Hello Oswald, Thank you for your continued discussion. I do appreciate it. Obviously, you are an experienced businessman pursuing a serious enterprise. The only way I can respond is how I responded to Ron. You say that any discussion of an 'actual plan' has to have thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of blueprints of modified gulfstream or whatever jets, patests (do we have to patent ??), so many engineers, so many scientists, lawyers, office staff, etc., etc...but, Oswald, what is the actual plan that all that is supporting?
What I want is a detailed deployment plan. deployment of ....whatever is your 'cooling agent' by whatever mechanism, leading on what time period to one degree (if you can do 0.5, why not 1? To make sure sea level rise is halted) below current. What I am hearing is there is no such plan after 40 years of geoegineering activism, and that it would be stupid to even outline such a plan without having first lined up $100 billion, an army of lawyers, etc. But is it really so stupid, Oswald, to ask for as detailed plan of deployment as something work from, compete against other plans with, build on, correct, improve....I see that as not insane, but the essential first step...even before you set up a world government to say no to you. Regards, Greg > On Feb 14, 2024, at 6:01 PM, Oswald Petersen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Greg, > no shame needed, I love your posts😊 > > However I find your and Ron´s description of a dispersion technology utterly > unconvincing. Doing such a job requires a company (better more than one). It > requires thousands of pages of technical documents, including patents, > special disperrsion devices, special planes… and a team of at least 50 > engineers, scientists, administrators … the works. Compare e.g. Climeworks > for DAC. Then of course you need political actors working for you. You need a > legal framework, a business case, cashflow… it is all missing. > > I guess I would claim your first 25 $ now . But in fact I am more interested > in the other 25, just like you. Let me tell you : We are working on a plan to > cool the climate by 0.5 degrees. That plan will not do SAI, but it will win > those 25 bucks. And it will work. > > More on this very soon > > Regards > > Oswald Petersen > Atmospheric Methane Removal AG > Lärchenstr. 5 > CH-8280 Kreuzlingen > Tel: +41-71-6887514 > Mob: +49-177-2734245 > https://amr.earth <https://amr.earth/> > https://cool-planet.earth <https://cool-planet.earth/> > > > > > Von: Gregory Slater <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Februar 2024 00:57 > An: Oswald Petersen <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Ron Baiman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Jim Baird > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > healthy-planet-action-coalition > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Betreff: Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the > Earth's oceans.. > > > Hello Oswald, > > Well, admittedly, my posts are designed to provoke responses on this, and > shame on me for that. However, Keith and Smith just posted their article > claiming that one could do operational (subscale) SAI now at ~+33 and -33 > latitude using a small fleet of existing planes. So I am hereby offering a > $25 "SAI X-Prize" (first of its kind, as far as I know), to anyone who can > prove that we can't do full global SAI cooling with some kind of cobbled > together, motley collection of existing aircraft. There. I have the money in > my wallet as I write, waiting for someone to claim it. But, Oswald, the more > important thing, as far as I am concerned, is, has anyone attempted to put > together any plan for the 'closest to full global SAI' that we could do today > if we had the dough. Why? If I am wrong, send me the link to the maximally > current doable SAI plan, for me to kvetch about. > > Beyond that, since I claim not to be a radical-SAI-ist religious nut, nor a > radical-MCB-ist religious nut, nor any other kind of religious nut, I am > hereby offering a (second) $25 X-Prize for the anyone who can provide the > fastest-to-deployment, closest-to-totally-stopping-sea-level-rise-completely, > plan, giving the date of full deployment (again, assuming the dough), and the > redection factor in sea level rise over current rate. 25 smackers! Waiting > for a claimant. > > Ultimately, I on the team of anyone has a credible plan to fully stop sea > level rise as fast as possible (but if that's decades, then I'm not > interested, because it will be done convulsively anyway in the timescale > without any of us advocating for it). > > Regards, > Greg > > >> On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:43 PM, Oswald Petersen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Dear Greg, >> >> could you please point out who has the technology to do SAI ? I am not aware >> or any organization, be it a company, a government or an individual, who has >> such technology or claims to have it. Actually I don´t even know anyone who >> has a clear technical concept how to do this. >> >> So, to answer your question: Yes I really disagree with that. >> >> Regards >> >> Oswald >> >> Von: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> Im Auftrag von >> Gregory Slater >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2024 22:42 >> An: Ron Baiman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: Jim Baird <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> healthy-planet-action-coalition >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Betreff: Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the >> Earth's oceans.. >> >> >> 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 >> "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/FD047CDC-93EB-40E5-B25A-D3019EDB4361%40gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/FD047CDC-93EB-40E5-B25A-D3019EDB4361%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/C31CC6B6-30B2-43C2-BDAC-71C7944A5A9E%40gmail.com.
