Well, okay, but David Keith is arguing in the opposite direction than me. He's saying, '...so we got time'. I'm saying we drop global mean temp by a degree today, and then we'll actually test for the existence of tipping points in the real world, rather than sit on our butts speculating about their possibly existence. - Greg
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > And as you may recall, there was enormous push back on David Keith's view, > that I don't think is credible, at that HPAC meeting (see McKay, Lenton, etc. > papers). In any case, an easy response is that of Doug McMartin when asked > about David's view during his (Doug's) HPAC presentation. Can we afford to > risk the chance that warming above 1.5 C (or whatever warming we have now!) > will (is) leading to crossing irreversible and extremely harmful tipping > points (like sea level rise as you've pointed out)? The obvious answer is > that it would be (is) lunacy to assume this kind of risk for human > civilization and our fellow living species - whether it pans out or not. > > Best, > Ron > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:40 PM Gregory Slater <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Ron, > > Well, yes, the 'tipping point thing' is presumably key. From my pedestrian > understanding, there's ~50+ ft of sea level rise in the Greenland and the > West Antarctic ice sheets alone, so if indeed we've passed whatever relevant > 'tipping point' for those ice sheets (for example, undercutting the coastal > structure of these sheets in some way, or whatever) then, apparently, we > could now cool the earth by 40 deg C at this point, and these sheets would > still inexorably melt away. On the other hand, as you know, David Keith told > HPAC staright up that ice sheet tipping points are bulls**t. Who has the > final authoratative word on whether we're past those or other tipping points? > Fas ar I can tell, it's all vapor at this point, and that therefore 'as far > as we know' SAI can stop (not just freaking 'mitigate' (hate that utterly > defeatist word!) ) the inevitable 40+ feet of sea level rise - and I'm > sticking to that until there's something authoratative on ice sheet tipping > points. We're still not helpless victims of the inevitable ice sheet melt. > > Please correct any misinformed or delusion points in the above. > > Greg > > >> On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:09 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, The problem is that some melting processes, once set in motion, >> become irreversible on human time scales as reforming the ice would require >> extremely cold temperatures over extended periods of time. The ice will not >> be restored by simply going back to pre-industrial temps (technically called >> ‘hysteresis’ , ‘path dependency’ or simply irreversibility). >> My understanding is that we have likely started some of these irreversible >> tipping points. But totally agree that slowing and stopping melting as much >> as possible should be a priority. I think we can restore polar sea ice for >> example by urgent cooling. And if we can slow the melting down to centuries >> for example it would be much easier for human civilization to adapt. >> Best, >> Ron >> >>> On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:41 PM, Gregory Slater <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ron, >>> >>> Thanks for reply and link. I'll look at this. >>> However. Ron. It totally depresses me when you write, "At this point it >>> appears that it may be very hard to reverse substantial sea level rise over >>> next centuries....". Seriously? Why? The only, only reason I am >>> interested in SAI (and the other cooling technologies) is its capability to >>> halt global warming and sea level rise immediately. Today. If we but >>> choose to do so. Is there anyone who actually doubts that SAI can halt >>> global warming and sea live rise immediately? Is there anyone who does not >>> think we have the capacity to do this? This is my baseline assumption. >>> That, whether or not we have the brains and the balls to do so, we have the >>> technology to actually halt global warming ~instantly. We have that >>> capacity. Now. Does anyone seriously disagree with that? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg Slater >>> >>> >>> On 2/13/24 12:26 PM, Ron Baiman wrote: >>>> Agreed Greg! At this point it appears that it may be very hard to reverse >>>> substantial sea level rise over next centuries but we should at least be >>>> trying to slow it down and minimize it as much as possible! >>>> >>>> Jim's short summary of OTEC from (6/19/2023) from p. 15-16 of "The Case >>>> for Urgent Direct Climate Cooling" (slight mislabeling on the HPAC >>>> website): >>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view >>>> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view> >>>> is copied below. