Admonish Bill with the simple truth

[Doug Grandt]

My comment on Bill Mckibben’s blog post.

Join me and tag it with yours 🫣🤭🤗

Doug

Bill,

I’m tired of reading articles aimed at convincing deniers they’re wrong, and would like to read pieces supporting the dedicated scientists, engineers and other innovators and our deliberations to communicate what positive results can be achieved in the near-term to begin actual cooling during the decades it will take to reduce carbon concentration in the atmosphere and reduced acidity in the ocean, restoring fisheries, whale populations and the entire oceanic food chain. 

Reducing emissions in and of itself will not reduce CO2 concentrations or global average temperatures except on a geologic time scale irrelevant to saving humanity and civilization.

Your paragraph (below) seems to apply to those folks who are dead set against innovation to get back to <350ppm and Holocene norms including the jet stream and Arctic vortex which now deliver extreme weather, death and destruction.

<< Psychologists have done their best to explain why we’re more scared of possible dangers from new things than obvious dangers from old ones (“this reaction may have to do with our amygdala, which research suggests plays a role in detecting novelty as well as processing fear”), and marketers have done their best to exploit it. But the rest of us have to do our best to fight it in ourselves and others. >>

We have met the enemy … you know …

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

[John Nissen]

Hi Doug,

I had always wondered why people seemed more scared of SAI than the climate crisis which is upon us.  This could be the reason:

<< Psychologists have done their best to explain why we’re more scared of possible dangers from new things than obvious dangers from old ones (“this reaction may have to do with our amygdala, which research suggests plays a role in detecting novelty as well as processing fear”), and marketers have done their best to exploit it. But the rest of us have to do our best to fight it in ourselves and others. >>

Amazingly this psychology seems to apply even to the most eminent climate scientists who one might expect to be detached and objective in their advice.  Jim Hansen seems to be a lone exception.

It is also likely that the more powerful the new technology, the greater the fear.  This is certainly true for SAI versus MCB.  But for those of us who are facing up to the reality of accelerating climate change and sea level rise from tipping point activation, and hence the urgency for powerful cooling intervention, then SAI is a godsend and something to be embraced with enthusiasm, giving us genuine hope for a decent future on this planet of ours.  We need to dispel the fear of new technology and infect others with this enthusiasm for action: experimentation with SAI starting next year!  As somebody commented at one of our meetings, we should have started SAI deployment years ago.

We have to do our best to fight the fear of SAI in ourselves and others.  I have tried to show that there is little to be frightened about and dispel the fear that some people express. If a volcano did the cooling, this would be OK; but somehow the very idea of mimicking what a volcano does seems to terrify some people.  They just refuse to believe that SAI could be deployed safely, and don't want an experiment that might show this.

Cheers, John

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all. (Except for spiders of course.)

Below are two discussion on my path to tame the unknown. Both carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering are things we have been doing for a century with known side effects - very well known with carbon dioxide removal processes that are 100 years old, as well as with respiratory disease impacts from human emitted aerosols that have been geoengineering Earth's climate for 150 years.

Many of you may have seen my History of Carbon Dioxide Removal since the great heat bomb in Texas and the world got really steaming.  I have been kicking around a new title for this discussion:

How Beer, Vitamines (note the spelling) and Submarines Will Be Responsible for Climate Restoration

I have also just started a new one and would appreciate input. This one is A History of Geoengineering. Both are intended to dispel the myth that these processes or strategies are new, dangerous and need more research. Carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering are things that we have been doing in a widespread way for 100 years or more.

My latest edition is about marine cloud brightening condensation trails (cloud trails) from ship's exhaust that have been geoengineering Earth for a century or more. These cloud trails mask warming because of the reflectivity of the clouds produced, reflecting far more of the sun's energy back into space before it can be converted into heat energy that is then trapped by the greenhouse effect. These condensation trails are (basically) created by sulfate emissions from burning fossil fuels, very similar to those from high altitude air travel except at high altitude they trap warming like a blanket. At low altitude they reflect sunlight back into space and cool Earth, not warm it.  New air pollution regulations in shipping and in China are now limiting sulfate emissions and unmasking warming. These regulations  are very similar to those created in North America and Europe in the 1970s to control air pollution too. These new regulations are one of the major causes for the outsized jump in global temperature this year. Cooling sulfate aerosols are responsible for masking about half of the warming we should have experienced to date. We have been implementing this type of geoengineering for a century and have very accurate and repeated findings that show exactly the impacts created with deaths from respiratory disease.

As for input; does anyone have other instances? One I am thinking about is deforestation and degradation or elimination of the cloud machine. Albedo geoengineering may be one too, like from grasslands or forests to farmlands. I don't have much or any science on these two though. Hansen's latest on sulfates spawned this first in the series on the history of geoengineering.

(very appropriately) Cheers,
B

A History of Geoengineering

Ship trails from aerosols emitted by burning fossil fuels created these cloud trails across the North Pacific in September 2009. Image: NASA

We Have Been Geoengineering Around the Globe Since Shipping Was First Powered by Fossil Fuels 150 Years Ago

Sulfur in shipping fuel when burned emits sulfate aerosols that create a chemical reaction that enhances the formation of clouds. The clouds then reflect sunlight back into space before it can cause heating on Earth and be trapped by the greenhouse effect. This is geoengineering. It can cool Earth in many of its forms but this one in particular is quite meaningful today. The astonishing rise in temperature in 2023 is plausibly a response to new air pollution regulations in shipping and China, that limit the amount of sulfur in fuels. This limit on sulfur in fossil fuels in turn limits the cooling created by the emitted sulfates. Because of this unmasking of warming, plus a moderate El Nino, it is appearing quite plausible we will hit 1.6 to 1.7 degrees C warming above the late 19th century in 2024 (see here). With a normal 0.2 C to 0.3 C cooling rebound after El Nino, this means it is plausible will will not fall below 1.5 C again; until we restore our climate of course, which current climate policy will not do. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that half of warming that we should have experienced to date has been masked by these cooling aerosols emitted from burning fossil fuels (1). This example of geoengineering (or direct cooling), and then reverse geoengineering with the air pollution regulations limiting sulfur in fossils fuels, gives us a historic example of geoengineering our culture has been performing since shipping powered by fossil fuels began.

