Hi All The present environmental regulations for geoengineering (not totally ratified) were framed at a time when we were dumping nuclear waste, unexploded munitions and even poison gas into the sea. They essentially meant ‘no new chemicals’. Marine cloud brightening uses material that is already there and is already being thrown up in quantities hundreds of times greater by breaking waves. Energy comes from the wind so we are not even burning fuel. It would be an interesting legal exercise to separate spray vessels from paddling children splashing one another. The difference is that the size of spray is carefully chosen to suit Köhler nucleation which also happens to be in the Greenfield gap where there is an abnormally low concentration of natural aerosol between Aitken and accumulation modes. We can choose exactly when and where we want to release spray. Initially this could be aimed at getting sea surface temperatures back to where they used to be. However we may be able to learn to get an even more benign result to counteract hot blobs and El Niño events. We can moderate hurricanes and typhoons, restore ice or coral and adjust the temperature gradient across the Indian Ocean. Operating anywhere at any time will eventually (~30 years) reverse sea level rise with an enormous benefit-to-cost ratio. Spray can be stopped with a single mouse click and the effects cancelled at the next rain shower. Spraying can change results far from the spray release point, even in the opposite hemisphere, but we should be able to get an everywhere-to-everywhere season by season transfer function of what these distant results are and use them to advantage.
Breathe safely Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3DW 0131 650 5704 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0h14RFq4M&t=155s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BBVTStBrhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8 From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael MacCracken Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:49 PM To: [email protected]; Robbie Tulip <[email protected]> Cc: Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>; Ron Baiman <[email protected]>; Ye Tao <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ? This email was sent to you by someone outside the University. You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe. Just to note that way back in 2010 when we organized the Asilomar Conference on geoengineering, the State of Victoria in Australia was a co-sponsor of the meeting. And just to note that it is really not clear that use of MCB to address some of the impacts affecting Australia (Great Barrier Reef, shifting of the storm track) might not have influences much further away than New Zealand and so not really clear would need full international participation in the primary analysis. So, yes, Australia could, in my view, well lead consideration on getting started on such an approach for certain types of applications. Mike MacCracken On 3/3/22 1:14 AM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote: Now we’re acting! Who would we propose it to? Said another way-Who would we invite to do that, whom we would support? Peter Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2022, at 9:03 PM, Robbie Tulip <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: The Australian government could be invited to investigate international agreement for marine cloud brightening in the Southern Ocean to cool Antarctica. On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 3:22 pm, Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Robert- It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and probably everyone on this list agrees with you that SRM right now would be smart, even moral. I, and probably you and everyone on this list is working on this in order to leave a world our children and grandchildren can flourish in--obviously including our Holocene ecosystems. As far as I can tell we've been in agreement for ten or fifteen years. Has that agreement changed the planet? I'd say no. I don't think the physical world responds much to the brain patterns in my head, or the ones in your head which we call agreement. What's needed is action that will restore the climate. Let's get action going. Physical action. How do we do that? On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:22 PM Robbie Tulip <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Low albedo is dangerous and can only be mitigated by oceanic and atmospheric technology. Solar radiation management systems are needed to increase planetary albedo and mitigate the economic and social and ecological harms of climate change by limiting extreme weather events. The benefits of regulating planetary weather far far outweigh the risks and costs of neglecting work to stabilise the climate. This is a major and serious moral problem regarding whether humanity can take action to prevent and reverse the worst effects of climate change in this decade. Robert Tulip On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 2:06 pm, Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Robert- SRM is a logical top priority. Who will pay for it? How will those doing it avoid assassination? (Moral or physical) Peter Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2022, at 6:50 PM, Robbie Tulip <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Peter To answer your question, carbon capture can collect CO2 to transform it into stable valuable commodities. But CO2 storage is wrong and useless for climate restoration. Chemical and photosynthetic use of CO2 as feedstock to produce biomass and materials needs to replace the CCS paradigm. First though we need to increase albedo as the emergency security response against extreme weather. Regards Robert 🌷 On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 1:54 am, Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ye- What does carbon capture have to do with climate restoration? Carbon capture is for enhanced oil recovery and for selling expensive carbon offsets. We're interested in carbon sequestration at the 50 Gt/year scale, such as with synthetic limestone, plankton, kelp. Peter On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:59 AM Ye Tao <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: No Peter, this is not argument for restoring CO2 below 300ppm; lack of a logical connection notwithstanding, carbon capture at scale simply infeasible before we are all fried. Ye On 3/1/2022 9:15 PM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote: Interesting. I remember that Michael Mann wrote a Scientific American article about 1999, telling us to expect 0.5C warming when we eliminate the sulfates. We knew it would happen, and it's happening. Maybe it's not so shocking. Does anyone know how much sulfates still come from coal plants? Back in 1999 that was the big source, I think. This could be an argument to pursue climate restoration, restoring CO2 below 300 ppm, to cool the planet. Peter On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:39 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks Peter. Unfortunately, the paper and podcast are referring to a termination shock that is potentially happening right now due to a well-intentioned regulation to cut the sulfur content of cargo ships from a prior average of 3.5% sulfur to 0.5% (https://www.joc.com/special-topics/low-sulfur-fuel-rule ) that became fully effective Jan. 2020. Using ocean water surface temperature measurement and satellite atmospheric albedo measurements, for the north atlantic and north pacific major shipping lanes, they estimate (still in process of verification) up to (at the maximal estimate) a 50% jump in global warming (as I recall from the podcast), from the time this regulation became fully effective compared to prior years, as a direct result of the loss of sulfur emissions across these (very large) ocean regions. Best, Ron On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:44 PM Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ron- Just so you know-When looking through a climate restoration lens, with CO2 below 300 ppm by 2050, termination shock doesn't happen. This is because CO2 is back to pre-industrial levels by 2050, and therefore forcing is too. SRM or SAI would only be needed for 15 years between 2030 and 2045. It might be useful starting now, but politically, there is no justification for it because it doesn't benefit the UN net-zero goal. You can read more about climate restoration in my book coming out in April. The summary chapter is available for free now on my website: PeterFiekowsky.com<http://PeterFiekowsky.com> All the processes for climate restoration are now getting underway, and don't require government assistance. BR Peter On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Colleagues This is the podcast I've been talking about to some of you recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ship-tracks-termination-shock-simons/id1529459393?i=1000550593731 Here's their draft paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356378673_Climate_Impact_of_Decreasing_Atmospheric_Sulphate_Aerosols_and_the_Risk_of_a_Termination_Shock When Simon et al (presumably) get some version of this paper published, it could be the centerpiece of, for example, strong support for MCB to offset the sulfur with benign sea salt aerosols, as it would provide direct evidence of the impact of warming/cooling effect of marine cloud brightening from aerosols. It also, needless to say, highlights the need for any and all other types of direct cooling intervention. Best, Ron -- 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6A078F89-7D4F-4F13-84B3-346D69680541%40gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6A078F89-7D4F-4F13-84B3-346D69680541%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e767ecd9-3fd1-3942-e86f-78a03bb11b5d%40comcast.net<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e767ecd9-3fd1-3942-e86f-78a03bb11b5d%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB56920B36F7ECD27CF3716B64A7049%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.
