Mike & List, Going with the most well known is understandable. Yet SAI is actually, from a Polar perspective, not any more well known than Hydroxyl Cryogenesis Geotherapy or Global Electrical Circuit Enhancement.
Polar modeling is a separate art. Michael Hayes On Nov 7, 2017 6:01 PM, "Michael MacCracken" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Peter--I'm all for DAC and hoe you can scale up and do it as you > suggest, but to limit impacts, we should not let the temperature go above > 1.5 C and should be aiming to pull it down to less than 0.5 C, and I agree > therefore that CDR is absolutely essential. I know nothing on pricing and > challenge of scaling up, but it does seem a bit hard to accept that it can > be scaled up fast enough unless we really do get into a Pearl Harbor to > D-Day type of scale up (Manhattan Project was small potatoes compared to > overall scale up). There is now report coming out I think tomorrow that > focuses how close to the climate impacts edge we are but it still seems > that we are very far from scaling up far enough and fast enough. I'd be > delighted to avoid SRM, but just don't think that is going to happen (even > if possible in the way you suggest) and a little SRM could help to save the > species and impact commitments that will really grow as the temperature > heads beyond 1.5 C (or even 1 C for the ice sheets). > > I also think there is the chance that the fact that SRM may be needed > might well help scale up the CDR push rather than tamp it down--it really > will depend on how things are framed. > > What seems to bother both of us, in any case, is this failure to be acting > strongly enough on any of the various possibiliities, much less on all of > them, which is what would be prudent/precautionary thing to be doing. Mark > Cane, at an NRC/BASC meeting yesterday offered the challenge of naming an > emerging problem that was dealt with before it became really problematic, > suggesting the only one he had come up with was buying up the Catskill and > Adirondack watersheds to provide water for NYC, and that effort was during > Tammany times and involved a good bit of graft and profiteering; he did > suggest that water for LA likely was achieved with similar shortcomings (as > a read of the excellent book "Cadillac Desert" documents). Thus, he was a > bit pessimistic that we can rouse public action before disaster strikes, > which will be too late given the time and magnitude scales of this problem. > I'd be delighted if your approach succeeded sufficiently to avoid SRM, but > I think at moment instead of being concerned about the other, it would be > better to be working together (and with this new report/declaration that is > coming) to get attention to the real seriousness of the situation we are in > and that there are potential ways to deal with it, none without effort and > uncertainty, and we had better get to work on not only researching but > early deployment of them. > > Best, Mike > > On 11/6/17 2:47 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote: > > 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. > > > -- 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.
