I believe the winner take all perspective is highly flawed and is a major contributor why those of us who share the concern for the climate risk are not being effective in making our case. The winner take all lanquage is appropriate for academic and commercial efforts but not for a Manhatten Project Perspective where finding the approach to focus ones efforts on is the primary challenge and vigorous internal debate is the process. The opportunity cost of addrsssing SRM that cannot solve the problem and could make it worse before we as a community support CDR which can solve the problem and has minimal risk is very large and made larger when so called experts argue in support of SRM that one cannot depend upon or worse it is unlikely CDR can work in time . The self fulling and self serving aspect of that is clear . And by the way those who oppose taking the climate threat seriously will vigorously support doing more research rather than having a manhatten like project where we all cooperate to address the treat we face.
Someone or some organization that supports the concern should provide a process to have that vigorous internal debate with the pledge that one will support the consencus approach that emerges . We can n o longer afford to fagment our efforts by viewng this as an area of competition for support rather than an emergency we need to come together on and confront as best we can . On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > > Well said and reasonable. Yet we seem to be drawn to a winner takes all > type of strategy. If stratospheric injection presents unknowns, as all > large scale actions will, and time is of the essence, why not field as many > a plausible to filter out, and or adjust, as many as possible. > > There was once concern that one method would somehow contaminate another. > Frankly I don't see that happening. Will SAI trouble MCB? Will AWL sink > Biochar or BlueBiochar. How would SAI, MCB, or even OIF negate Olivine? > > Lets approach this as it is, a critical deployment phase which must reach > for the best basket of tech coming on line and do so as soon as plausible. > Table top neatness in experimentation eats far too much time and, fankly, > is not needed. > > As a side note on SAI, the same equipment can be used to test out wetted C > as an air dehydrator/electrical bridge to the GEC (GEC+) and the Hydroxyl > Cryogenesis Geotherapy (HCG) approach. > > All of the methods need to be tested in the most informative, and thus > challenging, set of conditions. > > I propose an Arctic high altitude field campaign involving SAI, HCG, and > GEC+ be immediately ramped up for and deployed this Arctic Winter. > > The balloon station and tether components are all off the shelf. I propose > a $3M budget. The law HR 353 peovides the budget. > > The aviation tech development during this Arctic build and deploy exercise > will be valuable to the weather forecasting field for many decades. $3M is > cheap for this amount of immediate science as well as new tool development. > > https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/353 > > > Michael Hayes > > On Nov 5, 2017 7:45 PM, "Michael MacCracken" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Doug--In response to your Nov 4 post below, I am all for learning, but >> the problem with waiting and waiting is that the Earth will keep warming >> and warming and impacts will keep growing and growing--including especially >> ones that are or near irreversible, such as to biodiversity and commitment >> to sea level rise. >> >> If the goal were, during this 20-year learning time, only to reduce or >> offset year-by-year warming as might be done, based on our understanding of >> volcanic effects, using quite small annual increments to the stratospheric >> sulfur loading, and basically iterating as we go on something like 5-year >> running averages, we would very likely be in a much more favorable >> situation to evaluate how to proceed, both having better model analyses and >> having some experience to work with. If we find the 20-year accumulation is >> worse than ongoing global warming with GHGs or that mitigation is working >> particularly well, the stratospheric injection level could be gradually >> reduced instead of continuing with ongoing augmentation. While there would >> of course be uncertainties, it is not really clear that they would be more >> serious than the increasing changes and impacts that are occurring. It just >> seems to me that to do nothing while continuing with research just lets the >> situation get worse and then the cure having to be so much stronger than >> deployment itself could be problematic. >> >> If, as Santer et al suggest, early 21st century rate of warming was >> slowed by the cooling influences of small volcanic eruptions that injected >> amounts that were barely noticeable even with advanced instruments and >> really not at all noticeable by the general public, I'd suggest that we >> actually have a natural analog of the type of influence that I am >> suggesting be pursued. And, in that we will be learning along the way >> through the 20-year research program (let's assume that the research is >> funded), so it just seems, as noted above, that the uncertainties >> associated with such an approach would not be less than the impacts and >> uncertainties of deferring all intervention efforts until some probably >> pretty arbitrary level of understanding in the future. >> >> Regarding my favoring of regionally focused alterations, I would make >> that a research priority, but I'd suggest that the earlier one started >> injecting enough sulfur to offset each year's forcing increment or so, the >> better--just thinking that, in the type of relative risk framing that I >> view as appropriate to the situation given where we are, that, with >> mitigation ramping up virtually everywhere (and the US doing somewhat well >> despite the Administration's mistaken actions), starting very modestly with >> stratospheric aerosol climate intervention could really help in making sure >> that the situation is not so bad by the time we learn enough to "make >> reasonably informed decisions" (whatever that means) that we will be unable >> to avoid significant overshoot of the global average temperature without >> such aggressive intervention that we'll be suffering from both the growing >> impacts and then the supposed cure. >> >> At the very least, I would think a good case could be made for such an >> effort. >> >> Best regards, Mike MacCracken >> >> >> >> >> On 11/4/17 11:43 AM, Douglas MacMartin wrote: >> >>> Both SAI and MCB probably need of order of 20 years of research before >>> we could make reasonably informed decisions; both have a long list of >>> unknowns. (In the case of MCB, we don't even really know if it "works" in >>> any meaningful sense of the word, because cloud-aerosol interactions are >>> too uncertain today, so we really don't know whether there is a useful >>> fraction of cloud meteorological conditions in which the albedo is >>> significantly enhanced. We should all really really hope that it doesn't >>> work very well, because if it doesn't, that means the indirect aerosol >>> effect is smaller than current best guess and climate sensitivity will be >>> on the low end...) >>> >>> (And, of course, at the current level of worldwide funding, that "20" >>> above is probably off by a few orders of magnitude.) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:geoengineering@googleg >>> roups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hayes >>> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:00 AM >>> To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article? >>> >>> Holly and List, >>> >>> The use of sulfur needs proper polar field level testing. Testing is >>> planned yet may not be done in areas prone to Polar Stratospheric Cloud >>> formation. Time of the season is also of the essence for testing. >>> >>> Until that is done, SAI has a large question to answer; in general terms. >>> >>> MCB, used in key areas, is a critical first step. There should be no >>> deflection at that engineering level. Once MCB paves the way, other marine >>> capable systems can gain traction. >>> >>> What marine engineering minded person or institution would not give >>> Steven's word heavy weight? This is a marine issue. >>> >>> >> -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > 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 "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
