Okay, thanks again Ron. Looks good... ...but, you don't get my $25 X-Prize unless you specify how many aircraft, of what make(s), to what set of altitudes at what set of latitudes, with how many kg of SO2 (or whatever) per flight, at what set of flight frequencies...etc... to get the job done today. Or if it's MCB, or whatever, or a combination of methods, what are the equivalent set of details on those to drop global mean temperature by 1 deg and reduce sea level rise rate by an order of magnitude (or whatever). I want those details written out. I want the detailed 'recipe' or 'prescription' that you could hand to someone and tell them to go do it, and he goes off and drops the global mean temperature by a degree in the shortest time possible from tonight. I want the irreducibly simplest, klugiest, fastest set of directions which gets us to 1 deg C below where we are now in the shortest time from tonight. Quickest mods to a set of existing aircraft models specified. In the mean time, one can be building Wake Smith's super fleet or whatever, but until that's ready you're doing it with all these kluges.
Why can't we at least generate that set of specs? Greg > On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:36 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agreed Greg! This is the HPAC position, this is from the cooling paper > (bolding is mine - there is similar language in the Vision document and in > the open letters): > > "To moderate global warming before key impacts become irreversible, a climate > restoration plan that returns global warming to well below 1°C in the > near-term needs to be > adopted and then promptly implemented. Such a plan would need to have three > complementary components: > 1. Deployment of near-term direct cooling influences, particularly focused at > first on > reducing amplified warming in the polar regions and the Himalayas, > 2. Accelerated reductions of GHG emissions, including especially an early > focus on > methane and other short-lived warming agents, and > 3. Building capacity to reduce the legacy concentrations of CO2 , methane, > and other > GHGs in the atmosphere and oceans." > > Best, > Ron > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:12 PM Gregory Slater <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 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] >> <mailto:[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/7F526991-89A3-4850-87DD-72979CF9A37D%40gmail.com.
