Hugh Hunt in strong support of cooling

[H simmens]

”When you run the numbers, there’s just no way to avoid global warming without geoengineering,” 

This seems like an incredibly effective simple and direct way to make the case. 

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Hugh support cooling as clearly and unambiguously as he does in this LinkedIn post.

 Heidi Silvestre, a highly accomplished glaciologist who recently returned from a trek to the South Pole responds with strong opposition. 

I then posted the video that Nick Breeze produced at COP 29 in Baku featuring Heidi making the case in detail against cooling, followed by me making the case for cooling. 

Herb

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/centre-for-climate-repair_the-climate-change-scientists-racing-to-dim-activity-7449376125442482176-H8fI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAADPf-gBVNnkEg4jgeF7kWH-7c8Cp7fCwCg

Herb Simmens

Author  of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy, also hilarious, Dive in and see"

 Kim Stanley Robinson

@herbsimmens

[Paul Klinkman]

Dear Restorers,

Leaning solely on bottom-line numbers can make for a weak argument.  I can find doctors, or people like them, who will work for cheap.  Some of them might be quite good for your health and others might not be any good at all.  

Expensive political proposals are often buttressed by "you can't live without this" without fairly examining the alternatives.  In the U.S. we occasionally see billion dollar planes that don't fly and gold-plated military toilet seat contracts.

Sometimes it's not about the merits of the proposal but who holds the megaphone.  I'm certain that the Real Ice under-ice submarine project is a dead project walking because for about 1/100 the cost per square kilometer of coverage, I can set up a fleet of drones that move tiny wind-powered seawater pumps to new spots once a week.  My dirt cheap seawater pumps can create a full 5 meters of pack ice at every stop.  Then they all self-loosen from their pack ice for transport to the next pumping job.  However, for funding purposes somebody else has the clout.  I'm merely absolutely correct.  A sketch is at my self-named website, https://klinkmansolar.com/kfrozen.htm#R3

Yours in Hope,

Paul Klinkman

[rob...@rtulip.net]

The importance of Hugh Hunt’s point about numbers is the challenge it poses to the opponents of geoengineering to adopt their own advice and follow the science.

 

The 2009 Royal Society review of geoengineering (Table 3.6 p35) estimated that sunlight reflection is 1000 times better value for money than decarbonisation as a cooling strategy.   Such an extreme differential demands explanation of why policymakers and experts prefer the option that is one thousand times worse than the other, especially when climate impact is supposedly the primary rationale for public funding of climate programs.  But of course the response is only silence and deflection.  No wonder many of them insist the better option should not even be discussed or studied.   This is what is known in paradigm studies as an anomaly.

 

As JM Keynes said, “when the facts change I change my mind.”  If only climate policy makers had such a rigorous and humble approach.   As a good summary of how climate facts have changed, I encourage people to read Robert Hunziker’s excellent new article https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/04/13/severe-climate-system-eruption/.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/7b192edd-2cbc-4178-a61e-c3d0f82b2219n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Klinkman]

Dear Restorers,

I'm interested in the reasons why two separate coalitions are forming.

Adding any type of particles to the stratosphere is a short-term fix, like taking a bicarbonate of soda for an upset stomach.  We know that we have a long-term problem to correct, just as millions of people now have GERD.  In this environment it's important to push forward a relatively complete plan.  The particles advocates would look fair and balanced if they proactively answered several questions that the naysayers might raise:

- So how does your side propose that we get rid of the excess carbon dioxide?  Enhancing natural sequestration on land?  Mechanical sequestration?  Iron in the ocean?  How much will it cost the planet, assuming that we can pry the first penny out of some senator's cold dead hands?  The other coalition wants to know if you're serious about eventually restoring CO2 levels.

- How long do we most likely have to keep dumping particles into the stratosphere?  Particles are a "pay later" non-permanent solution.  How much world suffering would you expect under such a combined plan, or more likely under a spread of such plans?

- I keep noting that some uses of particles will cause far less human damage than other uses.  The sulfur-driven brown cloud over Asia kills millions of asthma sufferers, but a far lighter sulfur cloud in the stratosphere over Antarctica would be more likely to kill (first wild guess) tens of asthma sufferers per year, down there with people being killed by lightning bolts.  First, what is your probable preferred particle and why?  What will be the expected basic research and ramp-up costs and timetable?  What is your top backup plan in case something unexpected is uncovered?

