[geo] Presentation on Marine Cloud Brightening: Dr Alan Gadian, Monday 29th April

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Dr Alan Gadian is a leading expert on modelling of Marine Cloud Brightening 
(MCB). He is Visiting Professor of Dynamical Meteorology at the National Centre 
for Atmospheric Sciences, based at Leeds University in the UK.  

 

Alan will speak for about 30 minutes followed by up to an hour of discussion 
with participants. He will discuss the cooling potential of MCB, status of 
computer modelling of MCB impacts on climate, the need to better understand the 
role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, and the urgency of direct climate 
cooling, in view of concerns that the IPCC has significantly underestimated 
warming risks.  The meeting will last for 90 minutes.

 

Monday 29th April 

• 1pm PDT (USA) • 4pm EDT  (USA) • 9pm BST  (UK) • 10pm CEST (France, Germany, 
Italy, Denmark, Switzerland) • 6am Tue AEST (Australia)

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87105924845?pwd=dk1xNG94VmZPTkFlTURNcXlhNXBGUT09

Meeting ID: 871 0592 4845

Passcode: 707770

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00a701da99df%247cda50d0%24768ef270%24%40yahoo.com.au.

RE: [geo] Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu March 7, 4.30 EST

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This meeting will provide opportunity to discuss how sunlight reflection 
methods could mitigate the risk of sea level rise.

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 3:07 PM
To: 'Healthy Planet Action Coalition' 
; 'Planetary Restoration' 
; 'geoengineering' 
; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' 

Cc: 'Peter D Ward' 
Subject: [geo] Dr Peter D. Ward: Sea level change: How bad, how fast? HPAC Thu 
March 7, 4.30 EST

 

The Healthy Planet Action Coalition welcomes guest speaker Professor Peter D. 
Ward, on the topic "Sea level change.  How bad, how fast?"

Thursday March 7, 4.30pm EST (90 minutes, end 6pm)

Zoom link 
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09

Dr Peter Ward   
  is Professor of 
Palaeontology at the University of Washington.  He is co-author of the 
influential book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe 

 , and is a leading expert on the causes of mass extinctions (see his TED talk 
 , my review 
  
  of 
Under a Green Sky).  

Prof Ward’s HPAC presentation will run for about 30 minutes, followed by 
discussion with participants for about an hour.

Please join us.

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/017101da6d20%244d9bad00%24e8d30700%24%40rtulip.net
 

 .

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/015b01da6d64%247374e9d0%245a5ebd70%24%40yahoo.com.au.

RE: [geo] Application for an internship

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Dear Valentin

 

Our group rebrighten.org   expects to have an 
opportunity for an internship on the development of Marine Cloud Brightening 
technology at our climate engineering workshop in Edinburgh. 

 

Your skills look ideally suited for our work.

 

We would welcome further discussion with you.

 

Best Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Valentin Kaczmarek
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 3:53 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Application for an internship

 

Hello,

My name is Valentin KACZMAREK, and I am currently a second-year engineering 
student at Polytech Marseille, France. I am actively seeking an 8 to 12-week 
summer internship abroad between June 1st and September 30th, either in a 
laboratory or a company, to validate my second year. Delphine Bianchi has 
highly recommended joining your group, mentioning that it could be an excellent 
opportunity.

Below, you will find my resume in case someone is interested. I am prompt to 
respond to any inquiries.

Respectfully,

Valentin KACZMAREK

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/92aca032-132c-43f9-ba2d-06c1f444eb7fn%40googlegroups.com
 

 .

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012a01da58e7%2449251e70%24db6f5b50%24%40yahoo.com.au.

RE: [geo] It is time to draw down carbon dioxide but shut down moves to play God with the climate

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Hi Renaud.  Thanks for sharing this commentary from Tim Flannery. 

 

Flannery takes an unscientific attitude in this article, failing to engage with 
alternative views or justify his opinions, and arguing in the title against 
research.  I have read many of his books and articles, always finding them 
lucid and informative, until encountering this very disturbing and uninformed 
piece. It appears to contradict his previous views in Atmosphere of Hope that 
geoengineering should not be treated as a taboo.  I find it hard to believe he 
could put his name to this, especially considering his advocacy 

  for covering nine percent of the world ocean with seaweed.

 

He opens by describing geoengineering as “playing God with the climate”, 
whatever that means, and asserts without evidence that it is highly speculative 
and could be extremely dangerous.  It seems far more speculative to assert the 
climate could be stabilised without higher albedo.  His assertion that no one 
has modelled the climate effects of stratospheric aerosol injection seems 
oblivious to the whole GEOMIP project 
 . He raises baseless alarm about 
risk of war and famine from efforts to cool the planet, even though those risks 
are arguably far greater without cooling action.   It is true as he says that 
cooling does not slow ocean acidification, but Flannery offers no practical 
sequence of action other than the imaginary and impossible miracle of warp 
speed decarbonisation.

 

Rather than provide any evidence for these damaging assertions from a person in 
his position of responsibility and influence, Flannery just concludes with the 
ridiculous assertion that “forest protection and reafforestation is our best 
bet for getting us closer to limiting warming to 1.5°C.”  That ignores numerous 
problems - the potential for fire, drought, war, collapse and heatwave to 
destroy and prevent tree plantings; the fact that the world has already passed 
1.5 except in the fantasy accounts of IPCC; the problem that planting trees is 
too slow and small to mitigate tipping points; the problem that forests at 
climate relevant scale would take up essential agricultural land; and the tiny 
net cooling effect of trees compared to geoengineering. 

 

The depressing thing is that the need to secure urgently needed investment 
funds to research geoengineering is badly damaged while authoritative figures 
like Flannery hold such poorly argued views.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Renaud de RICHTER
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 5:33 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] It is time to draw down carbon dioxide but shut down moves to 
play God with the climate

 

theconversation.com 
/it-is-time-to-draw-down-carbon-dioxide-but-shut-down-moves-to-play-god-with-the-climate-220422
  

 


It is time to draw down carbon dioxide but shut down moves to play God with the 
climate


Tim Flannery:  January 22, 2024 

(Also on https://phys.org/news/2024-01-carbon-dioxide-play-god-climate.html )

  _  

The global effort to keep climate change to safe levels – ideally within 1.5°C 
above pre-industrial temperatures – is moving far too slowly. And even if we 
stopped emitting CO² today,  

 the long-term impacts of the gas already in the air would continue for 
decades. For these reasons, we will soon have to focus not only on halting but 
on reversing global warming.

We can do that in two ways. The first is by “ 
 drawdown” – strengthening natural 
processes on Earth that withdraw CO² from the atmosphere. The second is through 
vast experiments with the climate known as  

 geo-engineering, some of which sound like science fiction, and could be 
extremely dangerous if ever tried.


The dangers of some forms of geo-engineering


Geo-engineering proposals to arrest climate change range from the seemingly 
sensible –  

 painting our roofs and roads white – to the highly speculative:  

 solar radiation modification, or putting mirrors in space to reflect some of 
the Sun’s heat away from Earth. Probably the most  

[geo] RE: [CDR] Key Takeaways From COP28 UAE

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

“According to the IEA’s Roadmap to Net Zero report, the  

 tripling of renewables is the single biggest step the world can take by 2030 
to keep 1.5C within reach.”

 

This IEA statement is wrong.  The single biggest step the world can take by 
2030 to keep 1.5C within reach is to increase albedo.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 1:30 AM
To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [CDR] Key Takeaways From COP28 UAE

 

This item and others will be in the weekly “Carbon Removal Updates Substack” 
newsletter:   
https://carbonremovalupdates.substack.com/



 

https://carbonherald.com/cop28-uae-key-takeaways/

 

  Petya Trendafilova

 

December 15, 2023

  

 Photo by COP28 / Mahmoud Khaled

On December 13th, at the end of the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to 
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that took place in 
Dubai, 197 nations attending the negotiations signed a new climate agreement 
  that should set the world on a path to 
achieve the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement of 2015.


Global Stocktake


The COP28 agreement, also called the Global Stocktake, is the first COP text 
that openly states that countries need to “transition away from fossil fuels”. 

The Global Stocktake – the systematic process designed for nations and 
stakeholders to assess every five years their progress in achieving the 
objectives of the Paris Climate Change Agreement – recognizes that the world is 
on track to reach an increase in temperatures in the range of 2.1–2.8 °C with 
the full implementation of the latest nationally determined contributions. 

It also acknowledges the progress that has been made since prior to the 
adoption of the Paris Agreement when some projections showed a global 
temperature increase of 4°C. 

Therefore the stocktake recognizes the need for deep, rapid and sustained 
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with 1.5 °C pathways, showing 
there is a lot that still needs to be done. It calls on Parties to contribute 
to some of the following global efforts, in nationally determined 
contributions: 

*   Tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global 
average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030;
*   Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, 
orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so 
as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science;
*   Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power;
*   Accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter 
alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon 
capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and 
low-carbon hydrogen production;
*   Accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions 
globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030;
*   Accelerating the reduction of emissions from road transport on a range 
of pathways, including through development of infrastructure and rapid 
deployment of zero- and low-emission vehicles;
*   Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address 
energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible.

   
Credit: Petya Trendafilova | Carbon Herald

Even though the final text is an improvement of the draft proposed at the 
beginning of the week, the language still omits the phasing out of fossil fuels 
altogether. 

It is, however, for the first time addressing the need to stop burning fossil 
fuels and signals the end of their era. It also confirms the massive growth of 
renewables. To close the gap between the current nationally determined 
contributions that lead towards 2.1–2.8°C of warming and the global target of 
1.5°C, countries have agreed to triple the renewables capacity to 11,000 GW by 
2030.

Relevant: BREAKING: Countries Reject Article 6 At COP28 
 

According to the IEA’s Roadmap to Net Zero report, the tripling of renewables 

  is the single biggest step the world can take by 2030 to keep 1.5C within 
reach. 

Government targets already add up to a doubling of renewable capacity by 2030 
and estimates show the gap between 

RE: [geo] Unlocking Climate Secrets: The Hidden Physics Behind Temperature and Radiation

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Thank you Renaud.  This explanation of poleward energy transport helps explain 
why Marine Cloud Brightening in the tropics will cool the poles.

 

Robbie Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Renaud de RICHTER
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 5:16 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Unlocking Climate Secrets: The Hidden Physics Behind Temperature 
and Radiation

 

scitechdaily.com 
/unlocking-climate-secrets-the-hidden-physics-behind-temperature-and-radiation/ 
 

 


Unlocking Climate Secrets: The Hidden Physics Behind Temperature and Radiation


16/12/2023 

  _  

Research in climate science reveals new insights into the relationship between 
surface temperature and outgoing longwave radiation, challenging conventional 
models and deepening our understanding of Earth’s climate sensitivity.

Curious about what drives Earth’s climate sensitivity? A recent study in 
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences explores the complex links transforming the 
relationship between surface temperature and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) 
from quartic to quasi-linear. Led by Dr. Jie Sun from Florida State University, 
this research unravels hidden mechanisms shaping our planet’s climate, 
providing fresh insights into why the temperature and OLR relation deviates 
from the quartic pattern stated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and Climate Dynamics


What is the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere create a 
contrast between surface thermal emission, linked to the fourth power of 
surface temperature, and OLR.

Prof. Xiaoming Hu from Sun Yat-sen University, the corresponding author of the 
study, explained, “Vertical convective energy transport acts like an 
atmospheric mixer, swirling temperatures within a column. This allows the 
relation between surface temperature and OLR to still follow the quartic 
pattern by lowering the radiative emission layer.”

 

 


Diagram depicting the two main processes for quasi-linear surface temperature 
and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). Left: enhancement of meridional surface 
temperature gradient by the greenhouse effect of water vapor; Right: Re-routing 
part of OLR from warm places to cold places by poleward energy transport. 
Credit: Ming Cai and Xiaoming Hu 


Factors Influencing Surface Temperature and OLR


The study uncovers how various factors influence surface temperature and OLR. 
The greenhouse effect of water vapor acts as a magnifier, amplifying 
temperature differences across Earth’s surface without altering the latitudinal 
variation of OLR. This suppresses the nonlinearity between OLR and surface 
temperature.

Poleward energy transport, on the other hand, functions as an equalizer, 
harmonizing temperature disparities across different regions of the globe. One 
of the by-products of this global heat redistribution is the re-routing of OLR 
from warm places to cold places, acting to reduce OLR difference across 
different regions. This, in turn, further suppresses the nonlinearity.

Prof. Ming Cai from Florida State University highlighted, “Understanding these 
complex climate interactions is akin to decoding a puzzle. Each piece brings us 
closer to deciphering our planet’s climate intricacies.”

By illuminating these connections, scientists make significant strides in 
comprehending Earth’s climate and how its intricate components orchestrate the 
overall climate sensitivity, namely not only energy output rate but also where 
the output takes place.

Reference: “A Quasi-Linear Relationship between Planetary Outgoing Longwave 
Radiation and Surface Temperature in a Radiative-Convective-Transportive 
Climate Model of a Gray Atmosphere” by Jie Sun, Michael Secor, Ming Cai and 
Xiaoming Hu, 25 November 2023, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.
  DOI: 
10.1007/s00376-023-2386-1


Abstract


In this study, we put forward a radiative-convective-transportive energy 
balance model of a gray atmosphere to examine individual roles of the 
greenhouse effect of water vapor, vertical convection, and atmospheric poleward 
energy transport as well as their combined effects for a quasi-linear 
relationship between the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and surface 
temperature (TS). The greenhouse effect of water vapor enhances the meridional 
gradient of surface temperature, thereby directly contributing to a 
quasi-linear OLR-TS relationship. The atmospheric poleward energy transport 
decreases the meridional gradient of surface temperature. As a result of the 
poleward energy transport, tropical (high-latitude) atmosphere-surface columns 
emit less (more) OLR than the solar energy input at their respective locations, 
causing a substantial reduction of 

[geo] Marine Geoengineering: Australian Legislation

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

https://theconversation.com/new-australian-laws-for-engineering-the-ocean-mu
st-balance-environment-protection-and-responsible-research-209036

The Australian Labor government has introduced a
 bill to regulate "marine geoengineering" - methods to combat climate
change by intervening in the ocean environment.  The bill would prohibit
listed marine geoengineering activities without a permit.

 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportrep/RB000131/
toc_pdf/Inquiryintothe2009and2013amendmentstothe1996ProtocoltotheConventiono
nthePreventionofMarinePollutionbyDumpingofWastesandOtherMatter,1972(LondonPr
otocol).pdf

Parliamentary Report of Inquiry into the London Protocol

 

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/06fb01d9b546%24d67b8e20%248372aa60%24%40yahoo.com.au.

RE: [geo] Solar Radiation Modification is risky, but so is rejecting it: A call for balanced research

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This paper includes the following valuable principles that inform how to 
advocate for SRM.  My comments are in red.

 

Following a number of scholars who have worked on moral frameworks for SRM (17; 
14), we propose the following broad principles: _ 

1.  Mitigation (including removals) and adaptation need to be the primary 
focus of climate policy. True for the long term but not for the short term.  
Also, the use of ‘mitigation’ as a synonym for emission reduction is 
scientifically incorrect and should be discouraged.  SRM will do much more to 
mitigate climate change than decarbonisation will.
2.  SRM should at most serve as an addition to reducing greenhouse gas 
concentrations. SRM will be useful for long term regulation and management of 
the climate.  As well, SRM will be needed well before GHGs start to go down.  
The phrase “at most serve as an addition” downplays the central climate role of 
albedo and its position as the most tractable lever to deliver cooling.
3.  Knowledge and implementation of SRM must be administered in the public 
interest. This entails that the provision of SRM is organised by a globally 
legitimised body, and not based on private interests. _  The Bretton Woods 
Institutions, the IMF and World Bank, provide a useful model for establishing 
an international climate organisation tasked to increase albedo.
4.  Legitimate governance processes must be adhered to, and societal values 
such as justice and equality must be central when considering the role SRM 
research can play in lessening the threat of climate change. _ Societal values 
such as justice and equality must be important, but political perceptions in 
these areas carry high risk of derailing a rigorous technical focus on albedo 
enhancement. An international agency tasked to manage SRM can require justice 
and equality in its sphere of operation, but not beyond it.
5.  Any decision about deployment should be taken on the basis of broad 
public participation. Special emphasis should be placed on underrepresented and 
vulnerable communities, such as the Global South and Indigenous Peoples. _ This 
is correct.  I believe public opinion can readily be swayed to support solar 
geoengineering in light of the impossibility of the IPCC’s latest call in the 
AR6 Synthesis Report to nearly halve emissions by 2030.
6.  The research process should be transparent, reflective, and cooperative 
(also on the international level), and provide ample space for offramps, in 
case certain findings point towards undesirable outcomes of SRM deployment. _ 
Mention of offramps is important, but the reality is that benefits of solar 
geoengineering, implemented with sound governance, should vastly overwhelm 
possible risks.  Incremental deployment beginning at small scale and volume can 
quantify risks and benefits.
7.  SRM research must aim to create a comprehensive body of knowledge 
covering environmental, technical, political, societal and ethical sciences and 
properly linking and combining these domains. _ Knowledge management is 
essential but easily neglected.
8.  A solid framework for the governance of SRM should be in place before 
implementation is seriously considered. This entails engaging in research and 
consultations on governance parallel to studying the environmental and 
technological aspects of SRM. The Bretton Woods Institutions offer governance 
models that could be studied for international management of SRM. More than 
consultation, advocacy is needed to rapidly establish governance systems for 
SRM.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:49 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Solar Radiation Modification is risky, but so is rejecting it: A 
call for balanced research

 

https://academic.oup.com/oocc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad002/7081048?searchresult=1
 

 =false

 

Authors 

Claudia E Wieners, Ben P Hofbauer, Iris E de Vries, Matthias Honegger,Daniele 
Visioni, Herman Russchenberg, Tyler Felgenhauer

Oxford Open Climate Change, kgad002,   
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad002

 

20 March 2023 

 


Abstract


As it is increasingly uncertain whether humanity can limit global warming to 
1.5 degrees, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) has been suggested as a 
potential temporary complement to mitigation. While no replacement for 
mitigation, evidence to date suggests that some SRM methods could contribute to 
reducing climate risks and would be technically feasible. But such 
interventions would also pose environmental risks and unprecedented governance 
challenges. The risks of SRM must be carefully weighed against those of climate 
change without SRM. Currently, both types of risks are not sufficiently 

[geo] RE: Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT Technology Review

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Andrew

 

Iron Salt Aerosol adds iron chloride to the air, and has significant cloud 
brightening potential as a form of solar geoengineering.  

 

ISA differs from iron sulfate, which you mentioned, which is proposed as only 
an ocean fertilisation method for CDR and fisheries enhancement, and is not 
deployed as an aerosol.  

 

It is interesting that the MIT article implied the cloud brightening effect of 
ISA could be a negative in view of public hostility toward solar 
geoengineering, regardless of benefits and safety.

 

Once we are allowed to do field tests, data will emerge on the balance of 
brightening and GGR effects of ISA.  Before that it is premature to assume one 
or the other is more important.

 

I note your comments are presented “as moderator of the Google group”.  New 
readers may be unaware (as I understand it) that you are moderator of the 
geoengineering group, not the CDR group.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, 20 February 2023 8:05 AM
Cc: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 
; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT Technology 
Review

 

As moderator of the Google group I am just responding to the the points earlier 
stating that iron sulfate aerosol is not suitable for the CDR list. My personal 
view is that greenhouse gas removal fits very closely with CDR, to the point 
that they are are essentially interchangeable terms. Iron salt aerosol, where 
it is used to destroy methane seems to be a more appropriate fit for the CDR 
list than the geoengineering Google group. unless there's a lot of pushback I 
prefer to keep ISA in CDR and not geoengineering

 

Andrew 

 

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, 10:16 Clive Elsworth, mailto:cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> > wrote:

Hi Ye 

  

I am not aware of any new data on iron salt aerosol. However, TIO2 provides 
little or no ocean fertilisation, which an iron containing aerosol does, albeit 
very diffusely if dispersed as intended. 

  

A TIO2 -based aerosol is more suitable for use near icefields, where iron may 
colour the surface of the ice and fertilise growth of sessile life such as 
biofilms and moss that would likely accelerate the melting rate during summer 
months. 

  

Clive 

On 18/02/2023 23:17 GMT Ye Tao mailto:t...@rowland.harvard.edu> > wrote: 

  

  

Hi Clive and Peter,

Have there been new data to substantiate the claims of effectiveness and 
scalability? I believe that previous discussion threads on ISA that I have 
witnessed and engaged in (based on papers cited in the ISA field and beyond) 
were consistent with a lack of laboratory experimental evidence to support 
effectiveness and scalability of this otherwise tantalizing concept.   

Clive, if I remember well, you wrote in the past that you did not believe ISA 
was optimal and were rather looking into another thing based on TiO2.  Now you 
are again supporting ISA, I take it that new data and evidence must have 
emerged to rekindle your enthusiasm.   If new data or concept for in situ 
characterization have emerged, please share preliminary results.

Or perhaps Peter has performed new experiments from the list I suggested to the 
core group on ISA? and things look promising?

Looking forward to learning more,

Ye

 

On 2/18/2023 1:29 PM, Clive Elsworth wrote: 

Michael 

  

We calculate that potentially tens of Gt of CO2 per year could be safely 
removed by iron salt aerosol dispersal over remote iron poor ocean areas at low 
cost, if allowed. Of course this would need to be incrementally scaled, with 
lots of measurement, analysis. 