(1) IPCC tells us 57% of warming has been masked by cooling aerosols... IPCC 2013 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), page 13, C. Drivers of Climate Change, bullet 7. Up to (-)1.9 to (-) 0.1Wm(-2) of warming has been masked by aerosols out of 2.29 Wm(-2) (Bullet 1) of total warming experienced to date. This equals 57 percent of total warming masked by aerosols and does represent the high end of the range.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Further information – Summary for Policy Makers, Drivers of Climate Change, page 14, bullet 10, Figure SPM.5/
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

Note: This is a draft run at this narrative. Several things are blurred like the chemical reaction with sulfates that creates  condensation nuclei, plus the fact that El Nino effects do not significantly manifest until the winter after Central Pacific warming is recognized, plus the fact that the lag from our just ended triple-dip La Nina was suppose to create a summer that was nowhere near as record breaking as we endured, plus the issue with the Tonga eruption and plausible warming instead of cooling from sulfates.  A longer narrative would include these things but the shorter narrative is important for reader usability. Too much science spoils the broth.

A History of Carbon Dioxide Removal

Nobel Prize winner Carl Linde was the first to remove carbon dioxide from air. His technology was developed from his refrigeration discovery that itself was first used in the 1870s to help the brewing industry in Bavaria overcome limitations on summer season brewing and beer storage that was plagued by bacterial contamination that soured the beer, where from 1553 to 1850 summer brewing was literally banned between April 23 and September 29. After 1850, brewers learned to brew over produce in march and April and store their beer in caves where they had stockpiled winter ice. By 1890 Linde had sold 747 of his “ice machines” and summer brewing was flourishing. In 1892 Guinness contracted with Linde to build a CO2 liquefaction plant to sell excess CO2 from fermentation as an industrial chemical. This set in motion the ultra-cold refrigeration technology that Linde used in cryoseparation to distill the components of air into usable products that included not only carbon dioxide but, oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. The cryoseparation technology first supercools air to a liquid, then evaporates the liquid in a tall column where the temperature rises upwards in the column, condensing individual components at different temperatures, much like water vapor condenses in clouds to make rain. Carl von Linde was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1913 for his development of refrigeration technology.

Image Caption: The WWII Gato-Balao Class submarines were the first US subs to use the potash process to remove CO2 from submarine air to keep our sailors safe from CO2 poisoning.

Early 20th Century Air Capture of CO2

In 1904 the recyclable lime-potash process was discovered to separate CO2 from air as a simple chemical reaction using extremely common potash and lime. In 1930 the first patent was issued for an ammonia-based process that used amines to remove CO2 from air. Notable applications were in submarines in World War II to keep our sailors safe form carbon dioxide poisoning. Also in World War II, the Habor-Bosch Process was developed to synthesize ammonia from hydrocarbons in Germany, mostly for explosives, as the Allies had cut off the German supplies of guano needed to generate the ammonia. This process became an extremely important process globally in synthesizing fertilizers. An important part of this process is removing CO2 to allow the formation of ammonia. This CO2 removal process advanced the state of amine technology for removal of CO2 from air. These three processes are mature today and represent some of the most important industrial processes known to humankind. Their components are widespread in industry making their implementation into a scaled atmospheric CO2 removal infrastructure a challenge of motivation and money, not technology.

NOTES:

Slide Summary:  Below are references to the three major, mature carbon dioxide removal technologies, their discoveries and invention and notable developments in these technologies: Cryoseparation, recyclable lime/potash, and amines.

Cryoseparation of air… Carl von Linde was a Novel Prize Winner in 1913 for his refrigeration invention and advancements in science of distillation of the constituent components of air (cryoseparation). In 1897, Carl von  Linde gave up his professorship at the Technical University of Munich to found "Linde's Ice Machine Company." This company made possible one of the greatest developments of the human culture of all time – summer beer. Historically, summer beer was contaminated by different warm tolerant bacteria that fouled the beer. In Bavaria in Linde's early years, summer brewing of beer was strictly forbidden because of what would later be understood as bacterial contamination in warm weather. Linde's refrigerator made summer beer possible. Linde had sold 747 of his ice machines by 1890. In 1892 Guinness Brewing contracted with Linde to build a carbon dioxide liquefaction plant. In 1894 Linde began his famous work liquefying air and distilling it into its constituent components. 
In 1897 Linde was knighted as Ritter von Linde. In 1913 Linde was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in refrigeration and cryoseparation of air.

Potash/Potassium Carbonate… A US patent granted in 1904, described a process for absorbing CO2 in a hot solution of potassium carbonate and then stripping the solution by pressure reduction without additional heating (Behrens, 1904).

Potash/ Lye… Giammarco was the first to patent an activated potash solution in 1955, and there are now a number of such processes - Kohl and Riesenfeld mentions some - they are still widely applied.

Haber-Bosch process… This was an extremely important process developed just before WWI that allowed nitrogen production for use in explosives and fertilizers, with a key part of the process being the CO2 removal. It was a German invention because the Allies controlled all the guano deposits that were the nitrogen source. CO2 is a byproduct of the process and development of removal processes played an important role in advanced amine processes today.

WWII – Lime/Potash and Amines: Keeping our sailors safe from CO2 Poisoning… The history of CO2 removal in submarines begins in World War II… "Air monitoring was by colorimetric tubes, soda lime was used to remove carbon dioxide and oxygen candles provide a source of oxygen replenishment." With the advent of long submerse times with nuclear submarines , amines were used to scrub CO2 from submarine air.

Mazurek, Key developments in submarine air monitoring and purification, SAMAP Proceedings, October 2015.
https://www.sonistics.com/wp-content/uploads/SAMAP-15-Proceedings.pdf

Mention of soda ash and amines…
https://www.sonistics.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Brief-History-of-Submarine-Air-Quality.pdf

Amines… In 1930, Robert Bottoms was awarded a patent for removing CO2 from air with amines. The discovery of amines was first published in 1911 by Kazimierz Funk. Funk was inspired by Christiaan Eijkman work that showed eating brown rice reduced vulnerability to beri-beri, compared to those who at normal milled rice. (Beri-beri is a vitamin B deficiency that causes nerve and heart inflammation.) He was able to isolate the substance and because it contained an amine group he called it "vitamine". It was later to be known as vitamin B3 (niacin), though he thought that it would be thiamine (vitamin B1) and described it as "anti-beri-beri-factor". Amines have gone on to become one of the most important chemical groups in all of industry with processes that include: dyes, nylon, medicines, cooling systems, surfactants, cosmetics, agrochemicals, corrosion inhibitor, machining fluids, powder coatings, polyurethane, and epoxy coatings. Amines are a $32 billion industry in 2023.

