As moderator of the Google group I am just responding to the the points earlier stating that iron sulfate aerosol is not suitable for the CDR list. My personal view is that greenhouse gas removal fits very closely with CDR, to the point that they are are essentially interchangeable terms. Iron salt aerosol, where it is used to destroy methane seems to be a more appropriate fit for the CDR list than the geoengineering Google group. unless there's a lot of pushback I prefer to keep ISA in CDR and not geoengineering
Andrew On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, 10:16 Clive Elsworth, <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Ye > > I am not aware of any new data on iron salt aerosol. However, TIO2 > provides little or no ocean fertilisation, which an iron containing aerosol > does, albeit very diffusely if dispersed as intended. > > A TIO2 -based aerosol is more suitable for use near icefields, where iron > may colour the surface of the ice and fertilise growth of sessile life such > as biofilms and moss that would likely accelerate the melting rate during > summer months. > > Clive > > On 18/02/2023 23:17 GMT Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: > > > > Hi Clive and Peter, > > Have there been new data to substantiate the claims of effectiveness and > scalability? I believe that previous discussion threads on ISA that I have > witnessed and engaged in (based on papers cited in the ISA field and > beyond) were consistent with a lack of laboratory experimental evidence to > support effectiveness and scalability of this otherwise tantalizing > concept. > > Clive, if I remember well, you wrote in the past that you did not believe > ISA was optimal and were rather looking into another thing based on TiO2. > Now you are again supporting ISA, I take it that new data and evidence must > have emerged to rekindle your enthusiasm. If new data or concept for *in > situ* characterization have emerged, please share preliminary results. > > Or perhaps Peter has performed new experiments from the list I suggested > to the core group on ISA? and things look promising? > > Looking forward to learning more, > > Ye > > > On 2/18/2023 1:29 PM, Clive Elsworth wrote: > > Michael > > We calculate that potentially tens of Gt of CO2 per year could be safely > removed by iron salt aerosol dispersal over remote iron poor ocean areas at > low cost, if allowed. Of course this would need to be incrementally scaled, > with lots of measurement, analysis. > > Clive > > On 18/02/2023 18:11 GMT Michael Hayes <electrogeoc...@gmail.com> > <electrogeoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Clive, I'm aware of the chemistry, yet this is a CDR list not a CH4 > mitigation list. Removing CO2 has little involvement with CH4 mitigation. > Use of iron salt is not a CDR method, and it has little if any relation to > CDR policy or economics. > > The many CCed groups often welcome any comment on any subject under the > Sun. This list, however, is focused on removing CO2, not second or third > order indirect subjects that can be tacked onto CO2 removal. > > Getting things done requires maintaining focus, and the GE list along with > many others like it simply can not maintain focus and thus are of little > use and even less importance. Converting this list to a CC of the GE list > is not needed, yet there seems to be a core group interested in either > taking the moderators' post to do so or simply overrunning the CDR list > with non CDR posts and making the CDR list a defacto non focused GE list. I > object to the petty politics and to the non CDR posts. > > Best regards > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:59 AM Clive Elsworth < > cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote: > > Michael > > Iron salt aerosol relates indirectly to CDR. Reduced warming from reduced > atmospheric methane would slow the temperature rise of the ocean surface, > curbing the accelerating loss of nutrient mixing owing to surface > stratification. Without nutrients, less phytoplankton are available to > raise ocean surface pH. A higher pH at the ocean surface lowers the partial > pressure of dissolved CO2, increasing the oceanic CO2 absorption rate. > > Where there is chlorophyll in the ocean there tend to be marine clouds > also, which provide an additional cooling effect. Thus, a beneficial > feedback cycle is established, or at least the opposite destructive > feedback cycle is curbed. > > The addition of iron to the ocean surface is of course highly > controversial, even if it’s by aerosol delivery adding less than 1 mg/m² > per day and with natural fertilisation by desert dust doing the same thing. > Huge areas of abyssal ocean are very low in iron content, so this would > also enable a slightly higher phytoplankton productivity than otherwise - > over vast areas. In areas where iron is not the limiting nutrient, the > addition of a tiny amount more would make essentially no difference. > > Clive > > On 18/02/2023 14:45 GMT Michael Hayes <electrogeoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Again, how does this relate to CDR? > > CH4 is not CO2. > > The many other groups that have been CCed in this thread are wide open to > any and all chatter about any and all subjects that can pop into people's > minds. This list is about Carbon Dioxide Removal. > > How does your comment relate to CDR? > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, 12:49 PM Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Robert- > > Good point about the scientists uniformly calling for delaying > implementation, essentially