  

Clive 

On 18/02/2023 18:11 GMT Michael Hayes   
 wrote: 

  

  

Clive, I'm aware of the chemistry, yet this is a CDR list not a CH4 mitigation 
list. Removing CO2 has little involvement with CH4 mitigation. Use of iron salt 
is not a CDR method, and it has little if any relation to CDR policy or 
economics. 

  

The many CCed groups often welcome any comment on any subject under the Sun. 
This list, however, is focused on removing CO2, not second or third order 
indirect subjects that can be tacked onto CO2 removal. 

  

Getting things done requires maintaining focus, and the GE list along with many 
others like it simply can not maintain focus and thus are of little use and 
even less importance. Converting this list to a CC of the GE list is not 
needed, yet there seems to be a core group interested in either taking the 
moderators' post to do so or simply overrunning the CDR list with non CDR posts 
and making the CDR list a defacto non focused GE list. I object to the petty 
politics and to the non CDR posts. 

  

Best regards  

  

  

 

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:59 AM Clive Elsworth mailto:cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> > wrote: 

Michael 

  

Iron salt aerosol relates indirectly to CDR. Reduced warming from reduced 
atmospheric methane would slow the 

[geo] RE: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Dear Michael

 

I really am surprised that you claim to be unable to see the direct relevance 
of this topic to CDR policy.  

 

It is very clear that albedo enhancement is essential to prevent dangerous 
warming.  Many CDR proponents are in denial of this basic science.  This is a 
political problem delaying effective action on climate change.  

 

Conversation within CDR circles and more broadly can help improve understanding 
of the need to integrate direct climate cooling with the slower and indirect 
cooling methods provided by CDR and emission reduction.  Disparaging SRM should 
be discouraged and challenged when it occurs.  

 

It is understandable that these distorted beliefs against SRM have gained 
credence, given that much literature presents unbalanced and misinformed views 
criticising the moral case for geoengineering, ignoring cost benefit analysis 
and realistic scenarios.  

 

The scientific community has a responsibility to take an evidence based 
approach to these sensitive complex questions. 

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2023 4:38 AM
To: Robert Tulip 
Cc: Andrew Lockley ; 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com  
; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

 

 

What is the value of this discussion to the subject of CDR? 

 

So far:

 

1) Someone reports getting their feelings hurt.

 

2) We've been presented with an odd ball list of largely unsupportable 
assumptions and rambling personal views about CDR supporters etc.

 

This is not the GE group nor an emotional support group. I don't mean to be 
insensitive to those in need of emotional support yet this is a STEM, policy, 
and economic space focused upon CDR. What has been presented has nothing to do 
with the STEM, policy, or the economics of CDR, that I can find.

 

Best regards 

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 5:25 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:

Andrew

 

As you note, many advocates of CDR are totally opposed to SRM.  This is partly 
due to the widely held view among the general public that SRM is playing God, 
tinkering with nature, a dangerous intervention, whereas CDR is benign.  

 

As a result of this context, some CDR proponents tactically distance themselves 
from SRM and the associated terminology of geoengineering.  This is either 
because they really believe the anti-SRM ideology, or just in order to get 
investment and support and engagement.  

 

Some NGOs reportedly oppose SRM because their finance departments believe 
supporting it would be bad for their fundraising efforts, due to widespread 
opposition among their donor base.  They also believe that discussing SRM 
confuses their single message of the need to cut emissions.

 

This situation reflects the priority of politics over science in the formation 
of opinion.  It means the united front on climate action is seen as including 
CDR, in line with IPCC acceptance, but not SRM, which was given pariah status 
in the last IPCC Summary For Policymakers.  The confused moral hazard ideology 
is a main support for this political line.

 

This hostile attitude involves a refusal to see the earth as a single unified 
system, an inability to consider that earth system fragility and sensitivity 
can only be stabilised by brightening the planet.  

 

Greta Thunberg’s recent publication, The Climate Book, contains the assertion 
that “all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the Earth with the 
same domineering mindset that got us into the climate crisis in the first 
place.” This quasi-religious hostility to technology commands broad support 
among climate activists, producing a refusal to listen to reason, despite being 
a recipe for social and economic and ecological collapse.

 

The philosophical and psychological and political blockages to albedo 
enhancement as a primary climate objective lead to highly dubious arguments, 
such as that accelerated emission reduction and CDR could prevent tipping 
points without any action on albedo.

 

It is essential to defend the concept of geoengineering, since questioning it 
demonstrates an inability to understand the climate problem.

 

These concerns ought to be the subject of much more discussion and debate, as 
they are actually central to planetary security, with significant moral 
implications.  Thank you for highlighting the problem.

 

Robert Tulip  

 

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
  
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 11:06 AM
To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
  
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > 
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> >; geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 

[geo] RE: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Andrew

 

As you note, many advocates of CDR are totally opposed to SRM.  This is partly 
due to the widely held view among the general public that SRM is playing God, 
tinkering with nature, a dangerous intervention, whereas CDR is benign.  

 

As a result of this context, some CDR proponents tactically distance themselves 
from SRM and the associated terminology of geoengineering.  This is either 
because they really believe the anti-SRM ideology, or just in order to get 
investment and support and engagement.  

 

Some NGOs reportedly oppose SRM because their finance departments believe 
supporting it would be bad for their fundraising efforts, due to widespread 
opposition among their donor base.  They also believe that discussing SRM 
confuses their single message of the need to cut emissions.

 

This situation reflects the priority of politics over science in the formation 
of opinion.  It means the united front on climate action is seen as including 
CDR, in line with IPCC acceptance, but not SRM, which was given pariah status 
in the last IPCC Summary For Policymakers.  The confused moral hazard ideology 
is a main support for this political line.

 

This hostile attitude involves a refusal to see the earth as a single unified 
system, an inability to consider that earth system fragility and sensitivity 
can only be stabilised by brightening the planet.  

 

Greta Thunberg’s recent publication, The Climate Book, contains the assertion 
that “all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the Earth with the 
same domineering mindset that got us into the climate crisis in the first 
place.” This quasi-religious hostility to technology commands broad support 
among climate activists, producing a refusal to listen to reason, despite being 
a recipe for social and economic and ecological collapse.

 

The philosophical and psychological and political blockages to albedo 
enhancement as a primary climate objective lead to highly dubious arguments, 
such as that accelerated emission reduction and CDR could prevent tipping 
points without any action on albedo.

 

It is essential to defend the concept of geoengineering, since questioning it 
demonstrates an inability to understand the climate problem.

 

These concerns ought to be the subject of much more discussion and debate, as 
they are actually central to planetary security, with significant moral 
implications.  Thank you for highlighting the problem.

 

Robert Tulip  

 

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 11:06 AM
To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 
; geoengineering 

Subject: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

 

Hi Geo/CDR lists, 

 

I say very little personally - but I feel it's time to confront a problem, 
which has been building up for a while. 

 

I'm noticing increasingly ill-tempered nomenclature egg-throwing in this 
community. It's affecting my work - and it's probably harming other people's 
work, too. I'm therefore cross-posting, in an attempt to get the problem under 
control.

 

Most particularly, the eggs are being thrown by a few select CDR folk, who 
refuse to cooperate with people/projects describing the field as geoengineering 
(or related terms). Sorry if that's blunt, but them's the facts. I'm declining 
to name names - but I have the receipts, if anyone needs them.

 

Before addressing the core argument being (incorrectly) made, here's some 
background on my scicomm work. This context is relevant, as the scicomm reaches 
broadly across this field (2k twitter followers, 10k podcast downloads, ~3k 
email readers).

I've always worked on SRM and CDR, in both academic publications and scicomm.

 

As a matter of historical fact, the CDR list (which I don't moderate) was spun 
out from the geoengineering Google group (which I do moderate), and as a matter 
of convenience the residual list focussed on SRM. This was done to manage comms 
in a practical way, not as some ideological schism. Plenty of people cross both 
lists, and I've seen no reason to rebrand.

 

The other information services I operate (@geoengineering1 twitter, Reviewer 2 
Does Geoengineering podcast) use the same generic geoengineering branding, and 
have done for a decade or more. This is partly as a matter of historic 
consistency, and partly because the word is being used correctly - as I'll 
explain below. I don't therefore feel that this wording choice is any 
justification for people to attack me or my work.

 

How bad has it got? Well, I'm reliably informed that I've had my CV binned for 
at least 1 job because I use the word "geoengineering" to describe the field. 
I've recently had several people (without exception CDR types) refuse to 
cooperate with my scicomm work - because I use the word "geoengineering" as a 
convenient, dictionary-accurate, and historically-relevant way to describe my 
work. That's denying their work an audience, based on a 

[geo] SRM v GGR

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Ron

 

Thanks for this cost comparison you raise between Solar Radiation Management 
and Greenhouse Gas Removal.  The economics and politics and science of 
comparing something that is big and fast but impermanent (SRM) versus something 
that is small and slow but permanent (GGR) are complicated.  The following 
numbers are rough, but they seem within the order of magnitude.  Happy to be 
corrected.

Let’s say SRM could cut the temperature by 2°C for an ongoing annual cost of 
USD $40 billion (cf Wake Smith 
 ).  Achieving 
that same temperature cut with GGR at a cost of $10 per tonne of CO2e – with 
long term removal – would have to remove about two trillion tonnes of CO2e 
 , at a cost of $20 trillion.  That would 
equal the SRM cost for 500 years.  

 

My view is this is a conservative comparison, and the reality is likely to be 
more in favour of SRM.

 

The GGR result might take 100 years to achieve, whereas MacMartin 
  argues SAI could 
deliver this temperature cut in 50 years, not including Marine Cloud 
Brightening and other technologies. With political agreement, cooling by SRM 
could be deployed quickly, preventing tipping points, a key point that is 
ignored by opponents of SRM.  If a sudden Arctic methane release 
  caused ten 
billion tonnes of CO2e to enter the atmosphere, that would outweigh all 
practical GGR, causing accelerating feedbacks. This and other tipping points 
could possibly be prevented by the annual investment in SRM, which therefore 
has a major security and stability benefit.

 

Relying just on the carbon-based cooling methods of GGR seems a bit like 
leaving your house wide open, whereas SRM provides a precautionary security 
prevention, a bit like locking your doors.  Medically, the analogy could be 
that SRM is like pills for blood pressure or cholesterol, whereas GGR is like 
diet and exercise.  If you are in bad shape, it is no use complaining that you 
ignored recommended drug treatments after you have a heart attack.  

 

Does this comparison help provide a valid basis to calculate Radiative Forcing 
Credits?

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Ron Baiman
Sent: Monday, 16 January 2023 11:09 AM
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC 
Meetings ; Planetary Restoration 
; geoengineering 
; Healthy Climate Alliance 

Cc: l...@lukeiseman.com; and...@makesunsets.com; Andrew Lockley 
; Jesse Reynolds ; 
p.irv...@ucl.ac.uk
Subject: [geo] Make Sunsets - useful act of civil disobedience or irresponsible 
and like counter-productive silicon valley hubris?

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

For those wondering what this is all about see: https://makesunsets.com/ and 
links and existing thread cited below.  

 

I'm opening up another thread on this as I don't feel comfortable sharing the 
comments on the existing thread (please view at: 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com  ) with 
the other google groups added to this post. 

 

I too have numerous natural and social science issues with the representations 
made by Make Sunsets. 

 

Most salient for me on the scientific side is comparing potential one year of 
radiative forcing with with a ton of CO2 removal - as Pete and Jesse repeatedly 
emphasize 
here:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/27-luke-iseman-on-his-for-profit-solar-geoengineering/id1593211714?i=1000593365923
 this is nonsense - as the radiative forcing regime would have to be continued 
for hundreds or thousands of years to obtain even rough equivalence turning the 
$10 for 1 ton CO2 removal into more like the NPV of what Make Sunsets is 
offering a $1,000 - $10,000 or more per ton offset that is not really an offset 
as the other effects of the increased CO2 like ocean acidification etc. would 
remain in place. Also of course the lack of the most elementary MRV 
(monitoring, reporting, and verification) for the two launches made - albeit 
before the for-profit company was formed - emphasized by Andrew here: 
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/important-pioneers-or-pirates-make-sunsets-sell-launch-sai/id1529459393?i=1000591767167
  and here: 
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-you-stop-srm-viviani-galpern/id1529459393?i=1000594246859
 . 

 

On the social science side (as I've mentioned in a NOAC thread on cooling 
credits), unlike CO2 (or CO2 equivalent) GHG removal, Direct Climate Cooling 
(DCC) broadly (not just SRM, see:  
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TowThwi6j6cX3iLGBRrj22D30cYhKa_9/edit ) is 
not a pure global public good. That is, it DOES matter where and when you do 
it. This is even true of SAI as experts on the lists above can testify ( see 
for example SAI discussion and footnote 95 here: 

RE: [geo] Re: Shaun Fitzgerald update on the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge at HPAC General Meeting 12/15 9 pm GMT

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Yes the link is correct.  The meeting is at 9pm UK time tonight.

 

From: 'Achim Hoffmann' via geoengineering  
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 8:04 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Re: Shaun Fitzgerald update on the Centre for Climate Repair at 
Cambridge at HPAC General Meeting 12/15 9 pm GMT

 

Is that link correct? I am getting a message that this meeting happened on the 
14th of Dec - anybody has a time machine?

 

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 8:38:04 PM UTC rpba...@gmail.com 
  wrote:

Update on Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge

 

Dr Shaun Fitzgerald OBE FREng, Director, Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge 
will present an update on the CCRC to an online meeting of the Healthy Planet 
Action Coalition. 

 

Date: Thursday 15 December

Time: 9pm GMT (= 3pm Thursday Central, 8 am Friday 16th AEDT) (90 minutes)

Link:   

 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82355048687

CCRC Website: https://www.climaterepair.cam.ac.uk/ 

 

 

 

Thanks, Robert

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/33d3c8c5-3ca5-4b2c-97db-b3e867c7df33n%40googlegroups.com
 

 .

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/01fb01d9107f%245e5637e0%241b02a7a0%24%40yahoo.com.au.

RE: [geo] Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We’re Inching Toward It | The New Yorker

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Thanks Renaud.  I have written some comments about McKibben’s article at the 
planetary restoration blog 

 .

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Renaud de RICHTER
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2022 12:01 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet 
We’re Inching Toward It | The New Yorker

 

www.newyorker.com 
/news/daily-comment/dimming-the-sun-to-cool-the-planet-is-a-desperate-idea-yet-were-inching-toward-it
  

 


Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We’re Inching 
Toward It


Bill McKibben 22/11/2022 

  _  

If we decide to “solar geoengineer” the Earth—to spray highly reflective 
particles of a material, such as sulphur, into the stratosphere in order to 
deflect sunlight and so cool the planet—it will be the second most expansive 
project that humans have ever undertaken. (The first, obviously, is the ongoing 
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.) The idea 
behind   
solar geoengineering is essentially to mimic what happens when volcanoes push 
particles into the atmosphere; a large eruption, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo, 
in the Philippines, in 1992, can measurably cool the world for a year or two. 
This scheme, not surprisingly, has few public advocates, and even among those 
who want to see it studied the inference has been that it would not actually be 
implemented for decades. “I’m not saying they’ll do it tomorrow,” Dan Schrag, 
the director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, who serves 
on the advisory board of a geoengineering-research project based at the 
university, told my colleague Elizabeth Kolbert for “ 

 Under a White Sky,” her excellent book on technical efforts to repair 
environmental damage, published last year. “I feel like we might have thirty 
years,” he said. It’s a number he repeated to me when we met in Cambridge this 
summer.

Others, around the world, however, are working to speed up that timeline. There 
are at least three initiatives under way that are studying the potential 
implementation of solar-radiation management, or S.R.M., as it is sometimes 
called: a commission under the auspices of the Paris Peace Forum, composed of 
fifteen current and former global leaders and some environmental and governance 
experts, that is exploring “policy options” to combat  
 climate change and 
how these policies might be monitored; a Carnegie Council initiative of how the 
United Nations might govern geoengineering; and Degrees Initiative, an academic 
effort based in the United Kingdom and funded by a collection of foundations, 
that in turn funds research on the effects of such a scheme across the 
developing world. The result of these initiatives, if not the goal, may be to 
normalize the idea of geoengineering. It is being taken seriously because of 
something else that’s speeding up: the horrors that come with an overheating 
world and now regularly threaten its most densely populated places.

This year, the South Asian subcontinent went through an unprecedented spring 
heat wave, and then the heat settled, for nearly the entire summer, on China. 
Drought plagued Europe, while Pakistan endured the  

 worst floods in decades, and the Horn of Africa suffered a fifth consecutive 
failed rainy season. All this, along with more systemic damage, such as the 
melt at the poles, happened with a globally averaged temperature increase of 
just slightly more than one degree Celsius over pre-Industrial Revolution 
temperatures. To the extent that nations have agreed on anything about climate 
change, it’s that we need to limit that temperature rise; with the 2016 Paris 
climate accords, nations adopted a resolution that committed them to “holding 
the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2° C above 
pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 
1.5° C above pre-industrial levels.”

The method to accomplish this was supposed to be the reduction of emissions of 
carbon dioxide and methane by replacing fossil fuels with clean energy. That is 
happening—indeed, the pace of that transition is quickening perceptibly in the 
United States, with the adoption of the Biden Administration’s Inflation 
Reduction Act and its ambitious spending on renewable power. But it’s not 
happening fast enough: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said 

RE: [geo] Synergistic and anti-synergistic scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 ocean but this fact has to be 
revealed.

Franz 

 

 Weitergeleitete Nachricht  


Betreff: 

Re: [geo] Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification


Datum: 

Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:09:42 +0100


Von: 

Oeste  <mailto:oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com> 


An: 

geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 

 

Hi Robert

All geoengineering options including SAI should presented not only with the 
focus on the only one physical, chemical or biochemical focus as done here by 
you: For instance, what happens exactly to the atmospheric chemistry and to the 
oceans biology if the mentioned SAI scenarios would happen. What would help the 
primary cooling  if by a reduced atmospheric oxidant cleaning the life time of 
greenhouse gases decrease by SAI-reduced oxidation power? What would help the 
primary cooling if geoengineering options of greenhouse gas depletion become 
reduced or fail because of SAI-reduced sun radiation? As to compensate the 
increased greenhouse warming by such a SAI induced rise of methane and other 
greenhouse organics the needed TG-SO2 interventions/yr would need a further 
decrease. According to the direct oxygen consumption of the SO2 interventions 
also a massive decreasing influence of the oxydation power of the stratospheric 
chemistry would happen. This would increase also the life time of more or less 
oxidant resistant halogen methanes. An SAI induced reduction of daylight would 
decrease the vertical size of the photic zone. Also this might induce a lower 
phytoplankton productivity.

Hence all this physical cooling possible by SAI can done by much more simple 
and cheeper cooling with cloud whitening and cloud generation, additional 
possibly also by MEER. 

Franz 

Am 13.11.2022 um 11:00 schrieb 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering:

This chart shows Stratospheric Aerosol Injection could deliver cooling of >2°C 
by 2070 compared to the optimistic IPCC projection of 4.5 w/m2 without SAI.  

 

That blows carbon-based cooling out of the water.  Any time anyone says 1.5°C 
is passed, just show them this. Geoengineering is urgent.

 



Source: D. G. MacMartin, D. Visioni , B. Kravitz, J.H. Richter, T. Felgenhauer, 
W. R. Lee, D. R. Morrow, E. A. Parson, and M. Sugiyama, Scenarios for modeling 
solar radiation modification, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 
August 2022

 

Fig. 3. High-level results from simulations involving different temperature 
targets: global mean temperature; SO2 injection rates; land average 
precipitation

minus evaporation P-E; Arctic September sea-ice extent; total column ozone in 
southern hemisphere (SH), 60 to 90 ◦S in October (in Dobson Units, DU); Global

Stratospheric Optical Depth; AMOC; and upper ocean heat content (indicative of 
thermosteric sea-level rise).

 

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
 <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2022 9:33 AM
To: geoengineering  <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 

Subject: [geo] Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification

 

 

Poster's note:  not sure how this got missed. 

 

Authors 

D. G. MacMartin, D. Visioni  B. Kravitz, and M. Sugiyama 

 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2202230119

 

Significance

The benefits and risks of solar radiation modification (SRM; also known as 
solar geoengineering) need to be evaluated in context with the risks of climate 
change and will depend on choices such as the amount of cooling. One challenge 
today is a degree of arbitrariness in the scenarios used in current SRM 
simulations, making comparisons difficult both between SRM and non-SRM cases 
and between different SRM scenarios. We address this gap by 1) defining a set 
of plausible scenarios capturing a range of choices and uncertainties, and 2) 
providing simulations of these scenarios that can be broadly used for 
comparative impact assessment. This is an essential precursor to any 
international assessment by, e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change.

 

Abstract

Making informed future decisions about solar radiation modification (SRM; also 
known as solar geoengineering)—approaches such as stratospheric aerosol 
injection (SAI) that would cool the climate by reflecting sunlight—requires 
projections of the climate response and associated human and ecosystem impacts. 
These projections, in turn, will rely on simulations with global climate 
models. As with climate-change projections, these simulations need to 
adequately span a range of possible futures, describing different choices, such 
as start date and temperature target, as well as risks, such as termination or 
interruptions. SRM modeling simulations to date typically consider only a 
single scenario, often with some unrealistic or arbitrarily chosen elements 
(such as starting deployment in 2020), and have often 

RE: [geo] Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This chart shows Stratospheric Aerosol Injection could deliver cooling of >2°C 
by 2070 compared to the optimistic IPCC projection of 4.5 w/m2 without SAI.  