(Thanks to Richard Darton, Emeritus Professor, University of Oxford, for information on the importance of potash in the early development of CO2 processes in industry.)

1903, Separation of CO2 from air -
Linde, Patent, Process of producing low temperatures, the liquefaction of gases, and the separation of the constituents of gaseous mixtures
https://patents.google.com/patent/US727650A/en

Carl von Linde,  Carl von Linde’s Breakthrough in the Refrigeration Process, SciHi blog, June 11, 2018
http://scihi.org/carl-von-linde/#:~:text=Von%20Linde%20discovered%20a%20refrigeration,1913%20Nobel%20Prize%20in%20Physics.
Linde Nobel Prize 1913 -
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1913/ceremony-speech/
125 Years of Linde
https://www.linde-healthcare.nl/nl/images/chronicle_e%5B1%5D14_9855_tcm170-233340.pdf

1904, Potash/Lye -
Behrens 1904, Patent, Process for manufacturing carbonic acid…
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ff/69/f6/d02d8bc1768a99/US960788.pdf

1930, Amines -
Bottoms, Patent, Process for separating acidic gases (amines), 1930…
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/21/dc/33/8f7f493bfaae75/US1783901.pdf

1955 Activated Potash (Arsenic) -
Giammarco, 1955, Patent Process for the separation and recovery of carbonic acid from gas mixtures…
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE1000356B/en

--

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

--
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_FxoMGOqC0mRVBKn6Y7gmBJMvuAgfO2sDMU21h2Cjpc789Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Peter--While I understand your second point, I must take exception to the second part of your first point. With uncontrolled climate change the world is currently experiencing an increasing number of quite severe events, many driven related to an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, both wet and dry components. Taking energy out of the system via SAI will reduce this intensification. The model simulations suggest SAI takes the world back toward where it was, not perfectly, but strongly in that direction. While the return to normal won't be perfect, the question really is if the return is mostly to within the variability envelope, so conditions that are likely much more bearable than how climate change has shifted the variability envelope to way beyond historic normality. Yes, some patterns of intervention and amounts are likely to lead to worse outcomes and others and any logical application program would be seeking to minimize that tendency to adverse consequences (I'd note that a number of the simulations are based on offsetting a full doubling of the CO2 concentration whereas what is needed assuming mitigation continues is likely to need to offset only a third or so of a doubling--again likely keeping any adverse consequences to a minimum). So, it jus seems to me that speculating about unknown and vague "unintended negative consequences" without providing some context just does not seem to me to contribute to a thoughtful evaluation of SAI.

Mike MacCracken

On 10/25/23 9:13 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:

John 

I do not fear new technology and I support doing research on SAI.  But I  have reservations about the reality of SAI being 

able to make a significant contribution to our fight against climate change. My reservations fall into two categories 

1 SAI does not solve the climate problem but  possibly the symptoms. It clearly can have unintended negative consequences when implemented at the global scale which cannot be tested. 

2 Timing needs to include not only technological but the political support needed. Each sovereign nation will evaluate its impact on it and the difficulty of getting public support. We have been working on a consensus about how to address climate change and no meaningful global action  plan  has emerged. 

I combine the two above comments with the lack of a global consensus to mobilize now to address the climate change threat without which our planet will be ravaged to the extent our ability to respond will disappear under the instability created by the migration of climate refugees. I conclude the time has past for new untested ideas and for all of us climate warriors to contribute our energy and talents to a consensus plan using existing and tested technology. We can meet the challenge with only the time to scale to gigatonnes of CDR and increase the amount of  renewable energy. We have the industrial capacity to do this the only thing stopping us is the disarray among  climate warriors in providing a consensus plan to the decision. In reaching a consensus the SAI supports should of course be able to make their pitch 

but they and others whose path is not chosen and or cannot scale have to do what the Ukranians are doing an contribute their time and expertise to the paths chosen. If the experts cannot agree how can we expect our non technical decision makers to call for the mobilization needed

Peter 

--
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/CACS_FxoMGOqC0mRVBKn6Y7gmBJMvuAgfO2sDMU21h2Cjpc789Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

--
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/CANx_M7QfO0NZnAGySQ9qzyDJCPpFhjfgNZvAXzJFyR79mMy5ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bruce Preville]

Hi John,

You make a great point, the fear and hesitation surrounding SAI are fascinating. It's definitely true that humans can be averse to new, "unproven" solutions, especially when they have a somewhat futuristic, sci-fi vibe like SAI does. However, it's important to emphasize that SAI is not some dangerous experiment - it's based on solid science and modeling, and the potential benefits are enormous. 

The key to communication here is framing SAI as a proven, effective response to the dire, current situation we find ourselves in. It's not a scary new thing, it's a smart, science-backed solution to a known problem. By focusing on the facts and the benefits, we can overcome the fear and hesitation, and get people on board with SAI as a valuable option.

Bruce Preville

On Oct 25, 2023, at 2:52 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,

I had always wondered why people seemed more scared of SAI than the climate crisis which is upon us.  This could be the reason:

<< Psychologists have done their best to explain why we’re more scared of possible dangers from new things than obvious dangers from old ones (“this reaction may have to do with our amygdala, which research suggests plays a role in detecting novelty as well as processing fear”), and marketers have done their best to exploit it. But the rest of us have to do our best to fight it in ourselves and others. >>

Amazingly this psychology seems to apply even to the most eminent climate scientists who one might expect to be detached and objective in their advice.  Jim Hansen seems to be a lone exception.

It is also likely that the more powerful the new technology, the greater the fear.  This is certainly true for SAI versus MCB.  But for those of us who are facing up to the reality of accelerating climate change and sea level rise from tipping point activation, and hence the urgency for powerful cooling intervention, then SAI is a godsend and something to be embraced with enthusiasm, giving us genuine hope for a decent future on this planet of ours.  We need to dispel the fear of new technology and infect others with this enthusiasm for action: experimentation with SAI starting next year!  As somebody commented at one of our meetings, we should have started SAI deployment years ago.

We have to do our best to fight the fear of SAI in ourselves and others.  I have tried to show that there is little to be frightened about and dispel the fear that some people express. If a volcano did the cooling, this would be OK; but somehow the very idea of mimicking what a volcano does seems to terrify some people.  They just refuse to believe that SAI could be deployed safely, and don't want an experiment that might show this.

Cheers, John

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 5:44 AM Doug Grandt <answer...@mac.com> wrote:

My comment on Bill Mckibben’s blog post.