Now we get to the oil billionaire, most likely Charles Koch, whose advertising agency wants to sow discord among us.  Exxon Corporation chips in.  "Geoengineering" is crudely being used as a smear word on whole cloth sites such as geoengineeringwatch.  Entire troll farms of workers are hired to put baloney out on every available discussion forum, nothing personal, just the fossil fuel business.  If you want to succeed better with hopefully potential natural allies, it would be useful for you to always remember that great numbers of otherwise neutral people have an unconscious bias deep in their brains against billionaire-hired geoengineering advocates pushing exclusively short-term solutions that support the fossil fuel industry.  The actual fossil fuel industry could care less what those rubes think as long as discord has been sowed.  

Yours in Hope,

Paul Klinkman

- 

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Paul

 

As your post is in reply to my comment I will give you my thoughts on your questions.

 

Climate stability requires immediate action to restore albedo and remove greenhouse gases.  However, I do not see much evidence for your argument that a coalition is forming that recognises this point.  Political divisions are still too strong, funding is too small and strategies are too confused to enable effective unity around this proposition.  By contrast, ignorant opponents of action to rebrighten the world are well funded, organised and effective, on both the political left and right.  These opponents are successfully sowing disinformation to prevent action to advocate for a scientific world view on planetary protection.

 

My view is that the best way to manage excess CO2 is industrial oceanic photosynthesis.  Algae production on 3% of the world ocean could remove more GHGs than total emissions, funded mainly by production of commercial commodities such as fertilizer, food and fuel.  Algae commodities will soon become a major world industry, partly in response to fossil fuel politics.

 

Attacking the fossil fuel industry is not an effective climate strategy.  Your claim that “The other coalition wants to know if you're serious about eventually restoring CO2 levels” ignores the problem that this “other coalition” is not serious about this.  Their main agenda is opposition to fossil fuels, a strategy that only marginally slows the increase of CO2, does nothing for climate restoration, involves a high level of economic and political fantasy and discord, and is resolutely opposed by powerful industries, organisations and communities.

 

I expect that the benefits of restored albedo will prove to be so immense that use of sunlight reflection to manage weather will rapidly become a major world industry, alongside carbon mining.  This planetary infrastructure will emerge in this century on a similar scale as industries like aviation and pharmaceuticals did last century. 

 

On your question about world suffering, restoring albedo should the main agenda for stopping the sixth extinction event that is now underway.  I say this because action on albedo is essential to prevent civilizational collapse.  Albedo action can serve as an entry point for objective analysis of strategies to reverse the polycrisis, as the first step on the critical path to a sustainable global paradigm.

 

Your use of the term “dumping” is incorrect and politicised.  Dumping means getting rid of waste.  Stratospheric aerosol injection is not at all about getting rid of waste, but only about rescuing the planet from a descent into chaos.

 

On “the expected basic research and ramp-up costs and timetable” I support the estimate of Keith et al that $2 billion to research effective cooling methods could avoid damage of $10 trillion, a benefit cost ratio of 5000 to 1.  Global research coordination at this scale will require an Albedo Accord modelled on the Montreal Protocol. As with planting trees, the best time to start was twenty years ago. Such research is needed to study all technologies and prove up the best candidates, which I see as SAI and nanobubbles.

 

You ask about a backup plan.  Humanity has no future without coordinated global albedo management, which is a foundational requirement for ongoing peace, stability, security, biodiversity and prosperity.

 

Your comment about Koch is strange.  The fossil fuel industry does nothing to promote geoengineering.  Their climate trolling is all about denial of science.  For you to speak approvingly of the idea that “neutral people have an unconscious bias deep in their brains” amounts to an assertion of the moral legitimacy of irrational prejudice, no better than support for racism or slavery.  People are better than that, and generally want to support things that are good and rational.

 

Regards & Thanks

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/55cf2100-97c9-4a29-a864-16d4b549db82n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Klinkman]

Dear Dr. Tulip and Restorers,

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I see on this google group a coalition of scientists and others who believe in going forward with SAI research.  You seek consensus among yourselves when you write joint letters.  That's a scientific coalition.  I also see a number of scientists who oppose SAI.  That's a second scientific coalition, and they seem to be talking among themselves on other group forums.    I'll describe the second scientific coalition as strongly concerned about the environmental side effects of any particular climate-restoring action.   

I don't see this second scientific coalition as well-funded at all, especially not within the United States where climate change denial hardball politics has been shutting down any vestige of climate change funding and where universities are challenged to keep even tenured climatologists on their payrolls. 