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) would utilize the temperature >>>> difference >>>> between surface and deeper ocean waters to cool the planet while >>>> generating baseload >>>> energy and removing CO2 from the atmosphere.76,77,78 Deployment of 31,000 >>>> one >>>> gigawatt OTEC plants has been estimated to: a) displace 0.8 W/m2 of >>>> average global >>>> surface heat from the surface of the ocean to deeper water for 200 years; >>>> b) produce 31 >>>> terawatts of electricity per year (67% more than total world use), and c) >>>> absorb about >>>> 4.3 GtCO2 per year from the atmosphere by cooling ocean surface waters.79 >>>> At an >>>> estimated cost of $2.9 trillion per year, it would take 30 years to ramp >>>> up to 31,000 >>>> >>>> 73 Nature Communications 12: 6713 (2021). >>>> 74 Sci. Rep. 6: 35070 (2016). >>>> 75 White-roofed greenhouses in Almeria have cooled the regional climate. >>>> 76 Rau, Greg and Jim R. Baird. 2018. Negative-CO2-emissions ocean thermal >>>> energy conversion. Renewable and >>>> Sustainable Energy Reviews 95:265-272. >>>> 77 Baird, Jim. 2022. The physics and economics of thermodynamic >>>> geoengineering. Available from the author upon >>>> request at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>> 78 Gleckler PJ, Durack RJ, Stouffer RJ, Johnson GC, Forest CE. >>>> Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in >>>> recent decades.2016. Nature Climate Change: >>>> https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2915 <https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2915> >>>> 79 Renforth, Phil and Gideon Henderson. 2017. Assessing ocean alkalinity >>>> for carbon sequestration. Reviews of >>>> Geophysics. >>>> >>>> Healthy Planet Action Coalition Petition to World Leaders Page >>>> 16 >>>> plants.80,81,82,83 Economies of scale have been estimated to potentially >>>> reduce the cost of >>>> OTEC electricity to about 1.1 cents per KWh.84" >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1:05 AM Gregory Slater <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Jim, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the reply and information about 'thermodynamic >>>> geoengineering'. I do not know this technology. I am still learning. >>>> Please send links to more detailed summaries of the technology. >>>> >>>> My bottom line is that the over-riding priorities must be to stabilize >>>> (and reduce) global mean temperature, and stabilize global mean sea level. >>>> Immediately. Not in years or decades. Whatever set of technologies can >>>> realistically make that happen should be carefully but swiftly deployed, >>>> with appropriate testing, modifications, and scale up, but as quickly as >>>> possible. It is an emergency, an actual crisis, No time to lose. >>>> Whatever gets this done the fastest I am in favor of. >>>> >>>> There should be a session on this technology along with all the others at >>>> the 'effective geoengineering' conference/summit that I am proposing. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg Slater >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 12, 2024, at 10:04 PM, Jim Baird <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Gregory, what is the fault in this logic? >>>>> >>>>> The thermal coefficient of expansion of seawater is about half at a depth >>>>> of 1,000 meter it is at the surface per the following graphic. >>>>> >>>>> <image002.jpg> >>>>> Heat moved into deep water to a median depth of 500 meters as >>>>> Thermodynamic Geoengineering would provides with heat pipes produces 25% >>>>> less sea level rise due to thermal expansion. And this heat would be >>>>> unavailable to melt icecaps, or the glaciers that accounted for about 21% >>>>> of the recorded sea level rise of the past two decades. >>>>> >>>>> I share your concern with coastlines. >>>>> >>>>> Jim Baird >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> On Behalf Of >>>>> Gregory Slater >>>>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 8:55 PM >>>>> To: Ron Baiman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>; >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >>>>> healthy-planet-action-coalition >>>>> <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the >>>>> Earth's oceans.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ron, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the link. I had not read this, though I am sure you and >>>>> others announced it when it came out. >>>>> >>>>> My question reflects my interest in understanding the likely net zero >>>>> 'end-state' that is the focus of the vast share of discussion around >>>>> global warming and climate change, and your paper discusses that. >>>>> Certainly I regard even the current state of the Earth with regard to >>>>> atmospheric CO2 to be unacceptable, let alone where ever we 'land' at net >>>>> zero. My specific interest in the question is where sea level ends up >>>>> upon reaching the (still quite hypothetical) 'net zero'. But of course, >>>>> where ever we 'land' at net zero, that's not the end of the story, nor of >>>>> humanity's suffering. The ice sheets are melting, and the ocean are >>>>> rising due to that melt, even where we are now. Net zero does not in any >>>>> way stop that melting and sea level rise (on any timescale that matters >>>>> for the stability of states and civilization). Nor of course, does the >>>>> entire spectrum of other increasingly catastrophic global warming-induced >>>>> effects stop at 'net zero'. This disconnect seems to pervade the global >>>>> debate. Of course, you and most people on this forum are more aware of >>>>> all this than me. Without one or more (or better, all) of the proposed >>>>> methods