Join me and tag it with yours 🫣🤭🤗

Doug

Bill,

I’m tired of reading articles aimed at convincing deniers they’re wrong, and would like to read pieces supporting the dedicated scientists, engineers and other innovators and our deliberations to communicate what positive results can be achieved in the near-term to begin actual cooling during the decades it will take to reduce carbon concentration in the atmosphere and reduced acidity in the ocean, restoring fisheries, whale populations and the entire oceanic food chain. 

Reducing emissions in and of itself will not reduce CO2 concentrations or global average temperatures except on a geologic time scale irrelevant to saving humanity and civilization.

Your paragraph (below) seems to apply to those folks who are dead set against innovation to get back to <350ppm and Holocene norms including the jet stream and Arctic vortex which now deliver extreme weather, death and destruction.

<< Psychologists have done their best to explain why we’re more scared of possible dangers from new things than obvious dangers from old ones (“this reaction may have to do with our amygdala, which research suggests plays a role in detecting novelty as well as processing fear”), and marketers have done their best to exploit it. But the rest of us have to do our best to fight it in ourselves and others. >>

We have met the enemy … you know …

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CACS_FxoMGOqC0mRVBKn6Y7gmBJMvuAgfO2sDMU21h2Cjpc789Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Carl Page]

I actually spend a lot of time these days trying to get people to take action to save their life and the lives of their family.

The key fact. Air pollution over your lifetime, is as dangerous as playing Russian roulette once with a six shooter.  1:6 chance of death. 

Half of air pollution is from fossil fuels, give or take, depending where you live. So, 

If you know 12 people that died, one of them was killed by fossil fuel use..

There's an industry trying to murder you. They have a one out of 12 chance of succeeding. Are you taking action to defend yourself? It's the fossil fuel industry.

We totally don't need fossil fuels at all! In the 1980s, France showed us how to get a grid off of fossil fuels entirely. They didn't do anything you unique. Any nation can do it. And if France had gone a little bit further, and got transportation fuels to be synthetic using pink hydrogen and environmental carbon resulting in net zero aviation and transportation. 

It's child's play to get district heating on nuclear.

If every nation on Earth had decided to save money, and save lives, 100 million of them, by following Francis lead, and taking this extra two steps, how would the world be different? There would be no climate change today visible! 3/4 of the greenhouse gases accumulated after France showed us the way forward.

It's still possible to decarbonize the grid. Ontario just did it! Okay they have an unfair amount of hydropower, but the compliment is nuclear.  

One psychological problem we have is that we defend ourselves against unfair risks, but we don't defend against risks that are shared across humanity and with our families. A one out of 12 chance of killing me, and my family, and everybody else, should be taken a lot more seriously than a one out of 12 chance of just killing me. But that's not how we think.

Let's try to learn the graciousness that comes from confronting people that are trying to hurt everyone, just as seriously as we confront people that are trying to hurt us personally!

Someday, somebody is going to start building dry, small, cheap, safe, modular nuclear power plants. And then we're going to be able to convert all of our coal plants to nuclear, and all of our natural gas turbines to nuclear. And will the carbonize the whole world in like 5 years. Because these unpressurized, dry reactors, are built like heavy diesels. Any auto plant can shove out 60 gigawatts of power plant reactors per month. This is not a big problem to solve if you're an engineer. The problem is getting the politicians out of the way. And the entrenched business interests out of the way. Everybody wants energy to be cheaper, and their vendors and fuel suppliers.  Stakeholder politics make sure that those people never get hurt. We need leadership that doesn't brag about inviting all the stakeholders to the table in the room where it happens. We need the right product on schedule.. 

We need engineers and scientists to have protection from politics and a sufficient budget to choose the right stuff. 

Maybe they can find something better than small modular dry nuclear reactors. That's fine with me! But it can't be a sole focus on fract gas plus wind plus solar, which is what they call renewable energy.  

All we have to do is out talk the fossil fuel industry. Note that their marketing in PR budget last year was 200 billion worldwide. That's a number that comes from assuming they spend 5% of revenues on marketing as good businesses do.

[Peter Eisenberger]

John 

I do not fear new technology and I support doing research on SAI.  But I  have reservations about the reality of SAI being 

able to make a significant contribution to our fight against climate change. My reservations fall into two categories 

1 SAI does not solve the climate problem but  possibly the symptoms. It clearly can have unintended negative consequences when implemented at the global scale which cannot be tested. 

2 Timing needs to include not only technological but the political support needed. Each sovereign nation will evaluate its impact on it and the difficulty of getting public support. We have been working on a consensus about how to address climate change and no meaningful global action  plan  has emerged. 

I combine the two above comments with the lack of a global consensus to mobilize now to address the climate change threat without which our planet will be ravaged to the extent our ability to respond will disappear under the instability created by the migration of climate refugees. I conclude the time has past for new untested ideas and for all of us climate warriors to contribute our energy and talents to a consensus plan using existing and tested technology. We can meet the challenge with only the time to scale to gigatonnes of CDR and increase the amount of  renewable energy. We have the industrial capacity to do this the only thing stopping us is the disarray among  climate warriors in providing a consensus plan to the decision. In reaching a consensus the SAI supports should of course be able to make their pitch 

but they and others whose path is not chosen and or cannot scale have to do what the Ukranians are doing an contribute their time and expertise to the paths chosen. If the experts cannot agree how can we expect our non technical decision makers to call for the mobilization needed

Peter 

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 2:52 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> 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/CACS_FxoMGOqC0mRVBKn6Y7gmBJMvuAgfO2sDMU21h2Cjpc789Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bruce Preville]

Bruce Melton,

Rather than the title, "A History of Geoengineering," the key here is to highlight the effectiveness and the potential of SAI, rather than just making it sound like some dry, historical treatment. Make it sound like the game-changing solution it is!

Such as one of these:

"Engineering Our Future: The Promise of SAI"

"The Ultimate Cooling Hack: Geoengineering to the Rescue"

"How SAI Could Save Our Planet: A Climate Solution with Proven Potential"

"Climate Change's Silver Bullet: The Power of SAI”

Bruce Preville

On Oct 25, 2023, at 4:47 PM, Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net> wrote:

A History of Geoengineering.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Michael and Peter,

The same removal of excess energy from the climate system can be achieved without creating the several known negative consequences of SAI, via a combination of MCB, MEER, and other low altitude light reflection approaches.

A most certain drawback of SAI is a reduction in renewable energy capacity and consequently the rate of transitioning away from fossil fuel burning.  Renaud recently alerted me to this preprint. There are several older papers, one of which is here.   Consensus is good:  5-15% reduction for various solar technologies and locations.

