Thank you Clive. When I read this after I had posted it, I realized that (apart from the many typos, parentheses, and other language issues - unfortunately typical for my early drafts!), is probably best thought of as my opinions, interspersed with, and/or based-on or added-to, those of participants at the meeting, so I think it was good that I didn't attempt personal attribution! Best, Ron
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 4:13 PM Clive Elsworth < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ron and All > > > > As far as I’m concerned, you’re welcome to summarise NOAC meetings. I > think people will realise it’s your own view. > > > > Anyone who would like to be added to the NOAC-meetings google group please > let me know. It means you’ll be invited to the fortnightly meetings, with > links to recordings of the last two. > > > > One contribution from the last meeting I’d like to highlight is an offer > from Herb Simmens to present to his Congressman Raskin (who called for > climate restoration four years ago) to present “budget language”. This was > requested by the Congressman’s aide, in a recent meeting with Herb and Mike > McCracken. > > > > Herb: We would like consideration given for funding to test the TOA-EDARA > technology proposed by Franz Oeste and me, which safely (by mimicry of > tropospheric dust aerosol) addresses all the ‘oxidable super-pollutants’. > These are: Methane, Tropospheric Ozone, Black Carbon Aerosol, Brown Carbon > Aerosol, and Haloalkanes. In combination, these pollutants are producing > over half of today’s total warming influence. Since the last three of them > often end up in the stratosphere and lead to stratospheric ozone > destruction, their removal from the troposphere by TOA-EDARA aerosol would > also help to protect the ozone layer. > > > > Clive > > > > *From:* [email protected] < > [email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ron Baiman > *Sent:* 10 March 2023 02:05 > *To:* 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>; > healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [HCA-list] On: 1) a recent NOAC meeting, 2) SRM Research > Support Letters, and 3) Make Sunsets deployments > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > 1) At a recent 3/6/2023 NOAC meeting there was an extra ordinarily lively > and fruitful discussion on this topic that featured representatives of a > very broad spectrum of views that (as one participant remarked) was unusual > in that it was a respectful discussion and airing of view points rather > than a debate. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this meeting but was > able to view the recording of it, and strongly encourage all who are able > to, to access this recording to view it. As recordings of NOAC meetings > are not generally distributed more broadly than the NOAC list I don’t feel > at liberty to include a link to this recording in this post to other > lists. For this reason, and also because I will likely misinterpret or not > do justice to them, I will refrain from attaching (my understanding of) > viewpoints discussed to particular persons at the meeting. > > 2) The letters supporting SRM research (letter #1 > <https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/> and letter # 2 > <https://www.call-for-balance.com/letter> are commendable developments > that should be welcome by all direct climate cooling (DCC) advocates. > However (as noted by some in the NOAC meeting) they are: > > a) Cautious to a fault on quick or gradual piloting and deployment > (depending on method see below), given the urgency of triggering irreversible > tipping points > <https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=lenton+NAS+workshop+on+tipping+points2022#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:2d77e4e5,vid:4ppkTB4_fyk> > potential to prevent or reduce increased catastrophic harm to humans and > the fact that (mentioned by some participants) that the Mt. Pinatubo > volcano > <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo> > for example lofted about 17 million tons of SO2 to the stratosphere (far > more at one time than any SAI planned deployment that I am aware of) and > cooled the globe by roughly 0.6 C for 15 months without any (at least > prominently publicized) adverse impacts. > > b) Too narrowly focused on SRM and particularly (global) SAI to the > exclusion of other generally lower-leverage and lower-risk possible direct > climate cooling methods > <https://pdfhost.io/v/kUvEpsGdb_Understanding_the_Urgent_Need_for_Direct_Climate_Cooling_0209233> > (DCC), in spite of emphasizing (in the spirit of “not placing one’s eggs > all in one basket”) the need to study MCB and CCN as well as SAI as > “outcomes might be optimized if multiple techniques are used in > combination” (Letter 1). Letter 2 is less specifically directed at these > three species of SRM but still exclusively focused on SRM and from the > points made on p. 7 for example that “the provision of SRM is organized by > a globally legitimized body, and not