 

That blows carbon-based cooling out of the water.  Any time anyone says 1.5°C 
is passed, just show them this. Geoengineering is urgent.

 



Source: D. G. MacMartin, D. Visioni , B. Kravitz, J.H. Richter, T. Felgenhauer, 
W. R. Lee, D. R. Morrow, E. A. Parson, and M. Sugiyama, Scenarios for modeling 
solar radiation modification, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 
August 2022

 

Fig. 3. High-level results from simulations involving different temperature 
targets: global mean temperature; SO2 injection rates; land average 
precipitation

minus evaporation P-E; Arctic September sea-ice extent; total column ozone in 
southern hemisphere (SH), 60 to 90 ◦S in October (in Dobson Units, DU); Global

Stratospheric Optical Depth; AMOC; and upper ocean heat content (indicative of 
thermosteric sea-level rise).

 

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2022 9:33 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification

 

 

Poster's note:  not sure how this got missed. 

 

Authors 

D. G. MacMartin, D. Visioni  B. Kravitz, and M. Sugiyama 

 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2202230119

 

Significance

The benefits and risks of solar radiation modification (SRM; also known as 
solar geoengineering) need to be evaluated in context with the risks of climate 
change and will depend on choices such as the amount of cooling. One challenge 
today is a degree of arbitrariness in the scenarios used in current SRM 
simulations, making comparisons difficult both between SRM and non-SRM cases 
and between different SRM scenarios. We address this gap by 1) defining a set 
of plausible scenarios capturing a range of choices and uncertainties, and 2) 
providing simulations of these scenarios that can be broadly used for 
comparative impact assessment. This is an essential precursor to any 
international assessment by, e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change.

 

Abstract

Making informed future decisions about solar radiation modification (SRM; also 
known as solar geoengineering)—approaches such as stratospheric aerosol 
injection (SAI) that would cool the climate by reflecting sunlight—requires 
projections of the climate response and associated human and ecosystem impacts. 
These projections, in turn, will rely on simulations with global climate 
models. As with climate-change projections, these simulations need to 
adequately span a range of possible futures, describing different choices, such 
as start date and temperature target, as well as risks, such as termination or 
interruptions. SRM modeling simulations to date typically consider only a 
single scenario, often with some unrealistic or arbitrarily chosen elements 
(such as starting deployment in 2020), and have often been chosen based on 
scientific rather than policy-relevant considerations (e.g., choosing quite 
substantial cooling specifically to achieve a bigger response). This limits the 
ability to compare risks both between SRM and non-SRM scenarios and between 
different SRM scenarios. To address this gap, we begin by outlining some 
general considerations on scenario design for SRM. We then describe a specific 
set of scenarios to capture a range of possible policy choices and 
uncertainties and present corresponding SAI simulations intended for broad 
community use.

Source: PNAS

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07rpTxFKKxyPVnOnhyrdqpDsD3284OTy-%2ByAB%2BASmHOOQ%40mail.gmail.com
 

 .

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/083901d8f746%24d2a80df0%2477f829d0%24%40yahoo.com.au.

RE: [geo] RE: Albedo

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Jessica

 

Here is a response I received that contrasts with your idea to increase albedo: 

 

“VERY impressed with your straightforward logic here. I've been a fan of Will 
Steffen for quite a while, and you explain with clarity why we need a more 
drastic approach. That said, do you think humanity has the collective ability 
to do something like this? We couldn't stop a war in Ukraine.” 

 

The point you are missing Jessica is the straightforward logic that urgent 
action to increase planetary albedo is a matter of global security. Focus on 
GHGs offers no prospect to limit looming tipping points.  

 

As you suggest, it is important to consider UV and ozone, but these would not 
be affected by marine cloud brightening.

 

My correspondent says a ‘straightforward logic’ requires a more drastic 
approach than the current IPCC endorses.  An albedo focus for climate policy is 
something that would involve drastic change to the current focus on 
decarbonisation, but could be achieved with less political conflict. 
Brightening the planet is a goal that could plausibly be readily agreed by 
governments. Increasing albedo can provide a practical cooling strategy that 
can take burden off emission reductions alone as the sole current climate 
response.

 

In my YouTube presentation linked below I use Will Steffen’s diagram on climate 
trajectory in the Anthropocene, showing why ‘bending the needle’ sufficiently 
from business as usual requires an albedo focus for climate policy.  I really 
am not sure why Dr Steffen and so many of his colleagues refuse to accept this 
in view of the hothouse tipping points they have identified, other than my 
previously mentioned psychological suggestion of tribal loyalty.

 

On the question whether ‘humanity has the collective ability to do something 
like this’  I am sure we do, but it requires new vision. Useful starting points 
might include the papal encyclical Laudato Si that calls for integration of 
care for humanity and care for the planet, and also my suggestions that albedo 
enhancement should be led by major emitters, and that we should replace carbon 
credits with radiative forcing credits.  These go against the grain of the 
IPCC, but indicate that new thinking and more open dialogue is essential to 
recognise and address the climate emergency.  Tired calls to accelerate 
decarbonisation are absurd, such as the recent UN/WMO call 
  for seven times 
greater effort by 2030. Such calls from leaders in the climate debate involve a 
wilful blindness to the capacity of albedo to become the primary fulcrum for 
climate policy.

 

On the Ukraine War, the absence of a viable global climate policy helped create 
the security vacuum that Putin entered.  Working with China, Japan, Korea, 
Europe, Canada and the US to build an ice canal across the North Pole to 
connect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans for trade while refreezing the Arctic 
Ocean would do far more for Russian security than invading its peaceful 
neighbours.  As well as providing an exit path for Russia from the war, such a 
cooperative peaceful Arctic Ocean climate restoration project would reverse the 
melting of permafrost and sea ice that are primary planetary climate security 
risks.

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

 

From: 'Jessica Gurevitch' via geoengineering  
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2022 8:21 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: Daniel Kieve ; Robert Tulip ; 
geoengineering ; 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration 
; healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; Arctic Methane Google Group 

Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Albedo

 

Perhaps we need to consider injecting red lentils into the lower stratosphere? 
This would certainly increase albedo and would be unlikely to have the negative 
effects on UV and ozone. 

 

Sent from my iPhone





On Sep 22, 2022, at 4:22 AM, rob...@rtulip.net   
wrote:



Hi Daniel, picking up on the diet analogy, I did not mention protein, your 
focus in your comment, but rather fat.  

 

The counter-intuitive observation in nutrition, comparable to the observation 
that cutting emissions cannot rapidly cool the planet, is that in general 
eating fat does not make you fat, according to numerous scientific studies 

 .  

 

Body fat mainly comes from excess sugar and refined carbohydrate, metabolised 
into fat   by 
the liver and pancreas, not from eating fatty food.

 

In both cases, cutting fat intake and cutting GHG emissions, we have what 
Mencken   called “a 
well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” 

 

The natural process is more complex than at first thought.  Cutting emissions 
marginally slows the speed of future warming, but fails to 

RE: [geo] Climate Book review

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Stephen

 

This review 

  makes several comments that are ignorant and unscientific.  It is amazing at 
one level that Physics World can publish such mythological claims, but 
unsurprising at another level, in view of the popular hold of the myths the 
review promotes and the emotional comfort they provide to the mass climate 
movement.

Lets go through them.

1.  “The rapid reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero is the 
only practical way to halt climate change.” 

No.  This is wrong in several points.  Rapid reduction of emissions is not 
practical in view of the intense and powerful political and economic opposition 
to it, and the immense technical challenges in stopping emissions of both 
carbon dioxide and methane.  All the talk of cutting emissions in recent 
decades has only seen a remorseless rise. Next, even “net zero” would be far 
from a “way to halt climate change”.  Reaching net zero by 2050 would see a CO2 
equivalent level well above 600 parts per million. Numerous irreversible 
tipping points would be crossed before then, unless we move immediately to 
brighten the planet.  Relying on carbon methods alone is like claiming you can 
stop a thirty foot flood with a ten foot levee.  That is not practical.  And 
even if tipping points do not somehow push us into a hothouse, the idea that 
600 ppm would not involve further climate change is absurd.  It would commit 
the planet to ongoing change until we reach earth system equilibrium with much 
higher sea level etc.   

2.  One obvious reason for caution is that altering the chemical makeup of 
the atmosphere is what got us into this climate mess, and some worry that 
further tinkering could make things worse.

This may seem “obvious” but it is not.  It is obvious politically that many 
(not just some) people do have this worry, which has been aggressively promoted 
by political opponents using flawed and deceptive moral hazard logic.  It is 
not at all obvious scientifically, which is what should matter to Physics 
World.  There are no good scientific grounds for the ideological worries that 
have prevented investment in cooling technology.  Scientifically, applying 
known cooling chemistry would cause cooling, if managed under strong technical 
protocols.  This would pull us back from the dangerous precipice of numerous 
looming unsafe tipping points, with benefits far exceeding risks.  Use of 
charged political rhetoric like “obvious” is unscientific.  Cooling chemistry 
is completely different from the chemistry of emissions. 

3.  Even if we do manage to meet the  

 Paris Agreement and get to net-zero emissions shortly after 2050, Smith warns, 
the excess carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere will endure for 
centuries or even millennia. This means that temperatures will not quickly 
return to pre-industrial levels.

This claim accepts the howling popular error in the meaning of net zero, which 
actually just means emissions equal removals.  It is probable that when net 
zero is achieved, it will mainly be through removals, not through cutting 
emissions.  That will mean we will have a trajectory of expanding removals. The 
removal technology will enable the excess CO2 to be removed over the next 
decades through ongoing removals, and will not at all imply past emissions will 
endure for centuries.  The problem is that this review accepts the popular 
mythological assumption that net zero mainly requires decarbonisation of the 
economy when that is not the case at all.   

4.  Smith looks at other removal strategies such as making biochar, which 
involves the partial recovery of elemental carbon from biomass and then using 
that carbon to enrich soils… we will need to organize the world to pay the 
trillions of dollars required to deploy them year in and year out for decades 
to come.”

Claiming biochar would cost trillions seems dubious.  Its improvements to soil 
structure would increase agricultural yields.  I suspect greenhouse gas 
conversion technology will develop other materials-based approaches using 
photosynthesis that will become profitable, creating large new carbon mining 
industries to rival the 20th century emergence of aviation, pharmaceutical and 
chemicals.

5.  Unlike cutting emissions or capturing carbon, SAI will not stop or 
reverse climate change

If this statement were reversed it would be true in the short term. Brightening 
the planet is the only way to “stop or reverse climate change” in this decade, 
addressing extreme weather, tipping points, biodiversity loss, sea level rise 
and higher temperatures.  Carbon based methods will take decades to have any 
effect on temperature (ie climate) and might even then be totally swamped by 
tipping points, absent a main focus on albedo.  

RE: [geo] Geoengineering, climate change and ecological security - Matt McDonald

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Ecological security is part of climate security, which also includes the human 
security dimensions of climate change.

 

Climate security can link to military security, by creating opportunities for 
peaceful international cooperation to build confidence and trust. 

 

Cooling the poles is a climate goal that would improve ecological and human 
security.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2022 8:34 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Geoengineering, climate change and ecological security - Matt 
McDonald

 


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2022.2113606?journalCode=fenp20

 

Is it possible to imagine the deployment of geoengineering in the service of 
ecological security? Ecological security––a concern with the resilience of 
ecosystems––appears to caution against forms of intervention that might serve 
to change and/or undermine the functionality of ecosystems. Yet ecosystem 
functionality is already challenged by processes associated with climate 
change, and some degree of climate change is already locked in. This paper 
examines this challenging but important issue. After defining ecological 
security and noting varied forms of geoengineering, the paper explores the 
opportunities for––and challenges of––imagining geoengineering in the service 
of ecological security, especially in the context of solar radiation 
management. While arguing that it is possible to conceive a role for 
geoengineering in the service of ecological security, this must be contingent 
on extensive research supporting deployment and must be tempered by restraint 
and a commitment to precaution, humility, reflexivity and dialogue. 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05yLkEqvezatJ8S5iZtYUTEk%3DQY9eGQfXEKOq5%3DDJbRAA%40mail.gmail.com
 

 .

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/035601d8b7da%242eb77c40%248c2674c0%24%40yahoo.com.au.

RE: [geo] Why increasing albedo is more urgent than cutting emissions

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Good points Kevin.  Shows how very far the IPCC orthodoxy is from a realistic 
climate strategy.  Good policy has to start with action that can actually 
mitigate climate change - brightening the planet - as a basis to then ramp up 
CO2 conversion over coming decades.  Given your points about the momentum to 
move as much carbon from the crust to the air as fast as possible, it has to be 
accepted that the only feasible critical path has SRM and CDR substituting for 
emission reduction.  Robert

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of kevin lister
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 1:48 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net; Planetary Restoration 
; healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering 

Subject: RE: [geo] Why increasing albedo is more urgent than cutting emissions

 

Hi Robert, 

 

I saw it on Facebook and have just watched it.

 

Yes, Albedo needs to the first priority. Totally agree. 

 

But we cannot lose the focus on cutting CO2 emissions. This is set to 
substantially increase and be limited only by the maximum rate at we can dig 
fossil fuels out of the ground. With the exponential growth of energy that it 
is reasonable to anticipate in the next 20 years,  we could double the global 
warming impact from CO2 in the next 25-30 years.  All nations are backing away 
from CO2 reduction commitments that were made as recently as in the last COP. 
In the UK we are replacing one prime minister that was hopeless on the issue 
with another that will be even more hopeless.  In an exponentially growing 
world, what is about to happen is as important as what has happened, and there 
is nothing on the near short term horizon that suggests anything other than 
significantly increased emissions as the outcome. 

 

I hope that if we go down the albedo route it is done with the clear caveat 
that it has a limited time of effectiveness before its will be overwhelmed by 
continuing CO2 emissions.  It will already be difficult enough to get the 
global temperature rise to within 0.5degC of baseline with current CO2 loading 
in the atmosphere, and nearly impossible with double this. 

 

It is also important that we consider the SRM approaches must be sustainable 
for the ultra long term, i.e. at least a hundred thousand years. 

 

I’ll be doing a Zoom talk on the 14th October on “What do we say to the kids” 
which will explore some of the factors that are driving this prognosis.  

 

 

Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from Mail   for Windows

 

From: rob...@rtulip.net  
Sent: 10 August 2022 16:27
To: Planetary Restoration  ; 
healthy-planet-action-coalition 
 ; NOAC Meetings 
 ; geoengineering 
 
Subject: [geo] Why increasing albedo is more urgent than cutting emissions

 

I have made a YouTube Video – 16 minutes -   
https://youtu.be/MzZDDjHYAnk - including the diagrams I recently shared with 
several meetings.

 

Comments welcome.  Slides attached.

 

Robert Tulip

 

The Problem 

Cutting emissions and removing greenhouse gases can’t stop climate tipping 
points 

Politics and economics make cutting emissions difficult, expensive and slow. 

The world situation is like a canoe headed for a waterfall 

Viable cooling technologies lack funds, publicity and political support 

The Solution 

Reverse the IPCC priority order and put increasing albedo first 

A brighter planet can avoid the climate danger zone. 

Cooling technologies such as Marine Cloud Brightening are quick, safe and cheap 

Fund large scale solar geoengineering research 

Governments must cooperate to implement direct cooling measures.

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/009001d8accd%24bc219420%243464bc60%24%40rtulip.net
 

 .

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9914C044-DF54-4074-91E3-DBDF04F41FB7%40hxcore.ol
 

RE: [geo] The value of information about solar geoengineering and the two-sided cost of bias

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

I have read this article 
  and 
want to emphasise its welcome lead conclusion that “the value of information 
that eliminates uncertainty about Solar Geoengineering efficacy is up to 
roughly $10 trillion.”  

 

This is an immense benefit, 5000 times greater than the cost estimate of $2 
billion. Governments should stump up immediately to provide the budget and 
political agreement to address this yawning information deficit.  It should 
also be noted that geoengineering has an existential either/or dimension, as 
possibly the only way to prevent catastrophic planetary phase shift that is 
beyond costing.

 

I was also pleased to see the reference to An Assessment of Earth's Climate 
Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence 
  which 
rebuts the IPCC claim that net zero emissions could stabilise the climate in 
any meaningful way.

 

Despite this, the article quite strangely emphasises spurious risks of 
geoengineering deployment, while totally failing to mention its major expected 
benefits.  It should have noted that brightening the planet and related methods 
is the only systemic way to mitigate immediate risks of extreme weather, 
biodiversity loss, tipping points and sea level rise in this decade. These 
risks are very costly, harmful and dangerous.  I suppose it is about bending 
over backwards to seem balanced and placate hostile critics, but the actual 
result is that the scientific argument is not balanced.

 

A more balanced presentation would recognise that advantages of brightening the 
planet are prima facie far greater than the imagined harms conjured up by 
ignorant political opponents.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 11:49 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] The value of information about solar geoengineering and the 
two-sided cost of bias

 


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2022.2091509?s=03

 

The value of information about solar geoengineering and the two-sided cost of 
bias

Anthony R. Harding, Mariia Belaia & David W. Keith

 

ABSTRACT

 

Solar geoengineering (SG) might be able to reduce climate risks if used to 
supplement emissions cuts and carbon removal. Yet, the wisdom of proceeding 
with research to reduce its uncertainties is disputed. Here, we use an 
integrated assessment model to estimate that the value of information that 
reduces uncertainty about SG efficacy. We find the value of reducing 
uncertainty by one-third by 2030 is around $4.5 trillion, most of which comes 
from reduced climate damages rather than reduced mitigation costs. Reducing 
uncertainty about SG efficacy is similar in value to reducing uncertainty about 
climate sensitivity. We analyse the cost of over-confidence about SG that 
causes too little emissions cuts and too much SG. Consistent with concerns 
about SG’s moral hazard problem, we find an over-confident bias is a serious 
and costly concern; but, we also find under-confidence that prematurely rules 
out SG can be roughly as costly. Biased judgments are costly in both 
directions. A coin has two sides. Our analysis quantitatively demonstrates the 
risk-risk trade-off around SG and reinforces the value of research that can 
reduce uncertainty.

 

Key policy insights

 

The value of reducing uncertainty about solar geoengineering is comparable to 
the value of reducing uncertainty about other key climate factors, such as 
equilibrium climate sensitivity.

 

The benefits of research that reduces uncertainty about solar geoengineering 
may be more than a thousand times larger than the cost of a large-scale 
research programme.

 

Under-confidence in solar geoengineering’s effectiveness can be as costly as 
over-confidence.

 

The majority of the benefits of reduced uncertainty come from reducing climate 
damages rather than from slowing emissions reductions.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07pxpp%3D-3E861_o6oJvmRGGOkg9baEH%3D%2BCkpecuwLQezw%40mail.gmail.com
 

 .

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

RE: [geo] Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Reply to Robert Chris

 

Dear Robert,

Thanks for these comments.  On the thread status, I felt Dan Galpern was unfair 
in accusing me of calling interlocutors insane.  My comment about not repeating 
mistakes was mainly intended to say the Emission Reduction Alone viewpoint is 
not scientific. No interlocutors here advance that ERA  view.  And on his other 
point about weasel words, you (Robert) accepted that it is a weaselly argument 
that ERA “might still not be enough” when data shows it definitely will not be 
enough to stop dangerous warming. Saying ERA might not be enough leaves open 
the weasibility (weasel possibility) that it might be enough in some unlikely 
scenario.  Modern science shows we need to do far more than ERA to achieve a 
reasonable climate security timeline.

Further responses below as dot points.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
  
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
  On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2022 4:06 AM
To: Kevin Lister kevin.lister2...@gmail.com  
Cc: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 ; rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au >> 
Robert Tulip rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au  ; Dan 
Galpern dan.galp...@gmail.com  ; 'Planetary 
Restoration' planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com 
 ; 
'healthy-planet-action-coalition' 
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com 
 ; 'geoengineering' 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com  ; 
gra...@bestfutures.org  
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline

 

Hi Kevin

Greg Rau has asked us to terminate this thread but since you've re-engaged with 
its CDR origins, perhaps he'll forgive us. Your take on Robert Tulip's position 
does not accord with mine.  He is certainly implying that 'It's AM or death for 
us all' (although I'm not keen on the hyperbole) but he is also saying that 
emissions abatement cannot be sufficient.  I take issue with that on the basis 
that the modelling indicates that net-zero by 2050 is sufficient.  

*   Kevin’s paper 

  for the Talanoa Dialogue with Mike MacCracken and others including Eelco 
Rohling and Tom Goreau explains some of the limitations of emission abatement, 
noting it cannot prevent significant temperature overshoot.  They say 
“increasing planetary albedo through low risk marine cloud brightening … could 
substantially cancel out the increase in global heating caused by a doubling of 
atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels.”
*   The paper you referenced, Is there warming in the pipeline? A 
multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO2, by MacDougall 
et al, Biogeosciences, 17, 2987–3016, 2020 
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020 has as I understand it been accepted as 
heralding a new consensus by climate heavyweights like David Keith 
 
, with his claim that ‘average temperatures will stop increasing when emissions 
stop” and   Michael Mann, 
who told Sixty Minutes “if you stop burning carbon right now … temperatures 
remain pretty much flat. We are only committed to the warming that has happened 
already.”  This view has been rebutted by Ye Tao, Brian Von Herzen and others.  
It is incompatible with Rohling’s analysis of committed warming in The Climate 
Question 

 .  Committed warming means the planet would continue to warm after a 
hypothetical end to emissions because the earth system is not in equilibrium, 
and temperature and sea level would continue to rise until equilibrium is 
reached. 