In contrast, surfaced based methods such as MEER could enhance solar PV via surface-cloud-PV multi-reflection mechanisms, boosting PV potential in especially cloudy locations while cooling down the surface.

Best,

Ye

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/6c362d66-c2a0-4b37-ac03-2803942c8367%40comcast.net.

[Dana Woods]

Hell(0) All,

I'm with Ye and thanks to Ye for being ahead of the 8 ball on this. If you haven't read the essay /analyss  linked blow  that he suggested we all read over  a month ago it summarises the ,imo glaringly , obvious reasons that SAI should not actually be used and it's not only the possibility (or likelihoood) of termination shock it's also the likelihood of failure and thus  overuse after a few decades  

Basically,  we would also be trusting the same human species and the same governments that made this killing mess in the first place and have shown great ineptitude in making and FOLLOWING THROUGH ON emissions reductions to magically become the wise, unselfish and competent, consistent people they would need to be to in execute SAI properly and in the right context

I probably don't belong on Prag unless there are other people in Prag who at least have serious doubts and reservations about SAI and  John would speak for us also , or someone else would be elected or sel;ected who would and not mainly for himself/their self  Is there another group that supports SRM along with, perhaps, some other types of geoengineering as well as a draw down and end to the use of fossil fuels? Anyone?

I'm also pretty sure that neither Dr Tao nor I not anyone who doesn't agree with John, Doug etc is therefore reacting out of their lower brain . My personal perception is that Ye and people like him, and myself are in fact using MORE not less of their grey matter and a whole lot of complex critical thinking skills

 file:///C:/Users/Dana/Downloads/2022_The%20Future%20Is%20the%20Termination%20Shock%20On%20the.pdf

~ Sincerely ,Dana Woods

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/2a6365e8-892b-7ec4-6e0e-65a9f69d2613%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Dana Woods]

Hello again All ,

Here is the correct link to the essay/analysis about SAI by Andreas Mahm that i discusses above and that Ye asked us all to read and take seriously over a month ago now https://brill.com/view/journals/hima/31/1/article-p3_1.xml?language=en

I have a comment or question or two for Micheal (McCracken) but am totally exhausted at the moment and when not near perpetually busy lately. I will try to come back to respond to your comments above and ask a question or two in the next few days to possibly a week.

Thanks and Cheers, Dana

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:07 AM Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ye,

Can you kindly fix this link to Andreas Malm's essay. I had it book marked but the url had my first name in it so I don't remember if I was somehow logged in or what. By the way I intended to write back to you long before now I'm just very busy and/or tired alot and I wanted to express myself well , ect

Cheers, Dana

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:06 AM Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ye,

Can you kindly fix this link to Andreas Malm's essay. I had it book marked but the url had my first name in it so I don't remember if I was somehow logged in or what. By the way I intended to write back to you long before now I'm just very busy and/or tired alot and I wanted to express myself well , ect

Cheers, Dana

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:59 PM Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Hello oceans...@gmail.com,

We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (noac-meetings) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:

 * You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
 * The owner of the group may have removed this group.
 * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
 * This group may not be open to posting.

If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the Help Center at https://groups.google.com/support/.

Thanks,

Google Groups



----- Original message -----

X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHNoXuvD4ibFB+XoGWwv3c11L0ZJENT0HC5btcY69BO6FzGqu7mCCC5U94gs9b9XjctsKgZ
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:210e:b0:2b6:df71:cff1 with SMTP id a14-20020a05651c210e00b002b6df71cff1mr1476724ljq.52.1698379183111;
        Thu, 26 Oct 2023 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1698379183; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        b=Olck2tZLWqmm9/TPs2BnADzCxFHcLHnbeN1xSIys+fF8ereC2ZiLpwNHuHhk6aTRVS
         1uj5hluTYE3iw9E4s6Tb31lkN+B2bUFs+S8W6EqL7GmKPJYURIvwnWG5xrkKICE+aL7a
         G6tEV5i89CfQphuNUyxOR+NPOu+FVI59PvahnnISWL2DBpTrZiYHawH98SknbR1yTumQ
         rtY18nxr60YuSmf6PHsZq1u1FL6MFzSbwfrclgFA/Ol4g4QZBjHfCdsAS1RlX7D87LXK
         yXJL2VBeBI3JMKkbxEFGco7GZdpw1YqnIOTuGmzBq+LYj/Ns0I/XDJ0LjfnhMJumS2uT
         XXRQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:dkim-signature;
        bh=YqGo2Wkcmj5kIiwrkEhMtTifkeeaZyf0ValBSR4/Hps=;
        fh=oB8ZUg3PLNg7Ewnx6crwNbfMA3YdsByTLGc6LLC8YKs=;
        b=YN/+bdveUXqBf1cDaP0p7Kncz3i0hAsS0kjL0dN0keX7X4kdgNjf3jGEXyMQEE0iP3
         36ekezrlslBzjRjT71GxxeFHy8Ppts3KQegXCB4bPSEabQPmO8UutRbcHN4bNkkfPPYB
         YxcTLxPo0r9Dp8jiFegcKH4ONzD44vi3ikKqNYd7GCwhcA71Ytg1lTr1Wa1ZlLHExDzC
         UfkOPBSIfz1lAo0aIDzhyCio8hFaslFNu2vqQHo9b39Z3kAYYjiaU3H1qOGWHcFrpdKv
         e3oAEbgXc+BKTUgyGngTkNWmolmMi1OSb43ClUkNK5PQVuq57aX4iTPfAnWXJNZFrPhM
         AbuA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com;
       dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=Z0Fts++L;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of oceans...@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=oceans...@gmail.com;
       dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
Return-Path: <oceans...@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com. [2a00:1450:4864:20::630])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fj14-20020a05600c0c8e00b004047722bcc7si45570wmb.1.2023.10.26.20.59.43
        (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Thu, 26 Oct 2023 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of oceans...@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::630;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;
       dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=Z0Fts++L;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of oceans...@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::630 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=oceans...@gmail.com;
       dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9be7e3fa1daso254347166b.3;
        Thu, 26 Oct 2023 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1698379182; x=1698983982; dara=google.com;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=YqGo2Wkcmj5kIiwrkEhMtTifkeeaZyf0ValBSR4/Hps=;
        b=Z0Fts++Lu+JSduHkrf9cOjdmbDDuwTZc9grcPrp+hN4mfb7lmzmW9A0A9OcV6NfAwu
         poO6bG9DsuxrTbpC51sShOJ0T/bZo40opejpsGp+BtpJyssxKvGYpAP4FX6m8jFO5M8v
         2hbqllfHtW5KHnbRvpmVHMu5izcOCuVAJaoZZVoRkoclzCuN0cbS74ozUMHRVPTL78co
         n4PkbpzTKnvhHTrY1wkPjL4sxBwiqqIMl19nMgFusxC4YZAsqROnDaOrqRIbEl3avna/
         8xyPe3JTuGH2hCyYRIlECvTD1DOh6kG4EiH7tOPlVLLNYWuGGIMB8XQluGaSYvUXPwtD
         zCNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698379182; x=1698983982;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
         :reply-to;
        bh=YqGo2Wkcmj5kIiwrkEhMtTifkeeaZyf0ValBSR4/Hps=;
        b=aWyGMGbSYkIVKsDfka0Mu+g7FUvfVZyTjOUwwo5PoT/hc3pycjk1sjU+mAyBieMxGv
         43wA5C0MdTgjoXIoUHzvINT8qwDGpOTr07NCJ4yLbakal/8jWllSyG7P3uqIfXpkIQzR
         tF7f7vXfXnvqsVXb5+rkEvDr+8DDmwcvdHIZeT3vtolr/a+KIXg+Wffj02YI3L6dW8AW
         gM326mXY1ZWcuGoFyk8UZLnQcOKaj13dxuMeMkAMfeK7GYcmYObPRWDuYaD2aCFz/0Lf
         H0xL10ddcm3YBMnH/05Odh6pTSR/URdsB+0hXpyGq+gPw9YOPAcn5+f4wtEWEZXCIAeR
         FRxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwgBil4+vV3G95Zearis4iOyEThOZWBj15RCMt2Qq3NgbLPhweA
        r9A5esHDw+a5Iw1EM9wIBo++ChuWNIghUTvSkAf1MZ5LCYw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3fa2:b0:9b2:abb1:a4ab with SMTP id
 hr34-20020a1709073fa200b009b2abb1a4abmr1330258ejc.65.1698379181987; Thu, 26
 Oct 2023 20:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7F8645D0-BF03-4A1F...@mac.com> <CACS_FxoMGOqC0mRVBKn6Y7gm...@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANx_M7QfO0NZnAGySQ9qzyDJ...@mail.gmail.com>
 <6c362d66-c2a0-4b37...@comcast.net> <2a6365e8-892b-7ec4...@rowland.harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2a6365e8-892b-7ec4...@rowland.harvard.edu>
From: Dana Woods <oceans...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 23:59:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD7Z-DDsqycBCmSLLZBFk034...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: Admonish Bill with the simple truth
To: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>,
        Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Doug Grandt <answer...@mac.com>,
        Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>,
        healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>,
        NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>,
        Healthy Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>,
        Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>, Herb Simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>, Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>,
        Russ George <russ....@gmail.com>, Alex Carlin <pyn...@hotmail.com>,
        Mark Milne <mmi...@meer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000d6f4280608aab771"

