Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica

70 views
Skip to first unread message

H simmens

unread,
Nov 4, 2023, 6:10:28 PM11/4/23
to healthy-planet-action-coalition, via NOAC Meetings, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

This article provides the author an opportunity to declare war on Geo engineering by for example claiming that scientists estimate that Geoengineering will cost “on the order of tens of trillions of dollars”. 

Nice to know that we can count on the media to be fair and balanced. 

Herb

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

Gilles de Brouwer

unread,
Nov 5, 2023, 1:15:32 PM11/5/23
to Jim Baird, H simmens, healthy-planet-action-coalition, via NOAC Meetings, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering
A low cost SAI option?

Regarding the trillions or billions to do SAI geoengineering, consider this option:

Watch "How ramjets may change the role of artillery on the battlefield" on YouTube
At 4:21 you can see the 150km range parabolic trajectory goes as high as 105km altitude!

Maybe Iowa battleship 16 inch guns with this ramjet tech could send stuff to orbit.
Or could this be a low cost SAI geoengineering option? 
1. How much would it cost to refurbish and send these old battleships to the Arctic and Antarctic waters and deliver to much higher altitudes?  The armor plating would make the battleships iceberg damage resistant.
2. How much longer would the particles stay at useful altitudes?
3. Would they stay in place much longer with little wind at these very high altitudes?
4. Would it be more effective than aircraft delivered SAI?

Note from the Iowa Class Wikipedia page: "...all four are museum ships part of non-profit maritime museums across the US."

Gilles

On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, 5:16 PM Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> wrote:

From the Physics and Economics of Thermodynamics Geoengineering, reference 77 of  the Healthy Climate Action Coalition Petition to World Leaders: The Case for Urgent Direct Climate Cooling, The cost of removing 1139 Gt of CO2  with this technology (Negative Emissions CO2 OTEC) would therefore be $175 trillion. CDR technology for creating synthetic fuel from atmospheric CO2 or for other purposes currently costs about $600 per ton, with a goal of reducing this to below $100. [48] So, a goal of returning atmospheric CO2 levels to preindustrial  from a 2054 level of 1577 Gt is likely to cost at a minimum $114 trillion. 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Gilles de Brouwer
Sent: November 4, 2023 4:21 PM
To: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica

 

My comment left on the article:

Steve I like your writing, but "Trillions" is obviously wrong.  Billions is more realistic even with expensive new high altitude aircraft, but maybe much less expensive with a small fleet of specialty airships.

All the SAI geoengineering risks are scare mongering without data to back it up and such dogma unscientific opinions from "scientists" are damaging to science as an institution.  AI, for example genetic algorithms or better could design an SAI strategy that minimizes the negatives, as it's an optimization problem with infinite variables which is why progress is so slow.  Coupling computational models with small scale real atmosphere experiments with full public data access for review is critical to make a smart decision to potentially avoid billions starving, cooking, and/or dying of thirst, or migrating.

Thanks,
Gilles de Brouwer      

 

 

--
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/3D131483-011F-4A9A-9B2D-3BA99C9A9F05%40gmail.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/CAGQ2tEqsU%3Drm7ZJpo4p67O9p-HHL0f_%3Dq9Xd2Q5nj6bLUFvkqw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Nov 5, 2023, 1:22:41 PM11/5/23
to Gilles de Brouwer, healthy-planet-action-coalition, via NOAC Meetings, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering
I've already looked at this. The meteor missile (modern) and blood hound (cold war) use ram rockets. Nammo make ram artillery, and there's Chinese manufacturers, too. It's not inexpensive to start these ramjets, considering rockets or barrel wear. Coil guns might be viable. There's manufacturers eg velontra.com making small hypersonic jets, which don't require a hard start.

Ballistic flight makes recovery difficult. 

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/CAGQ2tEq6GP68_404MZonwgf4NZFypGLHeTzcvK0V%3DNPoZEMEWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

robert...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 5, 2023, 1:56:09 PM11/5/23
to Andrew Lockley, Gilles de Brouwer, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

Can someone do the following calculations?  How many shells?  How much material would they consume each year?  What happens to the shell casings once they've delivered their load?  What environmental impact would these discarded shell casings have and in particular would they contain any environmentally undesirable materials?  What would be necessary for this to receive social licence?

Regards

Robert


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/CAJ3C-05sBDn1Bf5JgCiKxHeXLfaWjVQRP7T-VZK_zKTGDgnf8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Nov 5, 2023, 2:55:26 PM11/5/23
to Robert Chris
For Mt quantities you'd need of order 100m fires per year, unless the guns were huge. But shells can be reused.