of climate intervention, we will definitely be 'giving up' on the >>>>> coastal cities of the world, and astonishingly, that fate seems >>>>> increasingly to be being actively embraced by activists, scientists, and >>>>> leaders (at least in the industrialized world). But I have absolutely no >>>>> intention of docilely embracing the inundation of the coastlines, >>>>> complete with all of the catastrophies, death, and suffering (to be borne >>>>> by the poor and disenfranchised alone!) that that 'embrace of death' >>>>> entails. To hell with the global warming accommodators. I refuse to >>>>> give up on the coastlines. I'll say it again. I refuse to give up on >>>>> the coastlines! That's insanity. It is this decision!, to abandon the >>>>> coastlines, It is this decision! and not the decision to seriously begin >>>>> testing all forms of climate intervention, that is being made by the rich >>>>> and powerful right now, the class that can protect itself from the >>>>> consequences, without any involvement of the billions of poor and >>>>> disenfranchised of the world, who will be forced to suffer as a result. >>>>> As Thucydides so presciently wrote about global warming 2500 years ago, >>>>> the rich will resist global warming intervention and the poor will be >>>>> forced to 'suffer what they must'. >>>>> >>>>> When it comes to the 'debate' about whether to employ climate >>>>> intervention technologies, it's a totally rigged game, with the >>>>> established powers in science and politics playing the role of 'the >>>>> house'. >>>>> >>>>> I believe that those of us who understand that intervention is not only >>>>> doable but absolutely essential, that stabilizing the global mean >>>>> temperature is the single most important thing to be done right now, >>>>> today, should organize our own conference on how we must proceed, rather >>>>> than begging the Davos-and-COP-attending activists, scientists, >>>>> socialogists, political 'scientists', celebrities, and politicians to >>>>> 'please, pretty please' at least consider what we say. It is we, not >>>>> they, who speak on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised! >>>>> >>>>> Greg Slater >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 12, 2024, at 2:54 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>>> >>>>>> Recent modeling suggests that the oceans will gradually release heat to >>>>>> the atmosphere but not sure at what rate. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is from the HPAC cooling paper: >>>>>> https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.169755546.65919302/v1 >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.169755546.65919302/v1> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Failure to begin deployment of direct cooling influence in the very >>>>>> near-term necessarily >>>>>> will lead to greater harm and increased risk, at least until net-zero >>>>>> global GHG emissions are >>>>>> achieved and legacy concentrations of GHGs are removed from the >>>>>> atmosphere and oceans. >>>>>> Recent modeling suggests that, in the absence of direct climate cooling, >>>>>> if (anthropogenic and >>>>>> natural) net-zero emissions were to be achieved after 3667 Gigatons of >>>>>> CO2 eq GHG (or 1000 >>>>>> Gigatons of carbon estimated to result in global warming of about 2.0°C) >>>>>> were accumulated in >>>>>> the atmosphere, global warming would remain at roughly 2.0° C for at >>>>>> least another 50 years due >>>>>> to continued thermal rebalancing from legacy ocean warming, even with >>>>>> continued ocean uptake >>>>>> of legacy CO2 from the atmosphere (MacDougall et al., 2020; Hausfather, >>>>>> 2021). This suggests >>>>>> that even after net-zero is achieved, a combination of continued direct >>>>>> climate cooling and >>>>>> drawdown of legacy GHG would be necessary to expeditiously restore and >>>>>> regenerate a stable >>>>>> climate and healthy ecosystem (Schuckmann et al., 2020; Baiman, 2021, >>>>>> footnote 9)." >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 3:14 PM Gregory Slater <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we managed to reach 'net zero' by, say, 2050, so that, to zeroth >>>>>>> order, the concentration of CO2 ceased to increase due to human >>>>>>> activities after that time, how would the (mean) ocean temperature >>>>>>> respond (over years, decades)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am happy to be directed to any published papers or group threads >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> discuss this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg Slater, East Palo Alto, CA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>> <mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition%[email protected]>. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/53b39682-29d1-4fc7-a0ee-c3814acdeb50%40gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/53b39682-29d1-4fc7-a0ee-c3814acdeb50%40gmail.com>. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CD05CB11-5D11-4869-ADCD-197F07468434%40gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CD05CB11-5D11-4869-ADCD-197F07468434%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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/760E7AFE-D9AA-464A-B8E4-9D24AE9A1163%40gmail.com.