----- Message truncated -----

[daleanne bourjaily]

Dear all,

Speaking from my background in behavioural psychology, we are herd animals and tend to follow the leader of the pack, i.e. influencers.

Example- despite scientific evidence to the contrary breastfeeding infants was - since rhe middle ages- thought to be backward and to be unhealthy for mothers.  The upper classes led  and the lower classes benefitted economically by being hired as wet nurses. 

Since the 1920's this disinformation had been fed by a huge marketing campaign paid for by vested interests in milk powder.

It took Hollywood, a.o. Barbara Hershey Carradine breastfeesing on live tv and a huge international network of volunteers to turn the tide, amongst the myself.   

Conclusion- we may need  influencers and far more volunteers.  I am greatly encouraged by the recent conversion of the leading lights of XR- Extinction Rebellion- to the possibility of SRM.  

Last week I also spoke to Nyombi Morris- Ugandan Climate activist who was on the cover of Time magazine - a true influencer- , another young ally- and to Clara Botto from Brazil of SRM Youth Watch who has addressed the UNGA, another important influencer.  I am happy to report that they -and Vikka Jakoonen of Operaatio Arktis -will approach more youth organisations and share the peer reviewed documents coming from NOAC HPAC and PRAG.  They are excited by this prospect.

If you know more youth organisations and influencers who may be receptive please send info.

With the youth we can build a movement bottom up while continuing to speak to policy makers.  

While building the movement we can start to work on:

Governance - a center at the Hague for which we must lobby and fundraise - not controversial so possibly achievable and supported by the young people to whom I have spoken.

Research facilities - have aporoached two parties and have a positive response from a seagrass farm with research vessel in Namibia.  

The second party has research a vessel in the Southern Caribbean and is working with the NASA space program.  I hope to hear back soon.

We are in a conversation with ESTEC about an aerosol forcing data payload.

Please share any other prospects whom we can approach together with you.

Who are we? Blue Cooling Initiative is working on behalf of information and research funding for marine and nature based SRM. It also aims to make independently verified information available on the full range of SRM and to establish a governance center at the Hague so that your science can be funded and field tested. 

 

I hope that we can present a united front in this regard.

See: XR: https://rebellion.global/it/blog/2023/10/19/reflections-5-years-on/

Best regards,

Dale Anne Bourjaily

BCI

 

Op vr 27 okt. 2023 09:37 schreef Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>:

Dear Mike 

I do not disagree with the severity of the threat we are facing . I also  do understand the vagueness of unintended consequences

but their is a plausibility argument that I find compelling 

The major initial threat will be the mass migrations by climate refuges as per the US defense department and others 

The impacts of sai will not be uniform as arre the climate change impacts them selves 

Someplaces like Russia and Canada and opening the polar route to shipping will

be positive 

Therefore 

1 getting global approval will be highly improbable 

2, if implemented one cannot determine the regional impact of SAI 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 25, 2023, at 7:00 PM, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:



Dear Peter--While I understand your second point, I must take exception to the second part of your first point. With uncontrolled climate change the world is currently experiencing an increasing number of quite severe events, many driven related to an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, both wet and dry components. Taking energy out of the system via SAI will reduce this intensification. The model simulations suggest SAI takes the world back toward where it was, not perfectly, but strongly in that direction. While the return to normal won't be perfect, the question really is if the return is mostly to within the variability envelope, so conditions that are likely much more bearable than how climate change has shifted the variability envelope to way beyond historic normality. Yes, some patterns of intervention and amounts are likely to lead to worse outcomes and others and any logical application program would be seeking to minimize that tendency to adverse consequences (I'd note that a number of the simulations are based on offsetting a full doubling of the CO2 concentration whereas what is needed assuming mitigation continues is likely to need to offset only a third or so of a doubling--again likely keeping any adverse consequences to a minimum). So, it jus seems to me that speculating about unknown and vague "unintended negative consequences" without providing some context just does not seem to me to contribute to a thoughtful evaluation of SAI.