As I explained, gun launched jets likely aren't optimal. A linear motor or coil gun would be better. 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023, 18:54 , <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can someone do the following calculations?  How many shells?  How much material would they consume each year?  What happens to the shell casings once they've delivered their load?  What environmental impact would these discarded shell casings have and in particular would they contain any environmentally undesirable materials?  What would be necessary for this to receive social licence?

Regards

Robert


On 05/11/2023 18:22, Andrew Lockley wrote:
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/CAJ3C-05sBDn1Bf5JgCiKxHeXLfaWjVQRP7T-VZK_zKTGDgnf8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/2b46ef3a-c096-4ef5-acc2-7e3c33ea21ae%40gmail.com.

robert...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 5, 2023, 5:10:34 PM11/5/23
to Hugh Hunt, Andrew Lockley, Gilles de Brouwer, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

Thanks Hugh.  I knew this had been addressed previously and you saved me the trouble of locating the paper.  Someone might want to spend a little time updating the figures you developed for artillery shells to take account of any advances over the last decade.  It seems unlikely that this would make them look any more feasible.  Ditto for aircraft. 

Regards

Robert


On 05/11/2023 19:29, Hugh Hunt wrote:
Hi Robert,
We addressed this in our 2012 paper here, for SPICE

delivery by Aircraft we get as around £100bn, and artillery is around £1trillion - see Fig 8

Hugh
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 6:56 PM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica
 

robert...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 5, 2023, 5:23:43 PM11/5/23
to Douglas MacMartin, robert...@open.ac.uk, Andrew Lockley, Gilles de Brouwer, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

Doug

Do you think any of the work covered by Davidson et al in the paper, a link to which was earlier circulated by Hugh Hunt (co-author)?  They seemed to conclude that the engineering realities strongly favoured tethered balloons.

Regards

Robert


On 05/11/2023 19:01, Douglas MacMartin wrote:

Broadly speaking I don’t think the direct delivery cost of material to the stratosphere is a significant factor influencing any decision to deploy.  (Vs, for example, the expected geopolitical ramifications of a choice, the projected impacts, or the costs associated with any fund to compensate those who believe that they will be harmed by deployment).  Aircraft have consistently wound up as the cheapest approach to deliver material based on today’s technology, though of course that could change.

 

Also relevant in thinking about alternate delivery mechanisms though is that aircraft engines are currently manufactured by only a few companies all in a handful of countries, and none of these manufacturers would sell any engine to anyone without at least tacit approval by the country they are in… that greatly limits the number of countries that are capable of deploying, so alternative engines or delivery modes may be more important in thinking about governance challenges associated with who is actually capable of initiating a deployment that has the potential to be scaled and sustained.

 


Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Gilles de Brouwer <gdebr...@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/DM6PR04MB71000CD3938EE6F209560AC38FABA%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

robert...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 5, 2023, 7:19:46 PM11/5/23
to Hugh Hunt, Douglas MacMartin, robert...@open.ac.uk, Andrew Lockley, Gilles de Brouwer, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering

Helpful comments from Hugh to put this paper in context.  However there is one observation in the paper that struck me as remarkably powerful in support of the case for tethered balloons.  This is the only method for lofting the aerosol precursors that required the lifting of only those materials to the stratosphere.  That would, at least superficially, suggest a vastly less energy and materials intensive engineering solution than one that requires thousands of sorties of heavy aircraft to fly up there just to drop off relatively small payloads on each occasion.

Regards

Robert


On 05/11/2023 22:34, Hugh Hunt wrote:
Robert et al,
That paper from 2012 was written in the context of the day - the idea of using aircraft for delivery was de-facto the only and the obvious solution.  But it had not been properly evaluated. or costed  It's probably fair to say that we were rocking the boat a bit, and the tethered balloon idea came out on top.  Who knows, it may still be a good solution.  But along the way we did our best to evaluate the various alternatives such as airships and superguns.  The only one that's a non starter is tall towers.  We put in on there because there was a paper published at the time that was promoting a tower on the top of Everest.  I cannot imagine any world in which tall towers for the delivery of aerosols would work.

I think you're right, it would be good to re-evaluate all these options.

Hugh
 

Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] RE: [geo] Re: Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica
 

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Nov 6, 2023, 11:25:36 AM11/6/23
to Robert Chris, Hugh Hunt, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, geoengineering
Hugh and I already did a paper on this


It only got 9 cites, despite addressing most of the issues raised in this thread. 

A
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages