*Poster's note: *Reviewer 2 does geoengineering <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/reviewer-2-does-geoengineering/id1529459393> did a podcast on Iron Salt Aerosols. *Title*: Iron salt aerosols - FiekowskyReviewer 2 does geoengineering <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/reviewer-2-does-geoengineering/id1529459393>
*Description:* Peter Fiekowsky and @geoengineering1 discuss Iron Salt Aerosols. Do they work (in 14 different ways)? How can we know? Is Peter's new voluntary regulation body bona fide, or hopelessly compromised? Reviewer 2 asks all the important questions, but doesn't necessarily get definitive answers. *Some links to listen to podcast: * *Apple:* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/reviewer-2-does-geoengineering/id1529459393 *Google Podcast:* https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8zMjkzZDIzMC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw/episode/MGIzZTNiZTUtMjIzNC00ODdiLTg1MDQtZTY0NDdjYzA5MmM4?ep=14 *Spotify:* https://open.spotify.com/show/2KSB1lU18qh5gYIRDYPJMb On Mon, Feb 20, 2023, 4:18 PM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm aware of this. One of the problems with ISA is its messy cascade of > impacts. I'm not even sure which is intended to be most prominent, and over > which timescales. Launching large ISA particles from low altitudes in low > turbulence regions with high precipitation and abundant cloud nucleation > particles is likely to lead to short lifetimes, where the ISA does more for > ocean fertility than anything else. In damp clean air, it's likely to > influence clouds most. In high, dry air deployment it may have a greater > effect on methane. So what exactly is it for? > > Anyone with expertise in this is welcome to come on the Reviewer 2 Does > Geoengineering podcast to discuss the subject. > > Andrew > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, 04:29 Robert Tulip, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Andrew >> >> >> >> Iron Salt Aerosol adds iron chloride to the air, and has significant >> cloud brightening potential as a form of solar geoengineering. >> >> >> >> ISA differs from iron sulfate, which you mentioned, which is proposed as >> only an ocean fertilisation method for CDR and fisheries enhancement, and >> is not deployed as an aerosol. >> >> >> >> It is interesting that the MIT article implied the cloud brightening >> effect of ISA could be a negative in view of public hostility toward solar >> geoengineering, regardless of benefits and safety. >> >> >> >> Once we are allowed to do field tests, data will emerge on the balance of >> brightening and GGR effects of ISA. Before that it is premature to assume >> one or the other is more important. >> >> >> >> I note your comments are presented “as moderator of the Google group”. >> New readers may be unaware (as I understand it) that you are moderator of >> the geoengineering group, not the CDR group. >> >> >> >> Robert Tulip >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] < >> [email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley >> *Sent:* Monday, 20 February 2023 8:05 AM >> *Cc:* [email protected] < >> [email protected]> < >> [email protected]>; geoengineering < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT >> Technology Review >> >> >> >> 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, <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 >> "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-05Fh3AFvJwNyEqFy%2Bv3%2Bu475%2ByyUK7FxM99rOFh221oag%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-05Fh3AFvJwNyEqFy%2Bv3%2Bu475%2ByyUK7FxM99rOFh221oag%40mail.gmail.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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07fv9f4f%3DOAw8yMhHg_gX%2B18%2BgcAD5g82GitWReP%3DM_8w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07fv9f4f%3DOAw8yMhHg_gX%2B18%2BgcAD5g82GitWReP%3DM_8w%40mail.gmail.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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh9-KSGLYS0jxkuWg_XbLUsH0cOvA7-ZQmycbbVDnX2HA-g%40mail.gmail.com.
