Ugh! Two important typos in my most recent post: In a) *they don’t have significant impact* In d). *can be implemented now* Apologies! Best, Ron
On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 7:18 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for this Robert! I was hoping to stimulate just such a broader > discussion and you have taken up the challenge. I dare say you probably > didn't need much encouragement from me. Just an awareness that a > discussion, that it appears you have been engaged in with Shaun and others > for a long time, had taken place at the NOAC meeting was enough! > > Per the similar (though much less elegantly argued points) in my initial > post, I wholeheartedly agree in principle with our comments. I think your > parsing of the two opposing interpretations of the precautionary is > particularly constructive and helpful. And I think that this agreement in > principle is really all that is essential and important for all "direct > climate cooling" (DCC) advocates to agree on, to motivate us individually > and collectively do everything we can, depending on our abilities, > positions, and any other strategic assets that we may possess, to try to > move global DCC forward as quickly as possible. I think we all agree that > this is "an all hands on deck" moment, i.e. that we have very limited time > to urgently implement global climate cooling to prevent the collapse of > human civilization as we know it as you have stated. > > I think this discussion is immensely useful, and in spirit of further > honing down and clarifying what we mean by DCC and how it might be quickly > and effectively implemented, I offer (per my initial post) the following > mostly overlapping but in some respects somewhat different perspective on > some of these points: > > a) You have defined deployment as "acting at scale with the immediate > intention of delivering climatic impacts". But in some cases (as with Make > Sunsets), there is an "intention to deliver climate impacts" but the > precise actions that have been taken are *physically* "de minimis" in the > sense that they have significant effect on climate cooling, but, I think, > are *politically* quite important in furthering the cause of DCC. In > this regard, as I've stated above, I think it's important to have a broad > political and activist perspective on the change in social thinking and > action that we're trying to engender, and understand that all of us are > working within different institutional and personal constraints. > > b) This leads me to frame the two approaches that you define ( a) "that > there should be a commitment to deployment and its operationational > precursors should be start to be put in place whilst the necessary research > to optimize the technologies was undertaken in parallel", and b) "here > should be no commitment to deployment of AE until research has shown that > it is acceptably safe") as both stipulating a *false dichotomy* between > research and deployment. > > c) A third, and I believe more realistic, approach is not necessarily to > commit to (large scale) deployment of a (high-leverage high-risk) DCC > method, but, for methods that don't pose any significant harm from small > (de-minimis) "deployment" like SAI, or not so "de minimis" pilot > deployments of MCB now being done in the Great Barrier Reef) engage in > small scale "piloting" and gradual increases in scale, or not, depending on > constant evaluation and monitoring of the results. The point is not that > laboratory and modeling research should stop, but that it appears to me > that, at least in the cases above, the line between research and > implementation is not hard and fast, and indeed needs to be breached for > realistic real-world testing of a non-controlled laboratory variety that is > more common in the social sciences. Related to this a second *false > dichotomy* regarding "*global deployment or not*" that I find is used in > most discussions of SAI. > > d) Finally, I'd like to reiterate that there are many other DCC methods > besides SRM, or AE or even "short wave" focused approaches (see cooling > document link in my comments above) and that, particularly given the latest > two "pipeline" papers (again see links in my comments above) on potential > long-term global warming due to legacy heat in the oceans, we need to > urgently explore ocean cooling "from below" as well as methods to enhance > water cycle evapotranspiration and convection, and possible other methods. > It is in my view past-due time to open the DCC discussion to explore all > possible options, many of which are low-risk so that they could be > evaluated now, and some with potential direct economic benefits that could > be both locally and globally important. I think we all understand that it > would be foolish to place all of our bets on any one, or even any one group > of (SRM or AE or other) DCC methods. > > I hope this has fewer typos and language problems than my initial post! > > Best, > Ron > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 1:46 PM Robert Chris <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sorry I missed last Monday's NOAC meeting. I was at the theatre for a >> superb production of *Medea*. One of my favourite plays. I have been >> wracking my brains to discern a climate change link to the play but so far >> it has defeated me. But the original play, although not this version, has >> a *deus ex machina* that extracts Medea from certain death after her >> heinous acts of revenge. That's what we need to rescue us from climate >> change - a *deus ex machina.* >> >> Attached is a rather lengthy note (almost 4 pages) I have prepared having >> twice watched the recording of the meeting. I think it was a excellent >> discussion that touched on a range of really key questions. I hope that my >> quiet reflection on everyone's contributions will be helpful. >> >> The attached poster is referenced in the other attachment. >> >> Regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> On 10/03/2023 23:37, Ron Baiman wrote: >> >> 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 >> "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/CAPhUB9CyU6iB88wBu7S9xJq6ZEF4qSwxy6AF-4EUtj8AtV3Etg%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9CyU6iB88wBu7S9xJq6ZEF4qSwxy6AF-4EUtj8AtV3Etg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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-planet-action-coalition/bb585f93-675a-f08a-f0ec-8fe24bc900e8%40gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bb585f93-675a-f08a-f0ec-8fe24bc900e8%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9BdkMFk92RZ%2BvK49NHNY-RPfSMbfzG5LZSVaf4Pq8AkVQ%40mail.gmail.com.