 I expanded on this in another posting in this thread that was skipped below 
and not sent to all of the listservs on this post.  For convenience it's copied 
here.  

Hi Robert, The fundamental issue here is the extent to which emissions 
abatement supported by greenhouse gas removal (GGR) can take us down the 'path 
back toward Holocene stability, removing the drivers of tipping points, 
stepping back from the current hothouse precipice' without recourse to AM.  

*   The decision to have no recourse to AM is foolhardy.  Albedo was a big 
driver of ice age temperature reversals 
 , and can 
be harnessed to stabilise the 

[geo] RE: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Further response to Robert Chris, dot points in email below.

 

From: Robert Chris  
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2022 4:42 PM
To: Robert Tulip 
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' 
; 'Planetary Restoration' 
; 'geoengineering' 
; carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com; 
'Healthy Climate Alliance' 
Subject: Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline

 

Hi Robert

I'll leave others better qualified to comment on your numbers and in 
particular, your statement that 'Albedo management and carbon management could 
combine to return the planet to 280 ppm CO2 [...].  That could occur alongside 
ongoing emissions.'  I suspect there might be a little push back on that.

*   Happy to debate numbers.  Total emissions by the end of this century 
will be about one billion gigatonnes of carbon, while annual emissions are 
about 15 gigatonnes C including equivalents. The yearly amount is roughly 1.5% 
of the GHG forcing, leaving aside factors like ocean interactions and the 
additional forcing from albedo feedbacks.  I have not seen a peer reviewed 
statement of the ratio between annual emissions effect and total radiative 
forcing so this is just my estimate. Another way to calculate the ratio might 
be to set the proxy for radiative forcing as the CO2e increase since the 
Holocene, about 200 ppm, and note that the annual 2.3ppm increase is just over 
1% of that total.  Even rounded up to 5% of RF, cutting emissions is still 
marginal to climate stability.  280 ppm CO2 is an important target as it 
represents the stable climate that enabled our current sea level with beaches 
and ports and fragile coastal ecosystems. These would all be destroyed under 
current climate policies but could be saved by a rapid shift to an albedo 
focus. The main constraint to starting SRM and scaling up GGR much bigger than 
emissions is political understanding.  

Nevertheless, I am pleased that we've established that the core driver for you 
is the protection of the fossil fuel industry's property rights.

*   Excuse me Robert, I appreciate this is a fraught topic, but such wilful 
distortion does you no credit.  The core driver for me is climate security, as 
clearly stated in this thread.  I am simply pointing out that snide dismissal 
of property rights inevitably causes social conflict.  Climate solutions that 
preserve legal rights are to be preferred when this gives their owners an 
incentive to cooperate in measures to solve their own and wider problems.  That 
is the situation for fossil fuel industries and geoengineering.

  An extension of that is that by truly embracing renewable energy the industry 
could retain its pre-eminent position in supplying the world with plentiful 
energy and in so doing create a whole new set of property rights to replace 
those that are causing most of our GHG related the problems.  Those new 
property rights will emerge.  Whether the current fossil fuel industry is one 
of their primary owners depends on the choices they now make.

*   And an extension of a proposed strategy to rely mainly on transforming 
the energy sector is a burning earth.  Renewable energy potential is far too 
small, slow, contested and expensive to stop dangerous warming.  

Framing this as an ideological 'left/right' issue is also interesting.  I don't 
see it that way at all.  For me it's about the internal functioning of complex 
adaptive systems.  

*   The political left largely want to destroy the fossil fuel industry, on 
the misguided assumption that to do so would stop climate change, while the 
political right and centre largely want to protect these industries from 
unjustified attacks.  That political divide opens the need for dialogue on how 
ongoing emissions could be compatible with a path to a stable climate.

Too big a topic to deal with here but briefly, such systems always grow and 
die.  Their temporal and spatial extent goes from the tiny to the huge, but 
they all eventually die.  Empires, governments, economic systems, cities, 
corporations,  industries, species, and so on.  Sometimes they collapse due to 
overwhelming external events such as the volcanic destruction of Pompeii.  
Other times they collapse due to human failure such as Enron and Lehman Bros.  
Sometimes they collapse because the world just moves on and despite their best 
efforts, what they offer is no longer required - where are all the farriers, 
thatchers and candlestick makers?  But in every case, the collapse arises due 
to the failure of the system to adapt to changing circumstances.  Sometimes the 
change is too great or sudden for such adaptation to be possible.  Other times 
it is due to a lack of foresight.

*   I am pointing out that a good way for the fossil fuel industry to adapt 
to a changing climate is to support geoengineering.  That will solve the 
warming problem and enable a more gradual tradition away from fuel sources that 
are less economic.  I do need to point out that the world now relies on fossil 

[geo] RE: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

To Robert Chris

 

H Robert, 

 

I don’t agree with your comment that the need to manage albedo “has only been 
because of the fossil fuel industry blocking progress on transitioning to 
renewables.”

 

Transition to renewable energy was never going to be the main climate solution. 
 Faster progress on cutting emissions would not make much difference to ice 
melt.

 

Most radiative forcing is from past emissions, with annual emissions worsening 
the problem by maybe 5%.

 

Cutting emissions in half would slow the worsening annual effect of committed 
warming by about 2.5% on that measure, marginal to the scale of the climate 
problem.

 

Albedo management and carbon management could combine to return the planet to 
280 ppm CO2, the amount that gave us stable sea level.  That could occur 
alongside ongoing emissions.

 

To blame the fossil fuel industry for not jumping to give up its property 
rights while still supplying the world with plentiful energy creates a 
polarised climate debate.  It would be better to find a climate strategy that 
both left and right can agree on.  Easing off on emission reduction (~20% of 
the problem) while expanding geoengineering technologies (~80% of the solution) 
is the best way to build climate consensus.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

https://planetaryrestoration.net/

 

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2022 1:00 AM
To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline

 

Robert, nothing new here.  This was considered and dismissed at least as far 
back as 2009 (see Royal Society report here 

 ), and repeatedly since then by those that understand that climate change and 
global warming are not synonymous.  

Albedo management is now necessary to refreeze the Arctic, as you note.  
However, this has only because of the fossil fuel industry blocking progress on 
transitioning to renewables.  Far from making albedo management the priority 
action, their behaviour has now made both emissions reductions and albedo 
management more urgent.  They have nowhere to hide.  Their industries are in 
their final sunset phase.  They have a simple choice, do they get behind the 
transition and make things better for everyone, or continue to resist and place 
us all in peril.  Their fate is sealed either way.

Perhaps you can explain this to me.  If I was running a major corporation and I 
knew that the market for my primary product would more or less disappear in a 
matter of a few decades, why would I not now do everything in my power to 
reposition my business to be best placed to capitalise on what will follow it 
and to minimise the losses from my stranded assets?  The fossil fuel sector has 
the finance, skill set and the global reach to rapidly totally transform the 
global energy sector.  Why don't they do that, instead of paying lip service to 
the need for change but all the while consigning themselves to a slow and 
painful death that will hurt countless others in the process?  Is it so 
difficult for them to go from zero to hero?

Regards

Robert  Chris

On 30/05/2022 12:40, 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal wrote:

The attached Climate Security Timeline shows a new suggestion on climate 
priorities.  

 

It calls for a shift away from emission reduction as the main agenda, to 
instead focus at global level on albedo enhancement.  Brightening the planet to 
reflect more sunlight can stabilise and reverse the movement toward a hotter 
world as the foundation of a new climate approach.  Agreed systems to increase 
albedo should be in place before 2030.  With a brighter planet as the 
foundation, the direct cooling effects make time available to scale up 
greenhouse gas conversion and removal to levels well above emissions. By the 
2040s, GGC can produce steady decline in GHG levels over the second half of 
this century.  Carbon dioxide conversion can store hundreds of billions of 
tonnes of carbon in valuable locations such as soil, biomass, etc, reducing the 
need to sequester as CO2.  Market demand can regulate global emissions, which 
at annual scale are a minor factor in radiative forcing compared to albedo and 
GHG concentrations.

 

The critical engineering path suggested for the planetary climate is like 
building a house.  Albedo is the foundation, greenhouse gas conversions and 
removals are the walls, and decarbonisation caps the roof by a future move away 
from fossil fuels.  You cannot build walls and roof until you have laid the 
foundation.  That creates a timeline whereby global focus on a brighter world 
in this decade can replace the sole political emphasis on emissions and can 
give practical support to the recognition that removal of atmospheric carbon is 
essential.  

 

Without higher albedo, GHG effects cannot cool the planet. Higher albedo can 
only be 

[geo] RE: Agree on disaster situation;

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

To John Englander

 

Hi John, thanks very much for your comments.

 

My naivety may be in the politics or the science, or both, but my point is that 
from an earth system perspective, direct cooling should be the immediate 
priority to protect the planet from dangerous warming.  Increasing albedo is by 
far the easiest and most effective way to lower temperature rise and restore 
climate equilibrium.  The world can afford not to accelerate decarbonisation if 
we first focus on establishing cooling technologies.  That would bring 
political support for cooling and broader support for stabilising the climate 
with GGR.  Trying to speed up decarbonisation is fraught with risk and 
difficulty and expense, in politics, economics and climate effects, bringing 
far higher risks than Solar Radiation Management with only minimal climate 
benefit.

 

After reading your book Moving To Higher Ground  , 
I felt your interest in minimising sea level rise could be supported by a 
stronger focus on the potential of albedo increase to prevent ice melt and loss 
in Greenland and Antarctica.  Stronger mitigation reduces need for adaptation.  
We should try to cure causes rather than just treating symptoms.  Albedo loss 
is a bigger and more tractable source of warming than the forcing effects that 
could be addressed by cutting emissions. Cooling the Gulf Stream and Bering 
Strait ocean currents to help refreeze the Arctic would be a great way to 
mitigate climate change.

 

Best Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

https://planetaryrestoration.net/

 

 

From: JOHN ENGLANDER  
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2022 3:05 AM
To: Aaron Franklin 
Cc: Douglas Grandt ; Robert Tulip 
; healthy-planet-action-coalition 

Subject: Agree on disaster situation; 

 

Aaron — I agree on all the catastrophe aspects of what you write.   It’s just 
that having been going to the high Arctic since 1985 and seeing the change in 
the ice / reflectance, I am rather skeptical of changing the albedo 
significantly and quickly.  I am fine with trials of the spray ships etc. but 
found Robert's message that we should direct all focus to improving the albedo 
to be a bit naive, made even more unrealistic with the simple 
foundation/walls/roof perspective.

 

JOHN ENGLANDER
+1-954-684-5859

Twitter: @johnenglander
LinkedIN: linkedin.com/in/johnenglander/ 
 

http://www.johnenglander.net

Book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1733499903

 

 

On May 30, 2022, at 12:37 PM, Aaron Franklin mailto:stateoftheart...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

GBNews clip on " Ming the mercilesses brother and Manboobs the Merciless 
partying in Davos right now.

 

Watch "'Dodgy regimes' attending the World Economic Forum Davos meeting | Mark 
Steyn and Andrew Lawton" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/ZPe9f1-fNOc

 

On Tue, 31 May 2022, 4:16 am Aaron Franklin, mailto:stateoftheart...@gmail.com> > wrote:

John, we have totally lost control of increasing greenhouse gases, with 
non-anthropogenic release of fossil, ocean dissolved, and abiotic  CO2, N2O, 
methane from polar ocean, permafrost, and subglacial stores ramping up rapidly 
due to geothermal, and volcanic systems running away in Marie-Byrdland West 
Antarctica, and East Antarcticas Fringes, Greenland, the polar Oceans etc. 

The Ice Sheets are destabilising at unbelievable rates, the Sea ice in the 
north  is shit to hell with an anoxic and Volcanically heated Atlantic side of 
the Arctic basin and the Greenland Aquifer disgorging throughout the crustal 
rifts from Svalbard to the fiords of Ellesmere Island, the PGAS out to the 
North pole.

Much of the CAA, the PGAS, the ESAS, the Mackenzie Beaufort coast did not 
freeze over this year.

The entire continental shelf margin, and Atlantic half of the polar basin has 
been melting ice all winter.

The focus on human Greenhouse reduction is being treated as an opportunity for 
making money and a totalitarian power grab opportunity by the WEF, WHO and the 
rest of the geriatric narcopathic sociopaths that control the world economic 
and political scene.

He'll, they even ran a play by play monkeypox rehearsal in march last year. See 
attached PDF.

None of their "Solutions" such as electric vehicles in the form being rolled 
out, depopulation, turning survivors into "own nothing and being happy [in the 
metaverse, eating lab vat grown and toxic GE industrial plant megafarmed 
feedstock fake food] " have any chance of doing anyy but accelerating ecosystem 
collapse and Anthropogenic Starvation AND Greenhouse gas emissions. 

 

Slowing GHG rises is arguably impossible or implausible to even make a 
measurable effect at this point, and the LAST thing we need is to keep feeding 
a MANY decades past its use-by date emissions reduction strategy narrative.

 

The best chance we have now to blunt the impact is slowing the thaw with SRM 
and other Albedo measures. 

And restorative ocean and land husbandry for all that we are 

[geo] Climate Security Timeline

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The attached Climate Security Timeline shows a new suggestion on climate
priorities.  

 

It calls for a shift away from emission reduction as the main agenda, to
instead focus at global level on albedo enhancement.  Brightening the planet
to reflect more sunlight can stabilise and reverse the movement toward a
hotter world as the foundation of a new climate approach.  Agreed systems to
increase albedo should be in place before 2030.  With a brighter planet as
the foundation, the direct cooling effects make time available to scale up
greenhouse gas conversion and removal to levels well above emissions. By the
2040s, GGC can produce steady decline in GHG levels over the second half
of this century.  Carbon dioxide conversion can store hundreds of billions
of tonnes of carbon in valuable locations such as soil, biomass, etc,
reducing the need to sequester as CO2.  Market demand can regulate global
emissions, which at annual scale are a minor factor in radiative forcing
compared to albedo and GHG concentrations.

 

The critical engineering path suggested for the planetary climate is like
building a house.  Albedo is the foundation, greenhouse gas conversions and
removals are the walls, and decarbonisation caps the roof by a future move
away from fossil fuels.  You cannot build walls and roof until you have laid
the foundation.  That creates a timeline whereby global focus on a brighter
world in this decade can replace the sole political emphasis on emissions
and can give practical support to the recognition that removal of
atmospheric carbon is essential.  

 

Without higher albedo, GHG effects cannot cool the planet. Higher albedo can
only be engineered by peaceful global cooperation on new technologies such
as marine cloud brightening. Albedo needs to be addressed first, especially
at the poles,  where refreezing should be an immediate global priority for
climate security.  Turning the polar oceans from dark to light by stopping
the melting of summer ice will make a critical difference in the planetary
energy balance. A main focus on albedo will give time for the slower effects
of GHG conversion, removal and reduction to contribute over the next decades
to a stable and secure and productive planetary climate.  This order of
priorities can sustain the biosphere conditions that have enabled humans and
all other living species to flourish on our planet Earth.

 

Robert Tulip

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/061801d8741a%240aecc350%2420c649f0%24%40yahoo.com.au.

Re: [geo] Would solar radiation modification increase or decrease overall risk?

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

A friend sent me the following reply to my comments on the risk analysis in 
this C2G2 blog 

 .

Robert Tulip

 

 

Hi Robert,

Thanks for an excellent piece.  We get lots of warnings from the UK Met Office 
and WMO about records being broken, but they don't talk about trends, except, 
surprisingly, on Arctic Amplification [1].  Somehow we have to get the 
authorities to sit up and take note that:

*   the climate crisis is upon us now, with escalating costs worldwide in 
damage, human suffering and economic woes;
*   climate change and sea level rise are accelerating due mainly to rapid 
Arctic warming;
*   tipping points towards catastrophic climate change and sea level rise 
could become critical within this decade;
*   net zero will come far too late for any useful cooling effect, either 
globally or in the Arctic;
*   SRM has the capability to halt climate change and sea level rise this 
decade by both cooling the Arctic and cooling more globally;
*   the benefits of SRM, including avoiding tipping points, totally 
outweigh the speculative risks from SRM deployment, given some governance to 
avoid misuse.

I would add the Arctic and SLR to your conclusion:

SRM should be implemented immediately to cool the Arctic and then to cool more 
generally this decade, thereby mitigating the massive risks of climate change 
and sea level rise.

[1] public.wmo.int 
/en/media/press-release/wmo-update-5050-chance-of-global-temperature-temporarily-reaching-15%C2%B0c-threshold
  

 

Among the bullet points is this:

*   The Arctic temperature anomaly, compared to the 1991-2020 average, is 
predicted to be more than three times as large as the global mean anomaly when 
averaged over the next five northern hemisphere extended winters.

 

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:32 PM mailto:rob...@rtulip.net> 
> wrote:

My comment on a C2G2 blog 

 . 

From: Robert Tulip mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au> > 
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2022 7:26 AM
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com  
Subject: RE: [geo] Would solar radiation modification increase or decrease 
overall risk?

The risk analysis in this C2G2 blog 

  is far too negative and could be balanced by improved discussion of the 
benefits of SRM.  

It is not enough just to summarise SRM benefits as “lessening the near-term 
damages of climate change and lowering the chances of crossing catastrophic 
climate tipping points.”  A more balanced approach would expand this to mention 
that SRM is the only method available to mitigate extreme weather, biodiversity 
loss, temperature rise and sea level rise in this decade.  

To not implement SRM means the world chooses to do precisely nothing about 
these immensely damaging current effects of climate change.  That would be a 
repugnant moral decision.

The assertion that SRM creates a risk of conflict can be challenged by the 
observation that SRM should be a primary force for peace and security through 
international cooperation to mitigate direct effects of warming.

My view is that Marine Cloud Brightening in the Southern Ocean would be the 
most simple, effective, cheap, safe and feasible way to start cooling the 
planet, with benefits far outstripping risks.  These benefits include creation 
of arrangements for international cooperation that could subsequently be used 
to refreeze the Arctic and examine use of iron and sulphur for cooling.  MCB in 
the Southern Ocean would protect sea ice and enhance albedo, protecting 
biodiversity. It would mitigate the major risk that catastrophic loss of 
Antarctic ice shelves could cause accelerated loss of glaciers and sea level 
rise.  MCB would also cool the waters in ocean currents, reducing the drivers 
of extreme weather in temperate latitudes.

The blog authors should note the comment in this May 9 article in The Hill 

 : “Sunlight reflection … offers a technologically plausible, potentially rapid 
and relatively cheap way to slow or even reverse global warming and its 
attendant hazards, buying time for more ambitious mitigation efforts to take 
hold. It could be remarkably cost-effective: models suggest that SAI could cost 
as little as $10 billion per year, a minute fraction of the estimated $275 
trillion price tag for decarbonizing the global economy by 2050.”

Lastly, there is political absurdity in the blog statement “The sooner and 
greater we make GHG emissions reductions, the less need 

RE: [geo] Would solar radiation modification increase or decrease overall risk?

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The risk analysis in this C2G2 blog 

  is far too negative and could be balanced by improved discussion of the 
benefits of SRM. 

 

It is not enough just to summarise SRM benefits as “lessening the near-term 
damages of climate change and lowering the chances of crossing catastrophic 
climate tipping points.”  A more balanced approach would expand this to mention 
that SRM is the only method available to mitigate extreme weather, biodiversity 
loss, temperature rise and sea level rise in this decade.  

 

To not implement SRM means the world chooses to do precisely nothing about 
these immensely damaging current effects of climate change.  That would be a 
repugnant moral decision.

 

The assertion that SRM creates conflict risk can be challenged by the 
observation that SRM should be a primary force for peace and security through 
international cooperation to mitigate direct effects of warming.

 

My view is that Marine Cloud Brightening in the Southern Ocean would be the 
most simple, effective, cheap, safe and feasible way to start cooling the 
planet, with benefits far outstripping risks.  These benefits include creation 
of arrangements for international cooperation that could subsequently be used 
to refreeze the Arctic and examine use of iron and sulphur for cooling.  MCB in 
the Southern Ocean would protect sea ice and enhance albedo, protecting 
biodiversity. It would mitigate the major risk that catastrophic loss of 
Antarctic ice shelves could cause accelerated loss of glaciers and sea level 
rise.  MCB would also cool the waters in ocean currents, reducing the drivers 
of extreme weather in temperate latitudes.

 

The blog authors should note the comment in this May 9 article in The Hill 

 : “Sunlight reflection … offers a technologically plausible, potentially rapid 
and relatively cheap way to slow or even reverse global warming and its 
attendant hazards, buying time for more ambitious mitigation efforts to take 
hold. It could be remarkably cost-effective: models suggest that SAI could cost 
as little as $10 billion per year, a minute fraction of the estimated $275 
trillion price tag for decarbonizing the global economy by 2050.”