based on private interests” on > high-leverage SRM with global scope. For example, as recent modeling > suggests that if and when we achieve (human and natural) net-zero GHG > emissions global temperature will not significantly drop > <https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/> > for at least another 50 years due to legacy heat from the Ocean (where 90% > of it is being stored), and even more recent modeling suggests that 7-10 C > may be “in the pipeline > <https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2212/2212.04474.pdf>” (most of which > is undoubtedly related to ocean warming where 90% of legacy warming is > being stored) even if net-zero were achieved today, it would seem that we > should urgently begin researching and when prudent implementing methods to > reduce (and possible use for economic benefit) this excess ocean “heating > from below” in addition to doing the same for “heating from above (see OTEC > summary here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit>). > Another example is cooling based on efforts to enhance water cycle cooling > through evapotranspiration and convection that may also regenerate nature > (just > as important as reducing GHG’s in the long run > <https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge>) and > provide economic benefits (see for example Seatomizers summary here > <https://pdfhost.io/v/kUvEpsGdb_Understanding_the_Urgent_Need_for_Direct_Climate_Cooling_0209233>). > > > c) Assume an overly binary view of (and direct climate cooling) “global > SAI deployment or not” (my guess is with a now outdated (per research in b) > view of SAI “shaving the peak” (Shepherd and Long napkin diagram > <http://jgshepherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Napkin-diagram.pdf>) > deployment that may be necessary in the future), and “research and > deployment” of direct climate cooling in general. Regarding the first > binary there is no reason why any of the less risky direct climate cooling > methods discussed in b) should not (if found to be indeed effective and > with little risk) deployed asap, and (as mentioned by at least one > participant per the “Cornell SAI group”) the most prudent roll-out of SAI > not be based on “nailing down the research” and then deploying, but rather > researching as much as possible while gradually deploying and evaluating > and researching further depending on outcomes in the spring in polar > regions where the stratosphere is lower so that lofting with more > conventional aircraft may be possible , and the aerosol is likely to drop > out of the Stratosphere more quickly in months rather than years reducing > “termination shock” risk (see SAI summary here > <https://pdfhost.io/v/kUvEpsGdb_Understanding_the_Urgent_Need_for_Direct_Climate_Cooling_0209233>). > And with regard to the “research and deployment” binary, assume (as one > NOAC meeting participant opined) that controlled experiments in > laboratories are inherently more valuable than field experiments as causal > factors can be elevated to extreme levels to facilitate signal (or outcome) > detection. But it seems to me that, as many have opined, atmospheric > processes and chemistry are so complex that we will never be certain that > we have adequately pinned it down with laboratory or small-scale empirical > research. One participant asked a key question in this regard. At what > empirical scope do we need to research to be confident that risk is low > enough to start deploying. It seems to be rather self-evident that the best > and only way to reach this point would be to proceed with very small > localized deployments in the poles and constantly monitor, adjust, and > learn by doing, that is that a good part of the “research” is the > “gradually deployment”. After all we’re not addressing nuclear radiation > or the Manhattan project here, we’re primarily talking about a natural > substance millions of tons of which have (and will be continued in the > future) to be lofted into the atmosphere by natural methods! In this sense > I would suggest that empirical research on, particularly atmospheric and > cloud-based DCC, will likely require more “social science” non-controlled > experiment statistical techniques in the “real atmosphere” that can only be > accomplished with small-scale deployment. > > d) And as one NOAC meeting participant noted, Letter 1 includes a rather > gratuitous (in the offering any evidence in support) swipe at the Make > Sunsets effort particularly with regard to selling “cooling credits that I > too think is unwarranted and counterproductive (see discussion of Make > Sunsets initiative in 3) below): *“The state of scientific knowledge > about SRM is also currently insufficient for it to be included as part of a > climate credit system or other commercial offering, as some have started to > propose.