment ratio means that the total amount of material in the SML is negligible compared to what is found in the ocean depths.   This in turn suggests that the amount of material exogenous delivered, if preferentially aggregating and concentrating at the surface, could have tremendous impact on ocean-atmosphere exchange.  Here is one example involving the infamous forever chemicals. 

The sea-air interface thus appears to be a high-leverage location.   We need to proceed with caution!

Ye

On 9/10/2023 8:19 AM, Bhaskar M V wrote:

 

Ocean Suface Microlayer ( not plastic), SML, may contribute more. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_microlayer

 

In nature Diatoms are the most likely contributors to SML. 

Diatoms produce lipids and expel it, the lipids float on the water surface. 

 

Growing Diatoms is easier than dumping plastic in oceans. 

 

Regards 

 

Bhaskar 

 

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023, 16:32 Ye Tao, <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Thanks for sharing this unique and intriguing study.  

The paper suggests that ocean surface micro plastic concentrations between 1-5 g/m2 would have a measurable increase over the baseline.  If someone were to propose this as a way to brightening the planet, then a lot of plastics would be needed.   1.5 g/m2 as the "target" steady state concentration, global ocean would contain at its surface 540 Mton of plastics at any given time.  This is almost twice the global annual plastic production.  And since the lifetime of microplastics is on the order of a couple of years due to oxidative degradation, micro plastic-induced planetary brightening would need ensuring most of our plastics ends up finely ground and floating on the ocean.

In any case, I think we can all agree that this is not a viable path forward.  But it is still scientifically interesting to study the actual albedo impact.  I suspect CERES data coupled with in situ plastic concentration measurements by boats operated by the several nonprofits tackling ocean plastic problem could help to put some number on global albedo impact.  People who know those nonprofits should perhaps reach out.

Cheers,

Ye

On 9/9/2023 2:16 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:

The author’s response seems to be that even though we are fast approaching the point where there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean, it may stabilize ocean foam and increase albedo.

 

From: Peter Fischer <peter....@hest.ethz.ch>
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 1:59 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Subject: Albedo

Hi Tom,

 

If at all a). b) and c) need much higher concentrations. And a) only if the particle are primarily hydrophobic and anisotropic in shape: Round, hydrophilic particles normally stabilize foams. With most plastic garbage being hydrophilic and milled down (maybe not into a spherical shape but at least having smooth surfaces), we propose that microplastic is stabilizing sea foam i.e. increase albedo.

 

Best, p

 

Dear Peter,

 

Thanks!

 

The first time we saw plastic while diving it was a shock, but no surprise because the mangroves were the garbage dumps.

 

Now we see more and more on every dive.

 

Boaters only see what floats on the top, but we divers see it all through the water column and all over the bottom as well!

 

Best wishes,

Tom

 

 

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:22 PM
To: Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>, Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>, geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, Anton Keskinen <keskin...@gmail.com>, Ellen Haaslahti <el...@operaatioarktis.fi>, Cziczo, Daniel James <djcz...@purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: [geo] Recording of HPAC meeting with Anton Keskinen, Arctic Momentum Conference

For Albedo modification fans:

 

This paper just received says that plastic pollution in the sea acts to increase foam at the surface.

 

I’ve asked the author if he thinks it significantly decreases 1) Albedo and 2) CO2 Exchange, and 3) Temperature Transfer through the double boundary layers.

 

Tom

 

--
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/2508F0E1-A018-477F-9475-AA406235F691%40icloud.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994E41F51947DAAEF2C6FDADDECA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

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

--
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/SA1PR13MB5005F4CC8209DDD861D881A6DDECA%40SA1PR13MB5005.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

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

--
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/92ba18ed-7ea0-b4d0-64fa-cbf0a1202aba%40rowland.harvard.edu.

--
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/CALBeeSoQv8ZN9dm6ry7uoQQqy-vd_jcMP1bND4rSGrtfeRepAA%40mail.gmail.com.

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.