 

Lastly, there is political absurdity in the blog statement “The sooner and 
greater we make GHG emissions reductions, the less need there may be for SRM, 
thereby likely reducing overall risk exposure.”  The reality is that 
decarbonising is far too small, slow, expensive and contested to be the primary 
climate change strategy.  The risk that major powers are lying about their 
desire to cut emissions, or that sincere desires will prove politically 
impossible to achieve, totally outweighs the speculative risks that critics see 
in SRM.  Cutting emissions can only be a marginal factor in a return to a 
stable climate, able to address less than 5% of radiative forcing.  The main 
work has to come from CDR, addressing committed warming from past emissions. 
While CDR ramps up, SRM should be implemented immediately to brighten the 
planet and mitigate the massive risks of climate change.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoeng Info
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2022 2:27 AM
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Would solar radiation modification increase or decrease overall 
risk?

 

https://www.c2g2.net/would-solar-radiation-modification-increase-or-decrease-overall-risk/

 


Would solar radiation modification increase or decrease overall risk?


 

Guest post by Tyler Felgenhauer, Govindasamy Bala, Mark Borsuk, Matthew Brune, 
Inés Camilloni, Jonathan Wiener, and Jianhua Xu 

 

A key consideration in deciding whether to pursue solar radiation modification 
(SRM) to offset global warming should be a comparison of the extent of climate 
risk that the technology is able to reduce against the severity of any 
countervailing risks that it may engender.


SRM as a potential risk reduction strategy  


It may not be widely appreciated that even if humanity were to achieve 
significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions atmospheric 
concentrations would continue to rise. Only net-zero emissions (NZE) would 
flatten GHG concentration trajectories. Even after NZE were to be achieved, 
however, a changed climate would persist for decades to centuries because of 
the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, in addition to 
aggressive emissions reductions, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will need to be a 
key piece of a broader response portfolio intended to bring down global mean 
surface temperature. Further, adaptation will be necessary to mitigate damages 
from residual warming. Some climate scientists have suggested that it may also 
be worth considering some form of solar 

[geo] Marine Cloud Brightening for the Southern Ocean

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Dear Ye, Peter, Ron, Stephen and all

 

I would like to ask the Australian Government to investigate methods to 
increase planetary albedo.  This is something the G20 should have on its agenda.

 

My view is that cooling the Southern Ocean using Marine Cloud Brightening 
should be a first topic to discuss for international agreement.  This would 
cool Antarctica, our planetary refrigerator, and appears likely to be able to 
mitigate sea ice melt, glacier collapse, the warming of ocean currents, extreme 
weather and biodiversity loss.  Antarctica might be an easier place to start 
than the Arctic in view of the geopolitics.

 

Ye, further to your comments below, it would be good for all methods to 
increase albedo to be studied.  I agree somewhat with your doubts regarding 
stratospheric aerosol injection (atmospheric chemistry uncertainties, acid rain 
risks, ocean ecosystem impacts, and inhibition of renewable transition) and 
could add ozone and hydroxyl effects as specific atmospheric chemistry 
concerns. For marine cloud brightening my assessment is that all of these 
effects are likely to be overwhelmingly benign, with significant positive 
benefits.  The atmospheric chemistry and rain distribution questions are likely 
to be primary.  MCB could be the simplest and safest and cheapest initial way 
to produce rapid cooling and mitigation of extreme weather.  

 

I don’t accept that enabling a slower renewable transition is a big problem for 
the climate.  The effect on radiative forcing of cutting fossil fuel use can 
only be far smaller than the effects of direct albedo increase. It  is 
essential to use SRM to cut radiative forcing to buy time to mitigate extreme 
weather while CDR ramps up.   Emission reduction is likely to remain marginal 
to planetary cooling compared to SRM and CDR. This is an important moral 
question regarding the strategic justification for geoengineering.  Slowing the 
renewable transition is a good thing to bring on board communities and states 
who now support traditional energy sources.

 

Sea salt is a safe natural product whose cooling effect can be cheaply 
optimised using the methods described by Stephen Salter. I would hope that only 
when NaCl is accepted as a good way to improve atmospheric chemistry should 
nations consider deploying atmospheric iron and sulphur, recognising that the 
scientific case for both is quite strong.

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

 

From: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com 
  
mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > On Behalf Of Ye Tao
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 8:02 PM
To: Robbie Tulip mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com> >; Peter 
Fiekowsky mailto:pfi...@gmail.com> >
Cc: Planetary Restoration mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> >; Ron Baiman 
mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com> >; geoengineering 
; healthy-planet-action-coalition 
mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> >; 
hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com 
 ; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com 
 
Subject: Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly 
warming the planet ?

 

Hi Robert,

Agreed that Low albedo is dangerous.  Just wanted to point out that albedo 
restoration is not exclusive to oceanic and atmospheric technologies. 

Albedo can also be restored using surface, and especially land surface-based 
SRM, that are free of the atmospheric chemistry uncertainties, acid rain risks, 
ocean ecosystem impacts, and inhibition of renewable transition particular to 
SAI and MCB.

Ye

On 3/2/2022 10:21 PM, Robbie Tulip wrote:

Low albedo is dangerous and can only be mitigated by oceanic  and atmospheric 
technology. Solar radiation management systems are needed to increase planetary 
albedo and mitigate the economic and social and ecological harms of climate 
change by limiting extreme weather events. The benefits of regulating planetary 
weather far far outweigh the risks and costs of neglecting work to stabilise 
the climate. This is a major and serious moral problem regarding whether 
humanity can take action to prevent and reverse the worst effects of climate 
change in this decade.

 

Robert Tulip

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 2:06 pm, Peter Fiekowsky mailto:pfi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Robert- 

SRM is a logical top priority. 

Who will pay for it?

How will those doing it avoid assassination? (Moral or physical)

Peter  

Sent from my iPhone

 

On Mar 2, 2022, at 6:50 PM, Robbie Tulip mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Peter

To answer your question, carbon  capture can collect CO2 to transform it into 
stable valuable commodities. But CO2 storage is wrong and useless for climate 
restoration. Chemical and photosynthetic use of CO2 as feedstock to produce 
biomass and materials needs to replace the CCS paradigm. First though we need 
to increase albedo as the emergency 

[geo] Moral Hazard or Moral Duty? - Repairing the Climate with Greenhouse Gas Removal and Solar Radiation Management

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Moral Hazard or Moral Duty? - Repairing the Climate with Greenhouse Gas
Removal and Solar Radiation Management

By Robert Chris, Shaun Fitzgerald

Jan 21 2022 · 4 min read

 
https://illuminem.com/energyvoices/35e225de-11e0-4899-aeed-77bba5c33b5a 

>From ENERGY VOICES and   Centre for
Climate Repair at Cambridge

SUSTAINABILITY · CLIMATE CHANGE · CARBON REMOVAL

 

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) [1] shows human activity warming the
climate at a rate unprecedented at least in the last 2,000 years. Each of
the last four decades has been successively warmer than any prior decade
since 1850, and since 2011, average temperature rise is 1.6°C and 0.9°C over
land and ocean respectively. Human-induced climate change is recognised
‘with high confidence’ as the main cause of the now routine extreme weather
events on every continent. Even under low emissions scenarios delivering the
target limit of 1.5°C average global warming will be demanding and
temperatures may continue rising into the next century. Within the next
fifty years sea level is expected to rise about 2 metres if current
emissions levels continue. These changes are being driven by radical and
rapid increases of the three most important greenhouse gases (GHGs) in our
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is at its highest for two
million years, with methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) at an 800,000 year
high. Averting irreversible instabilities in multiple ecosystems and their
potentially disastrous effects on humanity requires that the levels of these
GHGs be significantly reduced.

The need for deep and rapid emissions reduction, a major issue for COP26, is
unarguable. However, the climate has already changed and the evidence is now
incontrovertible that emissions reductions alone cannot be sufficient to
stay within the 1.5°C limit. Additional actions, such as greenhouse gas
removal (GGR) and solar radiation management (SRM) that reverse the trends
of climate change, are needed. Some have voiced concerns that GGR and SRM,
sometimes referred to collectively as ‘geoengineering’, might lead to
reduced efforts on emissions reduction. This is referred to as the ‘Moral
Hazard’, a term originating in the insurance sector, but latterly applied to
a wide range of behaviours where people act more riskily because, if things
turn out badly, the negative consequences are borne by others [2].

Moral hazard became a concern in relation to climate change because fossil
fuel producers argued for policymakers to reduce focus on emissions
reduction, and instead to shift to hi-tech GGR and SRM approaches
(industrial carbon-capture, mirrors in the sky, sulphuric acid in the
atmosphere, for example) [3–6]. However, there is limited evidence of moral
hazard in other actor categories. Several studies have indicated a possible
‘galvanizing’ effect. Participants were generally cautious or hostile
towards interventions described as geoengineering, but thought they would be
more motivated to reduce their personal carbon footprint if they saw
government and industry investing in such research or deployment [7–9].

Regardless of progress on emissions reduction many effects of climate change
are now locked in. Even the most aggressive emissions reduction scenario
considered in AR6 is insufficient on its own to avoid exceeding 1.5°C.
Therefore, the unequivocal upshot is that significant SRM and GGR
interventions are necessary.

There is an urgent need to extend the scope of existing research on
different approaches to GGR and SRM to determine what could safely and
beneficially be deployed at scale. SRM techniques, in particular, need
careful evaluation for benefits and for any deleterious effects; further
studies are essential. There are promising strategies that appear scalable
and acceptable. These include cloud brightening over the Arctic ocean to
rebuild the increasingly diminished albedo effect from the loss of summer
Arctic ice; an example of positive feedback caused by temperature rises in
the Arctic Circle being three times higher than the global average. Broad
public engagement is also necessary to determine what constitutes
'acceptable’.

Without appropriate timely research, there is a risk that accelerating
climate change, and its unpredictable consequences, will lead to techniques
being deployed later, at scale, with a ‘hope for the best’ approach. This
would be a high-risk strategy to be avoided. From this perspective, Moral
Hazard based claims that research on GGR or SRM should not be undertaken for
fear of reducing efforts to abate emissions, become a Moral Hazard in
themselves; they have the unintended effect of increasing the risks from
climate change for present and future generations. If this is the case,
rather than downgrading such research for fear of a Moral Hazard impact on
emissions reductions, it should be regarded as a Moral 

RE: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The essay Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement 
by Biermann et al (link below) displays a breathtaking level of political 
foolishness and indifference to scientific solutions to the climate emergency.  
It reflects a dominant false thinking within the climate action movement, 
whereby political conflict with the fossil fuel industry is totally prioritised 
over any practical response to improve the future of the world.  If our goal is 
a stable liveable climate, then banning geoengineering is the most stupid 
action imaginable.

 

The world reality is that the climate action movement lacks the political power 
to achieve anything close to the commitments under the Paris Accord. Emissions 
in 2030 are projected to be higher than in 2015.  So instead they resort to 
bullying ideological argument typified by this call for a world fatwa against 
solar radiation management, seeking victory by intimidation rather than by 
reason. 

 

All the bluster of arguments like this article will do nothing to slow emission 
growth, let alone slow warming.  Meanwhile, extreme weather events continue a 
rapid escalation, and warming continues to inflict irreversible damage to 
biodiversity.  But the authors are so caught up in their class-war type of 
thinking that they do not care about immediate measures to mitigate weather or 
extinction impacts.

 

The solution according to this article is to do precisely nothing in this 
decade that would have immediate material impact to mitigate extreme weather or 
climate-induced biodiversity loss.  They flatly reject the observation that 
field research for a range of SRM methods could demonstrate easy, cheap, fast 
and safe activities. We should use scientific evidence rather than hypothetical 
speculation to answer serious questions about unintended consequences and 
optimal deployment strategies.  

 

And contrary to the argument about geoengineering promoting conflict, the real 
likelihood is that activities such as refreezing the North Pole would serve to 
strengthen international cooperation, confidence, peace, dialogue and security. 
 The G20 is likely to be the best forum for this debate.  The UN is hopelessly 
corrupted by the type of ideological thinking seen in this article.  Climate 
change is the primary material threat to global stability and security.  
Engaging the G20 to refreeze the North Pole could directly reduce the 
destabilising effects of extreme weather while also providing a major program 
to strengthen mutual respect and political stability.

 

These “governance scholars” express a number of opinions that are grossly 
ignorant of climate science.  When the North Pole is melting, action to 
refreeze sea ice by increasing albedo could safely mitigate climate risks, 
returning toward previous stability.  But no, that must be banned, because...  

 

Their comment about marine cloud brightening recognises its potential to stop 
bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.  Field trials of MCB could also show 
ability to mitigate the strength of hurricanes and tornadoes, significantly 
reducing climate damage, especially for the poor, supporting climate justice.  
MCB could also cool water flowing into the Arctic, slowing down Greenland ice 
melt, permafrost melt, methane release and sea level rise.  

 

It seems none of this has occurred to these authors in their mindless advocacy 
of political polarisation.

 

Decarbonising the economy will do precisely nothing to stop the pole from 
melting. Instead, the argument of this paper is to delay any real mitigation of 
climate change until long after expected tipping points could have shifted our 
planet into a hothouse phase.  Opposition to SRM is no solution at all.

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoeng Info
Sent: Wednesday, 19 January 2022 2:00 AM
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use 
agreement

 

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754

 


Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement


 

Frank Biermann, Jeroen Oomen, Aarti Gupta, Saleem H. Ali, Ken Conca, Maarten A. 
Hajer, Prakash Kashwan, Louis J. Kotzé, Melissa Leach, Dirk Messner, 
Chukwumerije Okereke, Åsa Persson, Janez Potočnik, David Schlosberg, Michelle 
Scobie, Stacy D. VanDeveer

 


Abstract


Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an 
issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We 
argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a 
speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, 
that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally 
inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We 
therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and 
effective political 

[geo] RE: [CDR] World Cooling Map

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This reply to all the threads copies replies which only went to the CDR thread. 
 The discussion relates to both CDR using algae farms and albedo increase by 
polar freezing.  

 

CDR using Algae Farms

Hi Ronal and Paul, thanks so much for these considered expert comments.  In his 
first reply, Paul put the algae discussion into the biochar context, saying “My 
20 years of work in retirement have been about pyrolysis for energy and 
biochar.   I assure you that the intended large-scale ocean-based algae farms 
floating on the main ocean currents is quite compatible with biochar 
production.”

 

The mention of pyrolysis prompts me to explain my view of how oceanic algae can 
be processed.  Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) can transform a wet algae slurry 
into a hydrocarbon stream and an aqueous fertilizer stream.  Therefore, feeding 
algae with Deep Ocean Water high in nitrates and phosphates can constantly 
recycle new nutrients into the algae farm via the aqueous HTL stream, while 
carbon is drawn from both air and sea for hydrocarbon production.  

 

Pyrolysis to produce biochar operates at different temperature and pressure 
from HTL. A range of conditions should be tested.  My view is the scale of 
ocean carbon production required for planetary stability will eventually 
justify using the Mid Atlantic Ridge as an HTL production zone, using the 2km 
water depth and geothermal heat in the tectonic plate production area of the 
ridge to enable hydrocarbon and fertilizer production without use of fossil 
energy.

 

Ocean-based pyrolysis of biochar could partially dewater algae by mixing air 
through a heated algae slurry and then using ocean depth for pressure. 
Pyrolysis under moderate pressure (0.5–3.0 MPa or depth of 50-300m)  
 seems to 
increase the charcoal yield due to the longer vapour residence time within the 
solid particle.

 

Biochar thickens and improves soil.  Covering much of the earth with a new 
layer of soil made of pyrolised algae would be highly protective for biosystems 
and an excellent carbon sink. I see algae biochar as preferably funded by 
commercial investment, with subsidy from public funds calculated by long term 
verifiable GHG removal measured by the cut to Radiative Forcing. 

 

Ocean gyres and currents have major cooling potential.  Scale up of algae 
production at sea requires agreed ocean locations for stationary algae farms in 
gyres and routes for moving farms along currents, in coordination with shipping 
and fishing interests. 

 

Algae farms will support integrated multi trophic aquaculture and biomass 
production that will substantially increase fisheries biomass, enabling 
industry expansion for food security while enhancing biodiversity.  

 

The area required to match the carbon content of total GHG emissions would to 
my understanding require algae coverage between 1% and 10% of the world ocean 
area (3-30 million km2) depending on the industrial intensity, which could 
range from low intensity kelp arrays through to high intensity enclosed fabric 
photobioreactors. 

 

I did calculations years ago to derive the preliminary estimate that covering 
1% of the world ocean (3 million km2) with algae farms would remove 50 Gt CO2 
per year, with optimal algae yields. Converting that biomass into stable sinks 
would then require further processing such as for biochar or fabric, or it 
could be re-emitted via HTL fuel and fertilizer manufacture.  Other major 
products include animal feed, fisheries, food and forestry. 

 

It may be possible to use tidal pumps on the edge of continental shelves to 
pump deep ocean water to the surface as algae feedstock, and then float algae 
farms from the initial location to an ocean gyre to grow until the algae crop 
is at maximum density, where it can be continuously harvested with further 
fertilizer inputs from Deep Ocean Water and CO2. 

 

I think the southern coast of Australia will be too rough and cold for large 
scale algae production, although there may be suitable sites.  Ocean gyres and 
sheltered tropical waters such as north of Australia in the Arafura Sea look 
better. Using ocean currents as a biomass transport route, for example from 
Northern Australia around Africa to the Caribbean, could grow ocean algae 
species in saltwater in fabric enclosures. This builds upon NASA’s Ocean 
Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae research from a decade ago.  Farms 
launched near Darwin can fill with Deep Ocean Water from the Timor Trench 
before floating into the Indian Ocean.

 

Albedo increase by polar freezing 

Arctic ice canal construction could use ice with added weight (eg gravel) and 
structural materials so it naturally floats below the draft of the deepest 
ship.  The main shipping canal could be built straight across the North Pole 
from the Bering Strait to near Greenland under the floating sea ice in winter, 
using the winter cold to 

[geo] No virtue in rich nations outsourcing their emissions

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

No virtue in rich nations outsourcing their emissions 

 

In political debates about climate change, governments in Europe have
portrayed themselves as virtuous for their achievements and plans in cutting
emissions.  The
 European Union has committed to reducing
emissions 55% below 1990 by 2030.  

 

This has helped to convince the public that emission reduction remains the
main game for preventing dangerous warming, that carbon dioxide removal can
be deferred, and that solar radiation management should be banned as a moral
hazard.  However, as the article below by former Australian Senator Ron
Boswell explains, achievements in emission reduction are largely fraudulent.
Emissions from industrial processes in European industry fell by 40 per cent
between 1990 and 2018.  But that sits uncomfortably alongside global
results, which, far from any cuts, have seen industrial emissions increase
by 67%.  How could this be? 

 

The reason is the emission accounting system is rigged so that when
emissions are offshored, especially to China, they are counted against the
country of manufacture rather than the country of benefit.  The scam of
emissions reduction is something worse and more insidious than the
deceptions imagined by climate deniers.  The real problem is that
decarbonisation is unable to prevent the looming planetary security
catastrophe of global warming, which can only be stopped by geoengineering,
and the UN processes have signally failed to bring this situation to world
attention.  

 

Emission reduction cannot reduce extreme weather or biodiversity collapse in
this decade. Unfortunately, cutting new emissions only slows the speed at
which GHGs increase, and is marginal to the overall task of stabilising the
climate, which is mainly a geoengineering problem.  The tragedy is that the
lie of primary reliance on emission cuts could dominate proceedings at COP26
in Glasgow.  This situation is morally appalling, a shocking triumph of spin
over substance.  This big lie has distorted the political debate to obscure
the urgent need for major planetary cooling intervention.

 

This month the UNFCCC explained how far short the world is of its Paris
ratchet goals in this

report and
 press release.  To display the impudence and duplicity of the
official climate system, the press release asserts in its headline sentence
that "there is a clear trend that greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced
over time."  That is untrue.  It is immediately contradicted by the
"worrying findings" that "available NDCs. imply a sizable increase in global
GHG emissions in 2030 compared to 2010, of about 16%." Even worse, the main
report states that by 2030 emissions are projected to be 59.3 per cent
higher than in 1990.  In the parallel universe inhabited by Patricia
Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change, "the synthesis shows
that countries are making progress towards the Paris Agreement's temperature
goals. This means that the in-built mechanism set up by the Paris Agreement
to allow for a gradual increase of ambition is working".  No, the Paris
mechanism is not working.

 

If COP26 agreed to change the rules so that emissions are counted against
the country that uses the product instead of the country that produces it,
we would suddenly have a far more accurate picture of climate
responsibility.  That might even prompt greater recognition of the urgency
of climate engineering solutions.

 

Robert Tulip

 

No virtue in rich nations outsourcing their emissions

  RON BOSWELL

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/no-virtue-in-rich-nations-outsou
rcing-their-emissions/news-story/de8981f7bb2669b9327ba26cc5634091  

SEPTEMBER 24, 2021

One of the great mysteries of the global economy is how so many countries
are boldly pledging to hit net-zero emissions by 2050, yet global emissions
keep rising.

Despite a temporary dip last year because of the pandemic-induced slowdown,
global greenhouse gas emissions are growing again and are expected to reach
55 billion tonnes by 2022-23. That's up from 51 billion tonnes in 2019.

But if more than 100 nations have committed to net zero by 2050, why are
emissions still going up? It's an accounting trick. It's called outsourcing.