Mike MacCracken

On 10/25/23 9:13 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:

John 

I do not fear new technology and I support doing research on SAI.  But I  have reservations about the reality of SAI being 

able to make a significant contribution to our fight against climate change. My reservations fall into two categories 

1 SAI does not solve the climate problem but  possibly the symptoms. It clearly can have unintended negative consequences when implemented at the global scale which cannot be tested. 

2 Timing needs to include not only technological but the political support needed. Each sovereign nation will evaluate its impact on it and the difficulty of getting public support. We have been working on a consensus about how to address climate change and no meaningful global action  plan  has emerged. 

I combine the two above comments with the lack of a global consensus to mobilize now to address the climate change threat without which our planet will be ravaged to the extent our ability to respond will disappear under the instability created by the migration of climate refugees. I conclude the time has past for new untested ideas and for all of us climate warriors to contribute our energy and talents to a consensus plan using existing and tested technology. We can meet the challenge with only the time to scale to gigatonnes of CDR and increase the amount of  renewable energy. We have the industrial capacity to do this the only thing stopping us is the disarray among  climate warriors in providing a consensus plan to the decision. In reaching a consensus the SAI supports should of course be able to make their pitch 

but they and others whose path is not chosen and or cannot scale have to do what the Ukranians are doing an contribute their time and expertise to the paths chosen. If the experts cannot agree how can we expect our non technical decision makers to call for the mobilization needed

Peter 

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 2:52 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,

I had always wondered why people seemed more scared of SAI than the climate crisis which is upon us.  This could be the reason:

<< Psychologists have done their best to explain why we’re more scared of possible dangers from new things than obvious dangers from old ones (“this reaction may have to do with our amygdala, which research suggests plays a role in detecting novelty as well as processing fear”), and marketers have done their best to exploit it. But the rest of us have to do our best to fight it in ourselves and others. >>

Amazingly this psychology seems to apply even to the most eminent climate scientists who one might expect to be detached and objective in their advice.  Jim Hansen seems to be a lone exception.

It is also likely that the more powerful the new technology, the greater the fear.  This is certainly true for SAI versus MCB.  But for those of us who are facing up to the reality of accelerating climate change and sea level rise from tipping point activation, and hence the urgency for powerful cooling intervention, then SAI is a godsend and something to be embraced with enthusiasm, giving us genuine hope for a decent future on this planet of ours.  We need to dispel the fear of new technology and infect others with this enthusiasm for action: experimentation with SAI starting next year!  As somebody commented at one of our meetings, we should have started SAI deployment years ago.

We have to do our best to fight the fear of SAI in ourselves and others.  I have tried to show that there is little to be frightened about and dispel the fear that some people express. If a volcano did the cooling, this would be OK; but somehow the very idea of mimicking what a volcano does seems to terrify some people.  They just refuse to believe that SAI could be deployed safely, and don't want an experiment that might show this.

Cheers, John

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 5:44 AM Doug Grandt <answer...@mac.com> wrote:

My comment on Bill Mckibben’s blog post.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/441D3BE0-77B6-49A6-9F02-C4F2B57A45A7%40gmail.com.

[Peter Eisenberger]

Dear Mike 

I do not disagree with the severity of the threat we are facing . I also  do understand the vagueness of unintended consequences

but their is a plausibility argument that I find compelling 

The major initial threat will be the mass migrations by climate refuges as per the US defense department and others 

The impacts of sai will not be uniform as arre the climate change impacts them selves 

Someplaces like Russia and Canada and opening the polar route to shipping will

be positive 

Therefore 

1 getting global approval will be highly improbable 

2, if implemented one cannot determine the regional impact of SAI 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 25, 2023, at 7:00 PM, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:



Dear Peter--While I understand your second point, I must take exception to the second part of your first point. With uncontrolled climate change the world is currently experiencing an increasing number of quite severe events, many driven related to an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, both wet and dry components. Taking energy out of the system via SAI will reduce this intensification. The model simulations suggest SAI takes the world back toward where it was, not perfectly, but strongly in that direction. While the return to normal won't be perfect, the question really is if the return is mostly to within the variability envelope, so conditions that are likely much more bearable than how climate change has shifted the variability envelope to way beyond historic normality. Yes, some patterns of intervention and amounts are likely to lead to worse outcomes and others and any logical application program would be seeking to minimize that tendency to adverse consequences (I'd note that a number of the simulations are based on offsetting a full doubling of the CO2 concentration whereas what is needed assuming mitigation continues is likely to need to offset only a third or so of a doubling--again likely keeping any adverse consequences to a minimum). So, it jus seems to me that speculating about unknown and vague "unintended negative consequences" without providing some context just does not seem to me to contribute to a thoughtful evaluation of SAI.

Mike MacCracken

On 10/25/23 9:13 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:

John 

I do not fear new technology and I support doing research on SAI.  But I  have reservations about the reality of SAI being 

able to make a significant contribution to our fight against climate change. My reservations fall into two categories 

1 SAI does not solve the climate problem but  possibly the symptoms. It clearly can have unintended negative consequences when implemented at the global scale which cannot be tested. 

2 Timing needs to include not only technological but the political support needed. Each sovereign nation will evaluate its impact on it and the difficulty of getting public support. We have been working on a consensus about how to address climate change and no meaningful global action  plan  has emerged. 