In sum I see one scientific coalition saying that we have to take action, but they aren't talking about the potentially strong side effects.  The other scientific coalition is concerned about the strong side effects, but they aren't saying that we have to take action.  I forecast that the two groups will eventually talk to one another and come up with something minimally palatable to both scientific coalitions.

I happen to be writing about the formation of two weak scientific coalitions, not the United States=based political juggernaut that relies on rather primitive forms of argumentation backed by vast amounts of money.  I ignore their claims as their overall scientific integrity is between poor and nonexistent.

If just 3% of the ocean could be used for carbon sequestration, then which 3% is being favored?  Do you need heavy wave action to mix new atmospheric carbon dioxide into the upper levels of the ocean as existing CO2 in the water column is gobbled up by the algae?  Do you need plenty of year-round sunshine for maximum algae growth?  Polar oceans have great winds but no sunlight in winter, so are these two needs somewhat mutually exclusive?  Would you be looking for remote areas of ocean at a far distance from human civilization?  Would you be looking at areas where most species in that area would also be found in other areas, so as to not wipe out those species?  Why is heavily seeding only 3% of the ocean preferable to lightly seeding 30% of the ocean, which would dilute the environmental side effects of fertilization for that ecosystem?

I propose my own sealed bioreactors for production of algae fuels on non-farmland.  It's at https://klinkmansolar.com/kalgae.htm  I wouldn't mix the production of ocean algae for carbon sequestration with biofuel production because open ocean production will attract lots of algae feeders that will cut deeply into any enterprise's potential profits.  I'm willing to let the world's governments fund their algae feeding programs for the planetary climate benefits alone.  

Your objections here to further fossil fuel displacement are economic.  My personal innovations are each designed to, usually after an initial investment, economically displace fossil fuels at a far better than 1 to 1 lifetime dollar ratio.  We have already seen initial government investments in offshore wind, in photovoltaic panels and electric vehicles pay off economically.  My recommendations may not have a benefit-cost ratio of 5000 to 1, but because they replace existing fuel use, they all have an honest chance to be at least economical within our market economy.  The only financial problem with my own economic recommendations is the question of specifically who walks off with the profits.  This profitability side issue will greatly bother the president-for-life of Russia, the king of Saudi Arabia and the ruling coalition in Iran, not to mention a number of individual oil billionaires who provide major campaign funding for our world's elections.

Yours in Hope,

Paul Klinkman

[Tom Goreau]

Changes in ocean circulation determine whether heat remains at the surface or is stored at depth. Ditto for CO2.   

N.B. This is for 2022, which we can now fondly remember as the last cool year?

 

• Article

• Published: 12 February 2026

Multi-year La Niña–El Niño transition influenced Earth’s extreme energy uptake in 2022–2023

• Yu Kosaka & 
• Shoshiro Minobe 

Nature Geoscience volume 19, pages432–438 (2026)Cite this article

• 1479 Accesses
• 569 Altmetric

• Metricsdetails

Abstract

Earth’s energy uptake—defined as the global mean net incoming radiation at the top of the atmosphere—surged in 2022–2023, contributing to record global surface temperatures and widespread climate extremes in 2023–2024. Yet, the causes of this extreme energy uptake remain unclear, reflecting limited knowledge of how internal climate variability shapes Earth’s energy imbalance. Here we investigate the drivers of the observed extreme energy uptake by using multi-model climate simulations and satellite-based observations. We show that the transition from the multi-year La Niña to El Niño was key to Earth’s extreme energy uptake in 2022–2023, upon the externally forced positive imbalance. Our sampling analyses from the multi-model simulation dataset highlight the dominant influence of the La Niña-to-El Niño sequence on enhanced energy uptake, with crucial importance of multi-year persistence in preceding La Niña. When combined with estimates of the externally forced component derived under Shared Socio-economic Pathway scenarios, the contribution associated with the La Niña-to-El Niño transition explains about 75% of the observed extreme energy uptake. Our finding underscores the role of internal climate variability in shaping Earth’s energy budget and its potential amplification under a warming climate.

 

 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/285227A1-D4E3-4D77-AC78-F7288B678C78%40gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

“People are better than that, and generally want to support things that are good and rational.”

 

Some indeed are, but NOT those in power now, making exi$tential decision$ about our future.

 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/04f101dcccf8%24221e7790%24665b66b0%24%40rtulip.net.