It works like this. At least a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions
are generated in the production of goods traded across borders. This
includes steel, aluminium, cement, cars, heavy machinery and farm exports
such as beef and sheep meat. And this trade is changing the 

[geo] RE: [CDR] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Hello Valerie

 

You may not have understood my comments.  Sorry if I was not clear.  

 

You state “Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak to 
climate policy at all.”   That is not true. Per my first comment, headline B.1 
of the SPM implies that only emission reduction can prevent dangerous warming.  
That is a climate policy assertion, ruling out the alternative view that 
preventing dangerous warming requires increased albedo.

 

The complete absence of discussion of albedo from the SPM gives rise to the 
concern that it will not be addressed in later IPCC reports unless there is 
significant policy change.

 

Robert

 

From: Nucleation Capital  
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:38 AM
To: Robert Tulip 
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal ; 
geoengineering ; vale...@nucleationcapital.com
Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

 

Robert,

Just so you are aware, the report released by the IPCC this week is just the 
IPCC Working Group 1   portion of a 
much larger three-part report, looking at the Physical bases. The official 
description is:  "The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment 
Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate 
system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate 
science, and combining multiple lines of evidence from paleoclimate, 
observations, process understanding, and global and regional climate 
simulations."  Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak 
to climate policy at all, just a summary of the physical findings. I believe 
the Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report 
 , due out in 
September 2022, will have the policy discussion that you are looking for.  See 
here   for the IPCC's full description of the sections 
and contents of the Sixth Assessment (i.e. the 6th full assessment in 30 years).

Valerie




Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner

  Nucleation Capital Fund Portal

  NucleationCapital.com

M: (650) 799-4494


 

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:16 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:

I thought it was pretty bad that the  
 IPCC 
report states as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C 
will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and 
other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."

It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during 
the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas 
emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)

As the NOAA AGGI report   states, CO2 equivalents 
are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces 
the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the 
committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists (eg Eelco Rohling) 
think past emissions already commit the planet to 2°C.

Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful 
commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the escalation of 
extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and slow, despite 
having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than 
decarbonisation of the world economy.

My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo 
enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter 
to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram attached). 
Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need 
considerably more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and 
iron salt aerosol.

It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this whole 
area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.

 

I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a 
rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is 
that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through 
the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define 
a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to 
define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate 
stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge.

Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably 
this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that 
means the climate activist community will no longer be able to use the mantra 
"the science says" to oppose geoengineering, as Michael Mann and Bill McKibben 
and others now do.

I think the factors that could 

RE: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Hello Cush

 

As I mentioned, the issue is timeframes.  

 

You are correct that GHGs are the cause of climate change.  That does not mean 
removing GHGs, let alone just slowing the rate of increase as the AR6 summary 
implies, is the only possible response.

 

Reducing GHG levels and emissions will take a long time.  Meanwhile we face 
extreme weather, biodiversity collapse and the risk of various dangerous 
tipping points. We have a planetary duty to address these crises.

 

Increasing albedo could prevent many effects of warming.  Brightening the pole 
would do far more to protect the AMOC than GHG removal would.  Higher albedo 
would bring numerous beneficial flow on effects for planetary stability and 
security.  It is absurdly stupid that these benefits of a brighter planet are 
not factored into IPCC calculations on risk, illustrating the dominance of 
politics over science.

 

Cutting emissions will not protect AMOC on a timescale shorter than a century.  
That is far too slow to be relevant to the looming security emergency of a 
great oceanic disruption.

 

The same issue applies for ice melt, methane release and other phase shifts now 
occurring.  We need to buy time to ramp up GHG removal by brightening the 
planet.

 

Regards, Robert

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:30 AM
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal ; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

 

Dear Robert

I enjoyed pretty much reading your critique on the IPCC AR6 report and the AMOC 
report. I notices that thèse reports put an emphasis on mitigation and negative 
emissions as the way to slowing down ice melting and Climate variability. Yet, 
these arguments seem to be "unscientific" to you because of your take on Solar 
geoengineering. Yet, many observées think that brightening the marine clouds 
and spraying aérosols do not solve the very cause of Climate change, which is 
GHGe. Yet, to D.  Hume's point of view, a "scientific" control is the one that 
Solves causality, meaning a solution that controls or stabilises the causes. 
What is your take on this? To what science do you refer to in your commenté? 
Who is fooling who?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Regards

Cush

 

Le mer. 11 août 2021 à 12:16, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > a 
écrit :

I thought it was pretty bad that the  
<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf> IPCC 
report states as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C 
will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and 
other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."

It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during 
the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas 
emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)

As the NOAA AGGI report <https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/>  states, CO2 equivalents 
are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces 
the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the 
committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists (eg Eelco Rohling) 
think past emissions already commit the planet to 2°C.

Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful 
commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the escalation of 
extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and slow, despite 
having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than 
decarbonisation of the world economy.

My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo 
enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter 
to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram attached). 
Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need 
considerably more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and 
iron salt aerosol.

It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this whole 
area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.

 

I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a 
rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is 
that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through 
the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define 
a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to 
define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate 
stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge.

Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably 
this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that 
means the climate a

[geo] A Farewell To Ice by Peter Wadhams - Online Discussion

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The discussion forum website Booktalk.org has just started discussing
 A Farewell to Ice: A Report from the Arctic - by Peter
Wadhams


 

Expert and general input would be highly welcome.  Link is
https://www.booktalk.org/a-farewell-to-ice-a-report-from-the-arctic-by-peter
-wadhams-f292.html

  

The following discussion threads have been set up including for each
chapter.   

 

 
 Please "Check In" here to the "A Farewell to Ice"
book discussion!

  Ch.
1: Introduction: a blue Arctic

  Ch. 2:
Ice, the magic crystal

 
 Robert Tulip has volunteered to lead the
discussion of "A Farewell to Ice"

 
 Ch. 3: A brief history of ice on planet Earth

 
 Ch.
4: The modern cycle of ice ages

 
 Ch. 5: The
greenhouse effect

 
 Ch. 6:
Sea ice meltback begins

 
 Ch. 7: The future of Arctic sea ice - the death spiral

 
 Ch. 8: The accelerating effects of Arctic feedbacks

 
 Ch. 9: Arctic methane, a catastrophe in the making

 
 Ch. 10: Strange
weather

 
 Ch.
11: The secret life of chimneys

 
 Ch. 12: What's happening to the Antarctic?

 
 Ch. 13:
The state of the planet

 
 Ch. 14: A call
to arms

 

Link to the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Ice-Peter-Wadhams/dp/0241009413

 

 

Robert Tulip

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/008901d649bc%2457d5ff90%240781feb0%24%40yahoo.com.au.

[geo] Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 
Hi Chris,thanks for the point of clarification on the non-citation of Orwell by 
Cambridgestudent activists, but that is only a false quibble.  Their quoted 
statements in this thread arecompletely in line with the opposition of 
Biofuelwatch to climate repair, asfurther explained at the Cambridge Zero 
Carbon Society twitterpost stating “We also targeted our criticism at Cambridge 
Zero’s promotionof ‘climate repair’ and other forms of geoengineering.”  The 
Guardian article you mention is much morebalanced than the activist statements, 
but the thread here does not include it exceptas a link.

Yourassertion that my comments are somehow “invalid" appears to bedefending the 
Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, and associating them with theUniversity, by 
suggesting the alleged invalidity of my comments about CZCS hassome broader 
unspecified relevance to the University.  Perhaps I misunderstood your comment?
CZCSis a group that says the naming of Cambridge Zero “is exceptionally 
unhingedand morally bankrupt,” a “greenwashing initiative… to help [fossil 
fuelcompanies] locate oil reservoirs”.  The threadsuggests that “criticism from 
students and staff at the university” includes that“under the name of ‘Climate 
Repair ’, Cambridge Zero will partner with the BPinstitute” and that “fossil 
fuel companies use the concept of climate repair tojustify their ongoing 
extractive practises and delay legislation to cut carbonemissions.” 
Now perhaps some may see the attribution of these views to Cambridgestudents 
and staff as a piece of mischief by Biofuelwatch, but the twit postabove rebuts 
that. My reference to Orwell is in full accord with the views ofthe Cambridge 
Zero Carbon Society.
So Iam mystified Chris as to why you would seemingly imply that the 
divestmentfocus of this Zero Carbon Society at all reduces their apparent 
opposition to theconcept of climate repair. They are against climate repair.

Theproblem I was drawing attention to was that CZCS and their NGO 
fellowtravellers have thoroughly misunderstood the meaning and importance of 
climaterepair as an essential goal for addressing global warming.  Far from 
being “invalid”, support for climaterepair offers a different and challenging 
line of thinking from the preferredstrategy of emission reduction alone.

KindRegards

RobertTulip


On Friday, 29 November 2019, 09:55:10 pm AEDT, Chris Vivian 
 wrote:  
 
 
Robert,

  

You did not read the Guardian report carefully enough. The Cambridge Zero 
Carbon Society did not “…allege that climate repair is an Orwellian front for 
fossil fuel industries…”. That statement was the view of EcoNexus and 
Biofuelwatch. If you look at the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society’s website 
(http://zerocarbonsoc.soc.srcf.net/) you will see that their focus is to get 
Cambridge University to divest fossil fuel investments. Consequently, the 
comments in your post related to the University are invalid. 

  

Chris.

  

From: 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
 
Sent: 26 November 2019 01:41
To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 
; geoengineering 
; Andrew Lockley 
Subject: Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL 
FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch

  

The attack from environmental NGOs and students at Cambridge University on the 
concept of climate repair illustrates the dangerously irrational currents of 
opinion that are prevalent in the popular movement for action on climate 
change.  The students allege that climate repair is an Orwellian front for 
fossil fuel industries, even though Sir David King, a main advocate of climate 
repair, has publicly distanced himself from fossil fuels and solar 
geoengineering and has called for Cambridge to divest from fossil fuels, as 
noted in the post below.  I have no personal contact with Cambridge University, 
but am interested in this debate from the perspective of seeking informed 
discussion on climate change.

The scientific incoherence in the opposition to climate repair is seen in the 
false logic of moral hazard, the fallacy that removing carbon from the air 
undermines efforts to cool the planet.  This moral hazard reasoning is nothing 
but an incorrect conspiracy theory, as stupid and dangerous as opposition to 
vaccination or chemtrails, and should be seen as socially and intellectually 
reprehensible.  That moral hazard thinking has a niche in the intellectual 
environment of Cambridge University shows the poor state of public information, 
illustrating the failure to inform these ignorant students of basic facts about 
climate change.  

It is obviously essential to analyse the risks of climate intervention, but 
advocacy groups like biofuelwatch who are behind these campaigns ignore the 
much larger risks inherent in failing to research technologies that are needed 
to regulate the planetary climate. The real moral hazard arises from failure to 
address climate repair.  The error at work here 

[geo] Re: [CDR] CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’ – biofuelwatch

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 


The attack fromenvironmental NGOs and students at Cambridge University on the 
concept of climaterepair illustrates the dangerously irrational currents of 
opinion that areprevalent in the popular movement for action on climate change. 
 The students allege that climate repair is anOrwellian front for fossil fuel 
industries, even though Sir David King, a mainadvocate of climate repair, has 
publicly distanced himself from fossil fuelsand solar geoengineering and has 
called for Cambridge to divest from fossilfuels, as noted in the post below.  
Ihave no personal contact with Cambridge University, but am interested in 
thisdebate from the perspective of seeking informed discussion on climate 
change.

The scientificincoherence in the opposition to climate repair is seen in the 
false logic ofmoral hazard, the fallacy that removing carbon from the air 
undermines effortsto cool the planet.  This moral hazardreasoning is nothing 
but an incorrect conspiracy theory, as stupid anddangerous as opposition to 
vaccination or chemtrails, and should be seen as socially and intellectually 
reprehensible. That moral hazard thinking has a niche in the intellectual 
environmentof Cambridge University shows the poor state of public information, 
illustratingthe failure to inform these ignorant students of basic facts about 
climatechange.  

It isobviously essential to analyse the risks of climate intervention, but 
advocacygroups like biofuelwatch who are behind these campaigns ignore the much 
largerrisks inherent in failing to research technologies that are needed to 
regulatethe planetary climate. The real moral hazard arises from failure to 
addressclimate repair.  The error at work hereis the false belief that cutting 
emissions by decarbonizing the world economy couldpossibly be a sufficient 
response to climate change.  In fact, as the climate repair concept 
indicates,slowing global warming requires carbon removal on large scale, 
alongsideefforts to cut emissions.  

A key pointto understand is that the main driver of warming is past emissions, 
not presentand future emissions.  The goal should beto convert past emissions 
into safe and useful commodities. That requirescarbon mining at multi-gigatonne 
scale, based on intensive scientific research anddevelopment programs to assess 
technology options, aiming for net negativeglobal emissions as the basis of 
climate repair and restoration.  The Oxford University site 
trillionthtonne.orgsays humans have added 635 gigatonnes of carbon to the air, 
growing by 20,000tonnes per minute, about ten gigatons a year. (Climate Action 
Tracker estimates the annual addition as 14GT, a significant discrepancy 
against the Oxford calculation).  

Moralhazard reasoning tells us to ignore that committed warming from past 
emissionsis the main cause of climate change. The line is that we should do 
nothingabout past emissions because removing carbon to repair and restore the 
climate isa rival political strategy to the sole focus on decarbonization. But 
that justignores how slowing down the speed at which the world burns new carbon 
into theair may be far more hard and costly than removing the carbon already 
added.

The lack ofpublic debate and media coverage on the science and politics of 
climate repairis a problem that the new Cambridge Zero programs should address. 
 Net zero emissions, let alone the need forlarge scale net negative emissions, 
can only be achieved through investment incarbon removal technology as a 
primary strategy. The myth that ‘all we have todo is cut emissions’ has to be 
challenged for the sake of good climate policy. Ignorantblocking of the 
essential work of climate repair undermines climate securityand is profoundly 
counter-productive, destroying prospects of movement toward asafe and stable 
planetary climate.

It is alsoworth noting that the Guardian article linked below was edited 
afterpublication to include response from Dr Shuckburgh, stating that her work 
“inno way implies a ‘connection with the fossil fuel industry.’”  It is 
disturbing that the public informationreleased by Biofuelwatch and Econexus 
appears to have contained numerouserrors.

RobertTulip





On Sunday, 24 November 2019, 07:48:12 pm AEDT, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 Poster's note: this PR / ad hom was picked up by the Graun, likely among 
others 
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/23/students-accuse-cambridge-university-of-greenwashing-ties-with-oil-firms?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboardI
 think it's relevant to share as it's such a prominent and personal attack and 
the CNZ initiative is likely to be quite influential. 
https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2019/cambridge-accused-of-greenwashing-after-appointing-fossil-fuel-researcher-head-of-zero-carbon-initiative/
CAMBRIDGE ACCUSED OF ‘GREENWASHING’ AFTER APPOINTING FOSSIL FUEL RESEARCHER 
HEAD OF ‘ZERO CARBON INITIATIVE’Posted on November 19, 2019 by HennaPRESS 
CONTACTS:(1) AHSAN MEMON 

[geo] Climate change means geoengineering under pressure to keep our CO2 budgets under control ABC Science

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Climate change means geoengineering under pressure to keep our CO2budgets under 
control

 

ABC Science Pressure ramps up to pull CO2 from the sky with geoengineering tech


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Pressure ramps up to pull CO2 from the sky with geoengineering tech

Malcolm Sutton

Experts say humanity has only 10 years to have large-scale carbon dioxide 
reduction schemes up and running if gl...
 |

 |

 |






 

By Malcolm Sutton

7 October 2019



Reflective clouds created by human industries likeshipping can be seen from 
space.

 

(Supplied: NASA)

It's 2029 and every merchant ship in the world is fertilising the oceanwith 
iron — a last-ditch effort to draw carbon dioxide from the air as 
globalemissions near the point of no return.

This global attempt to remove CO2 from the atmosphere has been 11 yearsin the 
making — since 2018, when the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5Cspecial report warned 
that emissions reductions alone wouldnot be enough to restrict global heating 
to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would also be required.

Key points:

·Carbon dioxide removal techniques will be required to restrict 
globalheating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the 2018 IPCC report

·A UN Expert Group has reviewed potential marine 
geoengineeringtechniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

·Carbon removal at a global scale needs to be in effect within 10 
years,experts said

The hope is that the powdered iron will trigger a bloom of phytoplanktonthat 
will remove a gigatonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, by taking the carbonto the 
ocean floor when they die.

There's evidence to support the concept — iron-stimulated blooms havebeen 
observed in nature for some time, sparked by events such as the 2010eruption of 
the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, and Saharan desert dustplumes.

In 2029, it's just one of a number of ideas about to be employed acrossthe 
planet to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A recent working group reviewed a wide range of proposedmarine geoengineering 
techniques.

 

(Supplied: GESAMP)

How best to remove CO2?

Back in the present, and as signs of global warming continue to mount, apush is 
on to find ways to draw CO2 from the atmosphere.

"It's now abundantly clear from the IPCC 1.5C special report thatif we're going 
to restrict warming to 2 degrees or less, then mitigation of thereduction of 
emissions on its own is not enough," said Philip Boyd,professor of marine 
biogeochemistry at the University of Tasmania.

"We have to go beyond that andwe now have to intervene in the climate."

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN 
advisoryorganisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of 
MarineEnvironmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential 
marinegeoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying 
degreesworldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

·Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth's oceans by 
utilisingevery merchant ship in the world

·Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, 
increaseCO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity

·Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes 
tocreate an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also 
coolingthe ocean's surface

·Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and 
trencheswhere it can be stored for 1,000 years

·Increasing the ocean's reflectivity by drawing up cold water to 
increaseArctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective 
particlesto the surface

·Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low 
lyingstratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce 
surfacetemperatures

·Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the 
oceanto sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels

In short, the group found a lot of potential. But more research,modelling and 
pilot programs are required, especially in consideration of themassive scales 
required.

"What we are trying to do now is put some incentives out there,create some of 
these models for feedback," Professor Boyd said.

"But right now I can't see any one of them sticking outhead-and-shoulders above 
the rest."



Saharan dust storms over the Atlantic ocean fertiliseoceans with iron minerals.

(Supplied: NASA)

 

Old concepts and natural evidence

The concept of using reflective particles to reduce warming was floatedas early 
as 1965, when scientific advisors to US President Lyndon Johnsonrecognised that 
increased CO2 in the atmosphere could bring about climatic change.

They raised the prospect of spreading small reflective particles overlarge 
oceanic areas in an effort to reduce warming and inhibit hurricaneformation.

More recently, scientists have investigated spraying fine seawater 
intolow-lying stratocumulus 

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] IMechE Meeting on Climate Repair 9/11/19 - Youtube Recordings

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 Hi Ronal
I agree these videos are well worth watching.  The talks all present excellent 
information on new ideas for climate repair, and the videos are well produced 
and engaging, balancing the speakers and slides.
I am working closely with Renaud de Richter and other colleagues on plans to 
show how iron salt aerosol can remove methane.
The draft paper you asked about expects to seek peer review publication, so 
circulation will need to wait until it is accepted and finalised.
Regards, Robert  
On Monday, 30 September 2019, 01:02:08 pm AEST, Ronal Larson 
 wrote:  
 
 Robert and ccs
 Thanks.
 All four videos worth watching.
 I was surprised to see you listed at the end of Dr.  Renaud de Richter’s 
presentation.  Can you say more on what you are working on?
 Also near the end of Sir King’s presentation, he called attention to a new 
paper with Clive Elsworth.  Can that be made available to these lists?
Ron



On Sep 28, 2019, at 10:15 PM, Robert Tulip  wrote:
 Presentations at Institute of Mechanical Engineers meeting  in London on 9 
September 2019, New Tools for Climate Repair - An Introduction for Engineers.

Sir David King - A Fresh Look At Humanity's Greatest Ever Challenge - Climate 
Repair (42 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for 
Engineers. Sir David King FRS
Professor Jim Haywood - Climate Repair - Why We May Need It (20 minutes) New 
Tools for Climate Repair: an Introduction for Engineers. Professor Jim Haywood
Dr Renaud de Richter - Iron Salt Aerosol - A Natural Method to Remove Methane 
and Other Greenhouse Gases (27 minutes)  New Tools for Climate Repair: An 
Introduction for Engineers. Dr Renaud de Richter
Question and Answer session (31 minutes)New Tools for Climate Repair: An 
Introduction for Engineers. Question and Answer session


Robert Tulip





-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/53403156.551643.1569730558255%40mail.yahoo.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8A05B056-0791-48F8-AE1C-F12D0873318B%40comcast.net.
  