indefinitely, since they don't offer any > criteria for actually starting to restore safe methane levels and protect > against a methane burst. > > Do you think this is an ethical issue? Doubling the methane oxidation rate > would result, in 5 years, in methane levels cut roughly in half--bringing > warming back to roughly 2002 levels. This would likely save a million lives > a year lost in the severe hurricanes, floods, wildfires and droughts we > have now. And if today's methane burst gets serious, it could also save a > quarter, or even all of humanity from the kind of extinction event that > happened last time our planet lost the Arctic sea ice. > > Even if it's only a 1% chance that history repeats itself (warming is now > happening 10 times faster than during the previous methane burst called the > PETM), statistically that's 8 billion people divided by a 1/1000 > probability, or 8 million people we could save. > > Is it ethical for climate scientists to make the same claims that health > scientists made for tobacco companies and later that oil company > scientists made about climate actions--that we need undefined "more > research" before acting? > > Should we establish a climate ethics committee to discuss this issue > publicly? > > Peter > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:44 AM <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote: > > This article by James Temple provides a professional overview of efforts > to commercialise Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA). > > > > > https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/15/1068495/these-startups-hope-to-spray-iron-particles-above-the-ocean-to-fight-climate-change/ > > > > It discusses cooling effects of ISA including methane removal, ocean iron > fertilization and marine cloud brightening. The article comments that a > marine cloud brightening effect “would muddy the line between > greenhouse-gas removal and the more controversial field of solar > geoengineering.” My view is that taking this as a criticism shows the > incoherence in popular understanding of climate science. If marine cloud > brightening could be a fast, safe, cheap and effective way to mitigate > dangerous warming, field research of ISA could be a great way to test > this. Solar geoengineering is no more controversial than ocean iron > fertilization, given that both are under a de facto ban on field research. > > > > The article comments that “if it brightened marine clouds, it would likely > draw greater scrutiny given the sensitivity around geoengineering > approaches that aim to achieve cooling by reflecting away sunlight.” It > may prove to be the case that ISA could only be deployed by an > intergovernmental planetary cooling agreement of the scale of the Bretton > Woods Agreement of 1944 to establish the IMF and World Bank. In that > governance scenario, the scrutiny placed on all cooling technologies will > be intense regardless of the balance of effects between brightening and > greenhouse gas removal. > > > > I disagree with the scientists quoted in the article who oppose field > tests. That is a dangerous and complacent attitude, failing to give due > weight to the risks of sudden tipping points that can only be prevented by > albedo enhancement and GHG removal at scale. Learning by doing is the most > safe and effective strategy. If there are unexpected effects it is easy to > stop the trials. The only risk of well governed field tests is that they > would provide information to justify a slower transition from fossil > fuels. On balance that is not a serious risk, given that emissions are > expected to continue regardless of climate concerns. Cooling technologies > are essential to balance the ongoing heating, the sooner the better. > > > > I was pleased that the article included my comment that our company > decided not to pursue our ISA field test proposal because the overall > political governance framework is not ready to support this form of > geoengineering. This illustrates that strategic discussion of ethics and > governance will need to be far more advanced before any geoengineering > deployment is possible. I explored these moral themes in a recent discussion > note <https://pdfhost.io/v/nn85Rgk.g_Moral_Perspectives_on_Climate_Policy> > published by the Healthy Planet Action Coalition. > > > > Robert Tulip > > > -- > 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-alliance+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/2bc901d942cd%248ee19e60%24aca4db20%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2nDV%2BvPXnOFK3wJ5Kvn_hzZQwgLk%3DbJqMUXRXioygR%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv0bwVvebOcv_js7-c7-WB8W0ht3xFjEVQGaz04xi3Yw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv0bwVvebOcv_js7-c7-WB8W0ht3xFjEVQGaz04xi3Yw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/352759944.1617469.1676735989223%40email.ionos.co.uk > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/352759944.1617469.1676735989223%40email.ionos.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/1082078125.1624832.1676744947167%40email.ionos.co.uk > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/1082078125.1624832.1676744947167%40email.ionos.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1372647549.1638284.1676801764513%40email.ionos.co.uk > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1372647549.1638284.1676801764513%40email.ionos.co.uk?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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05Fh3AFvJwNyEqFy%2Bv3%2Bu475%2ByyUK7FxM99rOFh221oag%40mail.gmail.com.