I combine the two above comments with the lack of a global consensus to mobilize now to address the climate change threat without which our planet will be ravaged to the extent our ability to respond will disappear under the instability created by the migration of climate refugees. I conclude the time has past for new untested ideas and for all of us climate warriors to contribute our energy and talents to a consensus plan using existing and tested technology. We can meet the challenge with only the time to scale to gigatonnes of CDR and increase the amount of  renewable energy. We have the industrial capacity to do this the only thing stopping us is the disarray among  climate warriors in providing a consensus plan to the decision. In reaching a consensus the SAI supports should of course be able to make their pitch 

but they and others whose path is not chosen and or cannot scale have to do what the Ukranians are doing an contribute their time and expertise to the paths chosen. If the experts cannot agree how can we expect our non technical decision makers to call for the mobilization needed

Peter 

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 2:52 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,

I had always wondered why people seemed more scared of SAI than the climate crisis which is upon us.  This could be the reason:

<< Psychologists have done their best to explain why we’re more scared of possible dangers from new things than obvious dangers from old ones (“this reaction may have to do with our amygdala, which research suggests plays a role in detecting novelty as well as processing fear”), and marketers have done their best to exploit it. But the rest of us have to do our best to fight it in ourselves and others. >>

Amazingly this psychology seems to apply even to the most eminent climate scientists who one might expect to be detached and objective in their advice.  Jim Hansen seems to be a lone exception.

It is also likely that the more powerful the new technology, the greater the fear.  This is certainly true for SAI versus MCB.  But for those of us who are facing up to the reality of accelerating climate change and sea level rise from tipping point activation, and hence the urgency for powerful cooling intervention, then SAI is a godsend and something to be embraced with enthusiasm, giving us genuine hope for a decent future on this planet of ours.  We need to dispel the fear of new technology and infect others with this enthusiasm for action: experimentation with SAI starting next year!  As somebody commented at one of our meetings, we should have started SAI deployment years ago.

We have to do our best to fight the fear of SAI in ourselves and others.  I have tried to show that there is little to be frightened about and dispel the fear that some people express. If a volcano did the cooling, this would be OK; but somehow the very idea of mimicking what a volcano does seems to terrify some people.  They just refuse to believe that SAI could be deployed safely, and don't want an experiment that might show this.

Cheers, John

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 5:44 AM Doug Grandt <answer...@mac.com> wrote:

My comment on Bill Mckibben’s blog post.

Join me and tag it with yours 🫣🤭🤗

Doug

Bill,

I’m tired of reading articles aimed at convincing deniers they’re wrong, and would like to read pieces supporting the dedicated scientists, engineers and other innovators and our deliberations to communicate what positive results can be achieved in the near-term to begin actual cooling during the decades it will take to reduce carbon concentration in the atmosphere and reduced acidity in the ocean, restoring fisheries, whale populations and the entire oceanic food chain. 

Reducing emissions in and of itself will not reduce CO2 concentrations or global average temperatures except on a geologic time scale irrelevant to saving humanity and civilization.

Your paragraph (below) seems to apply to those folks who are dead set against innovation to get back to <350ppm and Holocene norms including the jet stream and Arctic vortex which now deliver extreme weather, death and destruction.

<< Psychologists have done their best to explain why we’re more scared of possible dangers from new things than obvious dangers from old ones (“this reaction may have to do with our amygdala, which research suggests plays a role in detecting novelty as well as processing fear”), and marketers have done their best to exploit it. But the rest of us have to do our best to fight it in ourselves and others. >>

We have met the enemy … you know …

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

--
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/CACS_FxoMGOqC0mRVBKn6Y7gmBJMvuAgfO2sDMU21h2Cjpc789Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Peter Eisenberger]

Mike 

Just realized the below message was sent prematurely though the basic content was there 

My overarching perspective is that in thinking about the best approaches to dealing with the climate change threat one has to view it as including more than a technology issue. The human political economic and equity considerations are in fact the rate limiting steps in  achieving the global mobilization needed . My second point in my original email was that us climate warriors need to decide on the best approaches taking into consideration the economic political and equity realities 

My own conclusion is that. CDR where the atmospheric co2 is used together with green hydrigen   to make synthetic energy and materials eg fuels hydrocarbons carbon fiber synthetic aggregate that creates economic growth and if done in a distributed rather than centralized big facilities will create equity will facilitate achieving global mobilization 

Whether my view is right or another approach is the main thrust of a scalable approach to the climate threat clearly needs to be vetted as any other approach 

There is no time to waste and we need to come together and provide advice that is comprehensive in terms of the tevhnologyv and economic and political and equity 

Components 

Peter 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 27, 2023, at 12:37 AM, Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mike 

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Peter--I don't mean to disparage CDR as a necessary part of the overall century long policy approach. I just think that it will take too long to phase up to keep the increase in global average temperature (poor metric as it is for global impacts, sea level rise and extreme weather) to non-disastrous levels. So, SAI/SRM is essential to limit future warming until mitigtion cuts emissions and CDR acts as an escape strategy for indefinite continuation of climate intervention and a way of limiting how much intervention must be done to shave off unacceptable levels of global warming. So, go for CDR as fast as possible--just don't think of that as the only needed response to a mitigation only approach.

Mike

[Ye Tao]

Hi Mike,

I think we need to be more careful.  While we all agree that SRM would be essential, disagreement persists regarding the role of SAI within the pool of SRM variants.  Continuing to equate SAI to SRM is confusing and unhelpful for our common cause of direct cooling.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/67f9ae6d-28da-4a04-981c-b38d8abe1397%40comcast.net.

[John Nissen]

Hi Ron,

You may not be aware, but PRAG has already discussed and agreed a letter to the Guardian containing an SAI experiment proposal which could start next year.  This letter was not published and can now be made publically available; see attached.

Here's an extract:

We owe it to the young people of today that we grasp the nettle and prepare for solar geoengineering: injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling action of major volcanic eruptions.  Experimental injection could even start next year: injection anywhere between 45N and 65N would safely limit the lifetime of the aerosol produced to a few months according to climate models.

Cheers, John

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:14 AM Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting idea Clive!  Polar SAI has been modeled quite extensively by the Cornell SAI folks led by Doug MacMartin (who's giving an HPAC talk this Thursday 11/2 at 3:30 PM EDT). Mike's draft letter to the OSTP Director (referenced in our cooling paper) provides an earlier outline of a similar field trial.

My space station proposal is an attempt to outline a possible implementation method. The idea is to build confidence and trust so that hopefully (pending constant transparent and public testing and evaluation) beneficial climate outcomes were being achieved. If there was significant cooling "in the poles"

this obviously would not just "stay in the poles" but hopefully impact the jet stream etc. in beneficial ways. If the results were positive presumably the world would be more open to gradual expansion to a global SAI program. Alternatively, other cooling methods such as MCB, your "climate catalyst" method, or MEER or Leslie's SAM, or Jim's OTEC, etc.  might be able to provide complementary cooling where it is most necessary.

Best,

Ron

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9CoQhQG4Gpe3t1Xh5WMH8mj6eRO1O2svmYoLJ2zTO4E6Q%40mail.gmail.com.