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1261937786.881026.1569852890432%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [geo] There is no Plan B for dealing with the climate crisis: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Vol 75, No 5

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 Dear GEO and CDR lists
TheBulletin of Atomic Scientists article, There is no Plan B for dealing 
withthe climate crisis, by Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert of Oxford 
University,is important as a statement of the apparent prevailing 
politicalconsensus among climate scientists. Professor Pierrehumbert is a 
distinguished Oxford scholar in physics and climate change, so his viewsdeserve 
respect and consideration.  Yet manyof the assertions in his article are highly 
questionable and confusing,illustrating how current climate thinking lacks 
strategic direction orcoherence.
Hiscore argument is that “fossil fuel burning, cement production, 
anddeforestation need to be brought all the way to zero” in order to 
respondadequately to climate change.  This goal isabsurdly impossible in 
political and economic terms, considering the momentum,inertia and power of the 
fossil fuel system which now supplies about 85% ofworld energy.  More so in 
light of his bleakobservations that emission rates are increasing, not falling. 
 Decarbonisation of the world economy does notserve as a coherent “Plan A” for 
dealing with climate change, because cuttingemissions is too small, slow, 
costly, divisive and risky compared to the “PlanB” of solar radiation 
management combined with the “Plan C” of mining carbonfrom the air.  Hisgloomy 
numbers, that “world emissions rose 1.5 percent in 2017, and anestimated 2.7 
percent in 2018”, should lead to investment in carbon dioxideremoval as a 
realistic option, not to the fantasy assertion that “the firstorder of business 
is to double down on efforts to decarbonize.”
Recall thenumbers.  Oxford’s doomsday websitetrillionthtonne.org just ticked 
over the marker of 635 billion tonnes of carbonadded to the air by humans, 
increasing at 20,000 tonnes per minute or 10billion tonnes per year.  The 
decarbonisationPlan A only addresses the 10 billion tonnes, doing nothing about 
the far biggerradiative forcing problem of the already emitted 635, with its 
destabilisationof earth system sensitivity and committed warming.  Dealing with 
the real climate problem mustfocus on geoengineering.


There is abitter irony in his statement that “so-called “natural” solutions 
have beenoversold by the mass media. Their contributions, while useful, will be 
minor.”  Unfortunately, this observation applies farmore pointedly and 
accurately to his own oversold claims about the role ofdecarbonisation of the 
world economy, which can only be a minor useful adjunctto the real climate 
restoration business of geoengineering, implemented throughpartnerships between 
governments and major industries.


Thepower to control or reduce emissions is completely lacking, while the 
ongoingincentives to emit carbon remain high. This fact is illustrated by a 
rather strange suggestion from theProfessor, that if the nations of the world 
combined in a peaceful cooperative globalendeavour to refreeze the Arctic 
Ocean, recognising the planetary securityimperative of stopping the dangerous 
accelerating warming feedback of a darkpole, this whole radiation reflection 
effort could be prevented by climate warwith Russia.  What he derisively terms 
‘albedohacking’, turning the North Pole from dark water back to white ice to 
reflectsunlight, could theoretically be stopped if Russia went rogue and 
reversed thiscooling effort by releasing massive quantities of a warming agent 
such assulphur hexafluoride.   The Professor doesnot seem to notice that his 
critique of so-called ‘albedo hacking’ applies evenmore potently to his 
preferred method of decarbonisation. So his politicalargument against efforts 
to freeze the Arctic equally indicates the futility ofhis own “Plan A” 
involving cement, trees and emission reduction.


Aneven more severe cognitive dissonance enters with his widely accepted 
claimthat “the harm done by carbon dioxide emissions is,in effect, irreversible 
on human time scales”. This claim is simply false, a popular myth serving only 
to justifyemission reduction as the main climate response.   The 
Professorhimself immediately contradicts his argument by observing that 
“technological breakthroughsallowing for the active removal of massive amounts 
of carbon dioxide from theatmosphere” could theoretically deliver just such a 
reversal of the harm causedby emissions.  It is just that 
ProfessorPierrehumbert dismisses this CDR possibility, which we could call Plan 
C, outof hand. Overall, he displays a dismissive scepticismabout the prospect 
of carbon dioxide removal, in a way that does not engageadequately with the 
orders of magnitude involved, even while making the welcomestatement that CDR 
deserves vastly increased research funding. 


ConsideringPlan A as decarbonisation, Plan B as what he ferociously attacks as 
‘albedohacking’, more often known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), and Plan 
C asCarbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), the inconvenient truth is that Plan A offers 
nohope of stabilising the 

[geo] Solar Radiation Management for Great Barrier Reef

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The Australian Government is investing AUD $1.6 million in SRM work this year.
https://www.barrierreef.org/uploads/RTP_Annual%20Work%20Plan%202019-2020_FINAL.pdf

"Activity: Solar radiationmanagement: 
Description: RRAP [Great Barrier Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program] model 
predictions indicate that keeping existing corals alive at a largescale would 
have the biggest impact of all considered interventions. Theconcept of creating 
shade through clouds, mist, fog, or surface films assumesthat decreased solar 
radiation protects corals from bleaching. Ecological andphysiological factors 
will be investigated through the foundational knowledgeactivity. Proof of 
concepts and assessment of the impact of manipulating solarradiation at scale 
will underpin risk and environmental impact assessments tobe considered under 
the regulation and policy activity. 
Deliverables: Proof of concept including environmental impact and 
regulatoryassessment. 
Budget:  $1.6m"

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/298384362.3834184.1562846960431%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

ion of the 
Shepherd diagram reflects the ongoing domination of politicsover science within 
climate advocacy, so it has not been properly revised toreflect accurate 
scientific information.

Robert Tulip  


On Thursday, 11 July 2019, 02:24:42 am AEST, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:  
 
 To give credit where credit's due, this was originally Shepherds famous napkin 
diagram. The srm line has been adjusted somewhat, however. I don't think that 
Doug's claims regarding Paris Commitments not conceivably being exceeded is 
supported empirically. Swansons law suggests very steep falls in the cost of 
energy by mid century, perhaps low single figure percentages of current costs. 
It would be implausible if large-scale use of fossil fuels would continue when 
renewable energy was one or two orders of magnitude cheaper
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, 17:12 Douglas MacMartin,  wrote:


Um…

 

1.  Given that the Paris agreement commitments don’t actually tell you 
what’s going to happen towards even the middle of the century, drawing any line 
corresponding to those commitments is a guess, but regardless, it seems pretty 
remarkable to assert that no-one will *ever* cut emissions beyond what was 
agreed upon in Paris – that’s your hypothesis, and doesn’t reflect an 
“inaccurate” diagram. 

2.  Mostly wrong… actually, if net emissions are zero, then once you’ve 
paid the price for removing tropospheric aerosol cooling, the residual 
committed warming is mostly balanced by the residual drawdown of CO2… obviously 
not going to be exact, and depends a lot on whether there are nonlinear tipping 
points, but zero emissions is NOT the same thing as constant-concentration 
commitment, so to first order the original diagram is more accurate than your 
amended one.

3.  The version of this that John posted has CDR continuing all the way 
down towards zero but not below it, your version goes below zero effects, so 
I’m not clear on what your point is here…  Obvoiusly, that’s ultimately a 
choice where one stops.

4.  Sure… again, that’s a choice, that doesn’t reflect an inaccurate 
diagram, simply that the diagram doesn’t show the full range of possible policy 
options.

5.  Well, unclear given that there are no units or scales on the 
qualitative y-axis.  Though RCP8.5, which is generally what people think of as 
BAU, does indeed result in roughly linear increase in temperature over time.  
Of course, the relationship between “effects” and temperature aren’t clear.

 

Bottom line, it is completely inaccurate for you to refer to this conceptual 
diagram as being inaccurate or containing major errors.  It is perfectly 
accurate to observe that none of the lines on the diagram are immutable.  But 
given that there are no units, that’s hardly a criticism… 

 

From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 8:21 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // 
Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération

 

Further to the needed corrections mentioned by John Gorman, Stephen Salter 
correctly points out that this diagram is inaccurate.  It actually embeds a 
series of major myths in climate politics.  I read Benoit Lambert's link but 
did not find the chart there.

 

Here is a revised version of the chart.  It shows that every line of the 
previous version contains major error with strong potential to mislead decision 
makers and the public.

 

1. Full implementation of current Paris commitments (added) would only have 
small marginal effect on Business as usual, 

2. Aggressive emission cuts do nothing about committed warming from past 
emissions, so do not flatline the climate effect 

3. CO2 removal continues below the farcical imaginary floor of zero effect

4. Solar radiation management can produce net negative radiative forcing.  

5.  The BAU line (not changed here) should show ongoing exponential growth 
rather than the shown linear increase.

 

Robert Tulip



 

On Wednesday, 10 July 2019, 07:46:59 pm AEST, Stephen Salter 
 wrote:

 

 

Hi All

Zero emissions do not immediately mean zero temperature rises, especially if we 
have passed tipping points.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, scotlands.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 
(0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195,WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie 
Taylor Power for Change


| 
| 
|  | 
Index of /shs


 |

 |

 |






On 10/07/2019 09:35, john gorman wrote:


This diagram from the paper says it all in my opinion, and simply!!


With, of course some variation in angles. Eg SRM could be angled down and I 
don’t believe cutting emissions will ever result in zero emissions.

 

Good realistic paper!

 

John gorman

 

From:Benoit Lambert
Sent: 09 July 2019 18:39
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal
Subject: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative developm

Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 Dear Mark
 
Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 FinalReport DE-AR916 on the 
potential for seaweed forests to addressglobal needs for food, fuel and 
climate.  Iencourage readers to review the linked report, as it provides a 
compellingscientific agenda for reversing global warming and cleaning up the 
oceans.

I would like to know ifthere has been media coverage of this project, as it 
seems to me one of thebiggest and most important efforts now underway for 
practical climate action.

Best wishes

Robert Tulip

 


On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST,  wrote: 
 
 
 A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than the 
Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report.  Estimated 
initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume that the Feed the 
world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly snowball to full global 
capacity.
The Reverse climate change step might be classified as geoengineering.  It 
could use any good-for-millennial and ocean restorative carbon storage 
technique.  

Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.orgFeed the world. Fuel the world. Reverse climate change.


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine
Geoengineering Techniques
From: Andrew Lockley 
Date: Tue, March 12, 2019 4:41 am
To: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com
"
, geoengineering



http://www.gesamp.org/publications/high-level-review-of-a-wide-range-of-proposed-marine-geoengineering-techniques
High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques
2019 #98 (143p.)Author(s): GESAMPPublisher(s): GESAMPJournal Series GESAMP 
Reports and StudiesThis report comprehensively examines a wide range o marine 
geoengineering techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or boost 
the reflection of incoming solar radiation to space (albedo modification) or in 
some cases both. Further, the report recommends a) that a coordinated framework 
for proposing marine geoengineering activities, submitting supporting evidence 
and integrating independent expert assessment must be developed and b) that a 
greater expertise on wider societal issues is sought with the aim to establish 
a knowledge base and provide a subsequent analysis of the major gaps in 
socio-economics and geopolitics.  -- 
 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/20190520114320.d9cc1239cd025ff256116092005df229.f0b5e7ff2c.wbe%40email12.godaddy.com.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/760731356.7755725.1559484546070%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 Speaking to some astronomer friends, they say the Pinatubo eruption effect was 
certainly measurable as a (pretty much global) change in the extinction 
properties of the atmosphere, adding an important "grey" aerosol contribution 
to the usual reddening (one study). From New Zealand, once the particulates 
reached them (after about 80 days), the extinction in the V-band around 550 nm 
increased from 0.13 to 0.21 magnitude/airmass (similar to other temperature 
sites both north and south - reference).  A similar change was observed for the 
eruption of El Chichon. These analyses suggest that the settling time for all 
measurable extinction effects of these eruptions can be decades.  You can see 
the increase in extinction in the U, B, and V passbands very clearly in this 
figure http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/t2...=.gif from the paper by 
Burki et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics, 112, p. 383 (1995), available at 
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/f...6AS..112..383B   A number of other 
papers by observers at other locations confirm these results.

Robert Tulip
On Monday, 8 April 2019, 2:01:00 am AEST, Douglas MacMartin 
 wrote:  
 
 
There’s not that much ground-based astronomy in UV, relative to optical and IR 
astronomy.
 
  
 
Impact on optical astronomy is straightforward; if you lose 5% of the direct 
light, you need 5% longer integration time to get same number of photons.
 
  
 
Impact on IR astronomy is less obvious, as limited by the background from the 
sky, which depends on water vapour and temperature through the atmospheric 
column (with most telescopes being at 14000’ or so).  Shouldn’t be hard to 
estimate, I’ve never gotten someone interested enough to do the calculations 
but I could try again (my other job is being on the design team for the Thirty 
Meter Telescope).
 
  
 
I did ask people whether they noted anything after Pinatubo, and the answer I 
got was no… that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an effect, but it wasn’t something 
that the astronomy community by and large remembered.
 
  
 
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On 
Behalf Of Russell Seitz
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 9:31 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts
 
  
 
Why would  reductions  in the  downwelling tropospheric light flux increase any 
of the above?    I'd instead  ask instrumental  astromomers what they think SO2 
scattering would do in the UV , as they have a lot to lose from  scattered 
light, which can  cost them contrast and  degrade the signal to noise ratio in 
interferometry and spectroscopy.
 
  
 
Try the Magellan and OWL teams

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 7:47:35 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:
 

Has there been any investigation of SRM effects on vision? Eg perceived glare, 
macular degeneration, corneal sunburn, vision development in infants, object 
recognition when driving (and their equivalent in animals)?
 
  
 
Andrew Lockley 
 

-- 
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 
togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Regulation to reduce sulphur from ships

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

https://medium.com/mit-technology-review/were-about-to-kill-a-massive-accidental-experiment-in-halting-global-warming-c009d15a610e


"Studies have found that ships have a net cooling effect on the planet, despite 
belching out nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. That’s almost 
entirely because they also emit sulfur, which can scatter sunlight in the 
atmosphere and form or thicken clouds that reflect it away.  In effect, the 
shipping industry has been carrying out an unintentional experiment in climate 
engineering for more than a century. Global mean temperatures could be as much 
as 0.25 ˚C lower than they would otherwise have been, based on the mean 
“forcing effect” calculated by a 2009 study that pulled together other findings 
(see “The Growing Case for Geoengineering”). For a world struggling to keep 
temperatures from rising more than 2 ˚C, that’s a big helping hand. And we’re 
about to take it away." (keep reading) 4 mins




-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

“Globally we emit around 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, so net zero CO₂ by 
2050 will require CO₂ removal of this scale, starting immediately.”
Not quite.  Net Zero requires that carbon removal equal total emissions.  While 
the primary focus of the IPCC remains reducing total emissions, the hope is 
that the NET task could be smaller if emissions can be cut. 
Unfortunately, all the emission trends seem to be in the wrong direction, so it 
looks like the NET task will actually be bigger.  As well, the equation must 
include CO2 equivalents.  The IPCC projections are that by 2030 total CO2e 
emissions will be 60 billion tonnes (gigatons or GT) under Business as Usual, 
and that full implementation of the Paris Accord would cut that by 10% to 54 GT 
(New York Times 6 Nov 2017, World Emissions Far Off Course). 
Therefore, the projected task for NETs to achieve net zero is to remove 54 GT 
of CO2e annually by 2030, unless emissions come down faster than agreed at 
Paris.  
Further to this massive task, climate restoration requires an even bigger goal. 
 In order to steer the planet away from the hothouse precipice, NETs should aim 
to remove double total emissions, 100 GT. And in the meantime, solar radiation 
management should be deployed to help avoid unforeseen dangerous tipping 
points.  These are the primary planetary security problems. 
Robert Tulip

  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering ; 
"carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com " 
 
 Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2018, 4:47
 Subject: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C
   
Poster's note: mass media, but respected author and topical 
https://theconversation.com/amp/cop24-heres-what-must-be-agreed-to-keep-warming-at-1-5-c-107968?__twitter_impression=true
COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°CHugh Hunt, University 
of CambridgeDecember 3, 2018 11.12am GMTThe Paris Agreement of 2015 has a 
central aim to keep global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above 
pre-industrial levels and to “pursue efforts” to limit the temperature increase 
even further to 1.5°C. This is an ambitious aim – global temperatures are 
rapidly approaching the 1.5°C target and the 2°C limit is not far away.
The path to 1.5°C requires that the world achieve zero emissions before 2050. 
It is imperative, therefore, that we stop burning fossil fuels, known as 
mitigation. However, our present trajectory suggests we’re not on track. COP24 
can’t take its eye off this ball –- there is no long-term plan that doesn’t 
include zero fossil-carbon emissions. The scientific consensus is that we need 
to reach “net zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050. But to tack closer to a scenario of 
1.5°C warming, COP24 should set this target for 2035.

Black, observed temperatures; blue, probable range from decadal forecasts; red, 
retrospective forecasts; green, climate simulations of the 20th century. The 
Met OfficeCarbon removal and non-CO₂ emissionsThe United Nations, in the IPCC 
Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC has accepted that there isn’t any 
obvious pathway to zero emissions in such a short time frame, so they have 
pegged their hopes on NETs – Negative Emissions Technologies. These approaches 
include carbon capture and storage (CCS), which involves sucking CO₂ from the 
air and storing it deep underground.
Carbon removal along these lines is the second imperative for COP24 in 
Katowice. Globally we emit around 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, so net 
zero CO₂ by 2050 will require CO₂ removal of this scale, starting immediately.
But CO₂ isn’t the only problem. We emit other greenhouse gases such as methane, 
nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which all contribute to climate 
change. Methane is on the rise and is 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas 
than CO₂.
It comes from cows, and it leaks from oil wells and coal mines as “fugitive 
methane”. It is also seeping out of the melting permafrost in the Arctic. This 
is a worrying form of “positive feedback” where global warming causes the 
further release of gases that cause further warming.
Nitrous Oxide, which is 300 times more potent than CO₂, is rising too, caused 
by modern agriculture. And the concentration of refrigerant gases, such as 
CFCs, which are thousands of times more potent than CO₂, is not falling as fast 
as we’d hoped. So COP24 has a third imperative, to prevent the rise of non-CO₂ 
greenhouse gases. If we can stabilise non-CO₂ greenhouse emissions at present 
day levels we’ll be doing well, but concentrations are rising fast.

Limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C requires mitigation (energy efficiency and 
renewable generation) and CO₂ removal. MCCDesperate times, desperate 
measuresAll of this is going to be hard work. We’re failing to cut down our 
emissions, the technologies for NETs don’t exist at any meaningful scale, yet 
and there are no political drivers in place to enforce their deployment. There 
is also a real risk of a dramatic rise 

[geo] Re: Iron Salt Aerosol

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Iron Salt Aerosol is both a GHG removal technology and a direct cooling method.
If safety and efficacy can be proved, ISA could be the most efficient carbon 
removal method available.
Here are twelve cooling effects, and a poster to be presented at the Canberra 
NET Conference this week.
Robert Tulip

  From: Robert Tulip 
 To: Carbon Dioxide Removal  
Cc: Franz Dietrich Oeste ; Renaud de RICHTER 
; John Macdonald 
 Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018, 20:38
 Subject: Iron Salt Aerosol
   
The 2017 article by Oeste et al on Iron Salt Aerosol led me to work with Franz 
Dietrich Oeste, Renaud de Richter and John Macdonald to propose field trials of 
Iron Salt Aerosol (ISA) in Australia.
Our view is that ISA is the best way to start reversing global warming, 
substantially improving and integrating a range of previous ideas.  
We have established a website, with Frequently Asked Questions and a two page 
introductory Summary.
Please look at these links, and feel free to comment here or at our ISA 
Facebook Page.
We are seeking scientific and commercial support for our field trial proposal, 
and will present a Poster on ISA at the Negative Emission Technology conference 
in Canberra this month.

  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
Iron Salt Aerosol - ISA Summary
 Click here for pdf version  |   |

  |

  |

 

Robert Tulip

   

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Economist: Blood, Sweat and Geoengineers

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Aug 2nd 2018, The Economist, Lead Article onClimate Change


 
Key Points


·Calamities once considered freakishare now commonplace – scientists 
caution that weather patterns will go berserk

·Greenhouse-gas emissions are up. Soare investments in oil and gas. In 
2017, demand for coal rose. Subsidies forrenewables are dwindling.  Nuclear 
isexpensive and unpopular

·Mankind is losing the war. Decarbonisationis proving extraordinarily 
difficult

·In 2006-16, Asia’s emerging economiesenergy consumption rose by 40%. 
Use of coal grew at an annual rate of 3.1%, naturalgas grew by 5.2% and of oil 
by 2.9%. 

·Fossil fuels are easier to hook up totoday’s grids than renewables

·Economic and political inertia: lobbies,and the voters who back them, 
entrench coal

·Steel, cement, farming, transport andother forms of economic activity 
account for over half of global carbonemissions. They are technically harder to 
clean up than power generation andare protected by vested industrial interests.

·Sturdier grids, zero-carbon steel, carbon-negativecement, research 
into “solar geoengineering” should all be redoubled.

·Blood, sweat and geoengineers: Westerncountries must honour Paris 
commitment to help poorer places adapt and abate withoutsacrificing growth

·the world looks poised to get a lothotter first.


Full Article

In the line of fire: Theworld is losing the war against climate change

Rising energy demand means use of fossil fuels is heading in the wrongdirection

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/02/the-world-is-losing-the-war-against-climate-change

 Print edition | Leaders

Aug 2nd 2018



EARTH is smouldering. From Seattle to Siberia this summer, flames haveconsumed 
swathes of the northern hemisphere. One of 18 wildfires sweepingthrough 
California, among the worst in the state’s history, is generating suchheat that 
it created its own weather. Fires that raged through a coastal areanear Athens 
last week killed 91 (see article). Elsewherepeople are suffocating in the heat. 
Roughly 125 have died in Japan as theresult of a heatwave that pushed 
temperatures in Tokyo above 40°C for the firsttime.

Such calamities, once considered freakish, arenow commonplace. Scientists have 
long cautioned that, as the planetwarms—it is roughly 1°C hotter today than 
before the industrial age’s firstfurnaces were lit—weather patterns will go 
berserk.An early analysis has found that this sweltering European summer would 
havebeen less than half as likely were it not for human-induced global warming.