* Even for stratospheric aerosol injection (the most > well-understood SRM approach), the amount of cooling achieved by the > injection of a given mass of material and how SAI will affect the climate > system are still highly uncertain. Even with improved understanding of > these effects, since SRM does not address the cause of climate change, nor > all of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, it likely > will never be an appropriate candidate for an open market system of credits > and independent actors.” > > 3) Finally, I believe that this entire topic of “how can best move the > ball forward on urgently necessary DCC” should be considered in a broad > political as well as scientific frame. > > a) If I may say so, as a social scientist, and especially as a radical > economist, I believe that I am particularly a-tuned to the political > dimensions of social change and “social ideology” as mainstream economics > is a prime example of the latter (I wrote a book on this that I will send > to anyone upon request). Similarly, I think the broad NOAC discussion that > included members of our broader “climate cooling community” including but > not exclusively climate scientists or climate change professionals who > (consciously or not) understandably may have to be more careful and > conservative in their public positions on these issues. All of us (people > and organizations) are (again not always consciously) playing a strategic > role in this sense. > > b) My own view (that comes without personal cost to my livelihood, status, > and/or strategic and practical efforts to make the world a better place) is > that anything that stimulates awareness, debate, and hopefully action on > the need for urgent direct climate cooling, and that is physically or > economically beneficial, or at the very least, does not cause harm, is a > positive step forward. For example, I believe that all of us (including the > founders of Make Sunsets) understand that an effective high-leverage (and > therefore high-risk) direct climate cooling method like SAI should be > researched and implemented publicly and transparently, or with extensive > public monitoring and oversight, per the two recent letters on this topic > discussed in 2) above. And since the Make Sunsets’ lofting of “de-minimis” > amounts of SO2 to the stratosphere is not “effective” in terms of climate > cooling <https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/pricing-cooling-credits>, and > thus does not cause any harm and has the same temporary cooling affect as a > much large amount of GHG reduction would permanently (see below) it is on > balance a positive step toward cooling. > > c) I believe that the Make Sunsets selling of DDC credits that can be > roughly estimated in this case, as generally speaking (see below) global > SAI cooling can be viewed (like GHG removal) as a pure “public good” that > has the same result no matter where and when it is applied, has enhanced > it’s political impact and has the potential to create a broad group of > citizen/consumer climate cooling advocates among the general public. > Hopefully, this will facilitate kick start this possibility for other > (likely more local and geographically priced) legitimate private cooling > credits. As I’ve said in prior blogs, I believe that we are in an “all > hands on deck” for cooling moment, and therefore need to harness whatever > institutional (public, non-profit, private) methods we can to ramp this up > as fast and as much as possible. > > d) Finally, though what Make Sunsets is currently doing is not “effective” > in terms of climate, it is (modestly) physically beneficial as each gram of > SO2 actually lofted to the stratosphere is roughly equivalent to the > removal of 0.476 metric tons of CO2 for 2.1 years (see blog > <https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/calculating-cooling>) as 1/2.1= > 0.476), so that (as pointed by Make Sunsets in the NOAC discussion) lofting > a kilogram of SO2 would be roughly equivalent to removing 476 metric tons > of CO2 for 2.1 years. And this linking of temporary cooling to temporary > GHG drawdown adds another useful “direct climate cooling” public education > dimension to the Make Sunsets effort as it shows how much temporary cooling > “bang for the buck” lofting a still “de-minimis” amount of SO2 can provide > relative to temporary removal of GHG. > > e) Similarly, I believe that Andrew Lockley’s balloon lofting experiment, > though unfortunately named, can be viewed as a politically positive DCC > intervention. > > As I said, that NOAC meeting stimulated a lot of good discussion! > > Best, > > Ron > > , > > -- > 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/CAPhUB9Akk1t36bEeKQucsSw34udVsLKSQ_YVrFcxiH2sDpSmbg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CAPhUB9Akk1t36bEeKQucsSw34udVsLKSQ_YVrFcxiH2sDpSmbg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/008c01d9539d%2498a659f0%24c9f30dd0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/008c01d9539d%2498a659f0%24c9f30dd0%24%40EndorphinSoftware.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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CyU6iB88wBu7S9xJq6ZEF4qSwxy6AF-4EUtj8AtV3Etg%40mail.gmail.com.