Yet as the impact of climate change becomes more evident, so too doesthe scale 
of the challenge ahead. Three years after countries vowed in Paris tokeep 
warming “well below” 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, greenhouse-gas 
emissions are up again. So are investmentsin oil and gas. In 2017, for the 
first time in four years, demand for coalrose. Subsidies for renewables, such 
as wind and solar power, are dwindling inmany places and investment has 
stalled; climate-friendly nuclear power isexpensive and unpopular. It is 
tempting to think these are temporary setbacksand that mankind, with its 
instinct forself-preservation, will muddle through to a victory over global 
warming. Infact, it is losing the war.

Living in a fuel’s paradise

Insufficientprogress is not to say no progress at all. As solar panels, wind 
turbines andother low-carbon technologies become cheaper and more efficient, 
their use hassurged. Last year the number of electric cars sold around the 
world passed 1m.In some sunny and blustery places renewable power now costs 
less than coal.

Public concern is picking up. A poll last year of 38 countries foundthat 61% of 
people see climate change as a big threat; only the terrorists ofIslamic State 
inspired more fear. In the West campaigning investors talk ofdivesting from 
companies that make their living from coal and oil. DespitePresident Donald 
Trump’s decision to yank America out of the Paris deal, manyAmerican cities and 
states have reaffirmed their commitment to it. Even some ofthe 
sceptic-in-chief’s fellow Republicans appear less averse to tackling theproblem 
(see article). Insmog-shrouded China and India, citizens choking on fumes are 
promptinggovernments to rethink plans to rely heavily on coal to electrify 
theircountries.

Optimists say that decarbonisation is withinreach. Yet, even allowing for the 
familiar complexities of agreeing on andenforcing global targets, it is proving 
extraordinarily difficult.

One reason is soaring energy demand, especially in developing Asia. In 2006-16, 
as Asia’s emerging economies forged ahead,their energy consumption rose by 40%. 
The use of coal, easily the dirtiestfossil fuel, grew at an annual rate of 
3.1%. Use of cleaner natural gas grew by5.2% and of oil by 2.9%. Fossil fuels 
are easier to hook up to today’s gridsthan renewables that depend on the sun 

Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Peter Wadhams’ bad encounter with Lomborg at the DavosBusiness Summit in New 
York in 2002 presents understandable reason to doubtLomborg’s approach at that 
time. However, that would be a distorted, wrong and even dangerous conclusion. 

Lomborg published a paper called FixThe Climate: Advice for Policy Makers for 
the Copenhagen 2009Conference.  It is completely sound inits research and its 
findings, but these evidence-based approaches stick in thecraw of the 
“emissions only” ideology that dominates climate politics.  This paper, peer 
reviewed by Nobel EconomicLaureates, found that the most effective use of 
resources would be to invest inresearching solar radiation management 
technology, a technology-led policyresponse to global warming that is designed 
to develop green technology fasterand researching carbon storage technology. 
They found that emission reduction is a very poor response. 

The absence of discussion in the climate science community of this prestigious 
research published by Cambridge University Press in 2010 is a 
scandal,illustrating that the false ad hominem scare campaigns against Lomborg 
haveworked to sustain the harmful polarisation in climate politics, and to 
avoidmeaningful debate about the inadequacies of the Paris strategies. 

The Source Data page on Lomborg is woefully incomplete andbiased.  For example, 
it leaves outinformation from that 2010 Fix The Climate publication, where 
Lomborg’s biostates he was named one of the 75 most influential people of the 
21st Centuryby Esquire magazine, one of the 50 people who could save the planet 
by theGuardian, one of the top 100 public intellectuals by Foreign Policy, and 
one ofthe world’s 100 most influential people by Time. He was Editor of the 
book GlobalCrises, Global Solutions first and second edition (Cambridge 
University Press). 

The point of my comments here, which Peter wrongly dismisses,is that the Paris 
Accord pledges can remove 10% of emissions by 2030 in thehighly unlikely event 
they are fully implemented, whereas geoengineeringsolutions involving SRM and 
CDR could achieve many multiples of that result ata fraction of the price, if 
the world could summon the political will to studythe facts.




 



Robert Tulip


  From: Peter Wadhams 
 To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au 
Cc: "r.e.w...@lse.ac.uk" ; "mmiln...@unl.edu" 
; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 

 Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 20:04
 Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
   
Dear all, Maribeth is right here and Tulip is completely wrong. Read Maribeth's 
link to the Sourcewatch article. I had a personal experience with Lomborg which 
was not pleasant. In 2001 I was invited to the World
Economic Forum which was held that year in New York instead of Davos, in 
solidarity with the victims of 9-11. It was my one and only visit to WEF (I 
don't think they ever invited a climate change specialist back again). I found 
to my surprise that I was expected to share the climate change lectures, round 
tables and similar events with a a very cynical youth with an affected American 
drawl, of whom I had never heard. He plainly knew little or nothing about 
climate yet he gave out the most outrageous bogus unscientific statements 
reflecting extreme cynicism about climate change and the need to do anything 
about it. Of course the fat cats at the meeting, businessmen and
politicians alike, lapped this up and he did enormous damage. He gave me the 
impression that he would do or say anything to build his fame and fortune and 
basically he had cleverly discovered a niche, denialism,
which would give him a  shortcut to personal glory. When I got back I read his 
book "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which was published by CUP , and found 
it full of errors, some of them glaring, all of them in one direction only - 
denial of change. How could my own university publish such errors, I thought (I 
was still very naive). Patiently, and assuming that he was honest but mistaken, 
I wrote him a 6 page critique of the errors that I havd found, complete with 
references to better sources. Instead of thanking me he just replied "I don't 
have time to deal with this right now". And that was it. I subsequently watched 
his personal trajectory from afar;  he hasnt yet crashed to earth despite 
repeated demonstrations that most of what he says is invalid.
Peter Wadhams


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:51 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
 wrote:

Thanks Bob, Maribeth and Steve for your replies.
Bob, since you have engaged with Lomborg on his peer reviewed article at Global 
Policy, Impact of Current Climate Proposals, which he constantly references in 
his popular newspaper articles, it is surprising that you state he does not 
publish his view in peer-reviewed journals.  My reading of that article is that 
his critique of the Paris Accord is completely correct.  I agree with you that 
Lomborg overstates the limitations of re

Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Thanks Bob, Maribeth and Steve for your replies.
Bob, since you have engaged with Lomborg on his peer reviewed article at Global 
Policy, Impact of Current Climate Proposals, which he constantly references in 
his popular newspaper articles, it is surprising that you state he does not 
publish his view in peer-reviewed journals.  My reading of that article is that 
his critique of the Paris Accord is completely correct.  I agree with you that 
Lomborg overstates the limitations of renewable energy, but that is possibly a 
reasonable political response to the widespread exaggeration of the climate 
benefits of decarbonisation by renewable advocates.
Maribeth, as Steve noted, relying on the Sourcewatch link that you provided is 
ad hominem fallacious reasoning, 'playing the man not the ball'.  The obvious 
bias reveals political rather than scientific motives on the part of the 
Sourcewatch authors. Their article does not engage with Lomborg's critique of 
the Paris Accord, which is the question at issue here.  
It was interesting to see that Sourcewatch article quote Ken Caldeira, "If 
emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal 
with it, it’s pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly".  While 
that is true for Solar Radiation Management, it is not clear for Carbon Dioxide 
Removal.
The sociology of climate change is well illustrated by responses to Lomborg, 
who is widely seen by climate activists as beneath contempt, while his factual 
analysis is ignored.  This failure of engagement is a source of political 
oxygen for the climate denial movement.
Robert Tulip

  From: "Ward,RE" 
 To: "mmiln...@unl.edu"  
Cc: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
 Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 8:14
 Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
   
Bjorn Lomborg has a consistent track record of misrepresenting scientific and 
economic evidence, of downplaying the risks of climate change and of 
overstating the limitations of current low-carbon technologies. He does not 
publish his views in peer-reviewed journals and never acknowledges his errors. 
Trying to use Lomborg’s arguments to boost the case for geoengineering does not 
seem very wise.
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Jul 2018, at 19:49, Maribeth Milner  wrote:



I remembered hearing Lomberg's name in the context of climate denying so I 
looked him up at Source Watch
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bjorn_Lomborg

Of course... any new work needs to be properly evaluated, but knowing his 
history can be useful.

On 7/15/2018 9:22 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:

Thanks Antonio.  My impression is that calling Lomborg a "notorious denier" is 
generally used as a political stratagem by those who wish to focus only on the 
decarbonisation of the world economy as the sole permissible response to global 
warming.  
Lomborg may be wrong about the risk analysis of climate change, but that does 
not make him a climate denier.  Such false labels are a way to ignore and 
deflect Lomborg's factual analysis of the gross inadequacy and delinquency of 
the Paris Accord, and of the need to shift climate policy from subsidy to R  
On your comment that Lomborg has helped to delay action, it is a good thing to 
delay an overhasty switch to renewable energy when this proposed switch is 
based on inaccurate claims about cost, subsidy, reliability and climate impact. 
From: Antonio Donato Nobre 
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au 
Cc: Geoengineering 
Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018, 23:05
Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris

Agree with Leon. As a notorious denier, Bjorn Lomborg has caused massive damage 
to civilization as he helped to delay action. Not a good source now for wisdom.

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 9:32 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via 
geoengineering wrote:

Interesting article copied below is published today in The Australian.  I 
disagree with Lomborg’s argument that “The best estimates show global warming 
has roughly a zero net cost to humanity.”  This and related comments unduly 
discount the risks of climate tipping points of medium probability but high 
impact. However, Lomborg’s critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his 
call for a shift in energy policy from subsidies to technology R should make 
him an important ally of the geoengineering community. 
Lomborg makes the following pertinent comments:
·The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it would 
require the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by 2021.· 
   even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow and every 
nation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 per cent of 
progress towards the “easier” target of 2C.·“no major advanced 
industrialised country is on track to meet its pledges”. (Nature)·each 
dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-term climate 
benefit of 3c·Green energy is not y

Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

which the climate community seems loath todo.


 
I see you have been engaged in a lively debate with Lomborg, forexample with 
his replyto your earlier comments.  To my reading,you both have some very good 
points mixed in with some dubious ones.  It all raises central climatepolicy 
problems in a practical way.  Thechallenge should be to create a focus on the 
big strategic problem of stoppingglobal warming as the primary security threat 
facing our planet.  Neither decarbonisation nor denial engagewith that problem, 
so Lomborg is correct at the strategic level that implementinggeoengineering 
solutions is urgent.


 
Robert Tulip



  From: "Ward,RE" 
 To: "'geoengineering@googlegroups.com'"  
 Sent: Monday, 16 July 2018, 20:33
 Subject: RE: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
   
#yiv3621482841 #yiv3621482841 -- _filtered #yiv3621482841 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv3621482841 
#yiv3621482841 p.yiv3621482841MsoNormal, #yiv3621482841 
li.yiv3621482841MsoNormal, #yiv3621482841 div.yiv3621482841MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv3621482841
 a:link, #yiv3621482841 span.yiv3621482841MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3621482841 a:visited, #yiv3621482841 
span.yiv3621482841MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3621482841 p 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv3621482841
 span.yiv3621482841EmailStyle18 {color:#44546A;}#yiv3621482841 
.yiv3621482841MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3621482841 
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv3621482841 
div.yiv3621482841WordSection1 {}#yiv3621482841 I am afraid that the Lomborg 
article suffers from multiple serious 
defects:http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-australian-promotes-bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-propaganda/
       Bob Ward    Policy and Communications Director Grantham Research 
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment London School of Economics and 
Political Science Houghton Street London UK WC2A 2AE    Tel. +44 (0) 20 7107 
5413 Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346 Web:http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham Twitter: 
@ret_ward       From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
Sent: 14 July 2018 13:32
To: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Lomborg on Paris    Interesting article copied below is 
published today in The Australian.  I disagree with Lomborg’s argument that 
“The best estimates show global warming has roughly a zero net cost to 
humanity.”  This and related comments unduly discount the risks of climate 
tipping points of medium probability but high impact. However, Lomborg’s 
critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his call for a shift in energy 
policy from subsidies to technology R should make him an important ally of 
the geoengineering community.     Lomborg makes the following pertinent 
comments: ·The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it 
would require the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by 
2021. ·even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow 
and every nation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 
per cent of progress towards the “easier” target of 2C. ·“no major 
advanced industrialised country is on track to meet its pledges”. (Nature) ·
each dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-term 
climate benefit of 3c ·Green energy is not yet ready to compete with 
fossil fuels, so forcing economies to switch means slowing them down. ·
More than $100bn will be spent this year alone on subsidies for solar and wind 
energy, yet this technology will meet less than 1 per cent of the globe’s 
energy needs. ·The Paris Agreement is not the right answer but a 
solution is needed. ·Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen 
Consensus on Climate found we shouldn’t just double R but make a sixfold 
increase, to reach at least $100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than 
the proposed Paris cuts and it would actually have the prospect of making a 
significant impact on temperature rises. It would do so without choking 
economic growth, which continues to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. · 
   Fixing climate change requires boosting innovation so green energy 
eventually will become so cheap it will outcompete fossil fuels — not making 
fossil fuels so expensive that everyone suffers. ·In a related2017 
article, Lomborg says the case for geoengineering research is compelling. 

 Here is the article text.   Abbott is right: Paris climate treaty fails to 
fight global warming Most signatories to the Paris Agree

Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Thanks Antonio.  My impression is that calling Lomborg a "notorious denier" is 
generally used as a political stratagem by those who wish to focus only on the 
decarbonisation of the world economy as the sole permissible response to global 
warming.  
Lomborg may be wrong about the risk analysis of climate change, but that does 
not make him a climate denier.  Such false labels are a way to ignore and 
deflect Lomborg's factual analysis of the gross inadequacy and delinquency of 
the Paris Accord, and of the need to shift climate policy from subsidy to R  
On your comment that Lomborg has helped to delay action, it is a good thing to 
delay an overhasty switch to renewable energy when this proposed switch is 
based on inaccurate claims about cost, subsidy, reliability and climate impact. 
  From: Antonio Donato Nobre 
 To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au 
Cc: Geoengineering 
 Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018, 23:05
 Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
   
Agree with Leon. As a notorious denier, Bjorn Lomborg has caused massive damage 
to civilization as he helped to delay action. Not a good source now for wisdom.

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 9:32 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
 wrote:

Interesting article copiedbelow is published today in TheAustralian.  I 
disagree withLomborg’s argument that “The best estimates show global warming 
has roughly a zero net cost tohumanity.”  This and related comments unduly 
discount the risks of climate tipping points of medium probability buthigh 
impact. However, Lomborg’s critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his 
callfor a shift in energy policy from subsidies to technology R should 
makehim an important ally of the geoengineering community. 
Lomborg makes the following pertinent comments:
·The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it 
wouldrequire the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossilfuel by 2021.· 
   even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow and 
everynation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 per 
cent ofprogress towards the “easier” target of 2C.·“no major advanced 
industrialised country is on track to meet itspledges”. (Nature)·each 
dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-termclimate 
benefit of 3c·Green energy is not yet ready to compete with fossil 
fuels, so forcingeconomies to switch means slowing them down.·More than 
$100bn will be spent this year alone on subsidies for solarand wind energy, yet 
this technology will meet less than 1 per cent of theglobe’s energy needs.· 
   The Paris Agreement is not the right answer but a solution is needed. ·  
  Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen Consensus on Climate found 
weshouldn’t just double R but make a sixfold increase, to reach at 
least$100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than the proposed Paris 
cuts andit would actually have the prospect of making a significant impact on 
temperaturerises. It would do so without choking economic growth, which 
continues to lifthundreds of millions out of poverty.·Fixing climate 
change requires boosting innovation so green energyeventually will become so 
cheap it will outcompete fossil fuels — not makingfossil fuels so expensive 
that everyone suffers.·In a related 2017article, Lomborg says the case 
for geoengineering research is compelling.
Here is the article text. Abbott is right: Paris climate treaty fails to fight 
global warmingMost signatories to the Paris Agreement are failing to meet 
theiremissions reduction obligations.·The Australian, July 14, 2018·
BJORN LOMBORG https://www.theaustralian.com. au/news/inquirer/abbott-is- 
right-paris-climate-treaty- fails-to-fight-global-warming/ news-story/ 
c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e59 3b(paywall) Political language on climate 
changeoften amounts to empty puffery: bold promises that are not going to 
bedelivered and aspirational rhetoric that proves impossible to achieve.It is 
therefore remarkable that Tony Abbott hasacknowledged Australia would not have 
signed the Paris Agreement if he hadknown in 2015 that the US would withdraw, 
and that trying to reach nationaltargets would damage the Australian 
economy.Internationally, very few politicians have admittedthe inherent 
failings of the Paris treaty, but the truth is that it was alwaysoversold.This 
begins with the treaty itself, which includesthe fiction that pledges under the 
agreement will somehow keep the planet’stemperature rises to 2C or even 
1.5C.The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show thatachieving it would require 
nothing less than the entire planet abandoning theuse of every fossil fuel by 
February 7, 2021. Given our reliance on fossilfuels, that would mean we stop 
cooling and heating our homes, stop all airtravel, and the world’s farmers stop 
making half the world’s food, producedwith fertiliser almost exclusively made 
from fossil fuels

Re: [geo] Re: Fw: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

As Russ George explained in his interview with The Ecologist, the only reasons 
Nature could say there was a lack of scientific outcomes from the Haida Salmon 
Restoration Project were firstly, that Nature ignored the resulting salmon 
boom, and secondly, that the Canadian Government sent in a SWAT-style team to 
steal and destroy the Haida Salmon data, after bankrolling the project and 
engaging fully with its scientific basis.  
The apparent basis for the persecution of this vital climate restoration 
technology is solely the spurious moral hazard argument that removing carbon 
from the air undermines the incentive for emission reduction.  Russ George was 
an easy political target.  
If people were genuine about the science they would not have arranged for the 
London Protocol to falsely define addition of one cup of fertilizer to a 
hectare of ocean as dumping waste. 
Instead of sending a chilling signal that has stopped scientists and investors 
from engaging with ocean fertilization, people with genuine interest in climate 
restoration would support field trials to test the range of questions that have 
been legitimately raised.  
Oceaneos explains its project at Oceaneos - restoring ocean life | restaurando 
la vida marina showing that all the claims propagated by the ETC activist group 
should be regarded as highly dubious.  I recommend reading the Oceaneos FAQ.
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Oceaneos - restoring ocean life | Frequently Asked Questions
   |   |

  |

  |

 

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Oceaneos - restoring ocean life | restaurando la vida marina
   |   |

  |

  |

 

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Can we remove a trillion tons of carbon from the atmosphere?
 The oceans cover 72 percent of the planet - but are all but ignored in 
discussions about reducing levels of atmo...  |   |

  |

  |

 


  From: Jonah Shaw 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018, 2:52
 Subject: [geo] Re: Fw: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific
   
While the ETC article is clearly written with the intent to disparage ocean 
fertilization projects, it does make many of the same points covered in a more 
nuanced article published last year in Nature.
Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy 
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
 Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, 
but researchers doubt its motives.  |   |

  |

  |

 

On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 5:51:20 AM UTC-5, Florian Rabitz wrote:
I'm genuinely curious how these people plan to obtain carbon credits from ocean 
fertilization - I doubt that there is a single (legit) carbon market that 
accepts OIF offsets. But maybe that's just the kind of stuff you tell to 
potential investors.
Best,Florian
-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Fw: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Hi Russ.  Have you seen this piece of slander?

 
- Forwarded Message -
 From: Greg Rau 
 To: Andrew Lockley ; Carbon Dioxide Removal 
 
 Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018, 15:21
 Subject: Re: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific
   
If adding iron to the ocean is a bad idea, the natural Fe flux to the ocean 
surface is about 50x10^3 tonnes/yr - perhaps we should stop that too. Where's 
the outrage? And what is ETC's better idea?
Greg
 

  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: Carbon Dioxide Removal  
 Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 1:23 PM
 Subject: [CDR] Pirates of the Pacific
  

http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/07/pirates-of-the-pacific/


☰
PIRATES OF THE PACIFIC
JUL 12 2018Paracas National Reserve. Ica, Peru: one of the areas of the Pacific 
targeted by Oceanos.
by Silvia RibeiroThe pirates of marine geoengineering are not giving up easily. 
Although there is a UN moratorium on ocean fertilisation, the company Oceaneos 
wants to experiment with this risky technology in Chile and Peru, despite not 
having permission from the authorities. The company turned up in 2018 at an 
Open Angel investors dinner in Vancouver, Canada, seeking funds for these 
polluting activities as though it was just one more straightforward investment 
opportunity.Giving false information to communities, authorities and investors 
seems to be common practice for the group behind Oceaneos. A number of its 
members were previously part of the company Haida Salmon Restoration 
Corporation (HSRC) that in 2012 carried out the biggest illegal experiment of 
ocean fertilisation in indigenous territory in Haida Gwaii, British Colombia, 
Canada, deceiving the resident Indigenous community. The notorious rogue 
geoengineer Russ George, who previously tried to do a similar experiment in the 
Galápagos Islands, was the scientific director at HSRC.They convinced the 
Indigenous community of Old Masset to commit 2. 5 million dollars to the 
company HSRC, with the promise of increasing the salmon stocks through ocean 
fertilisation and obtaining carbon credits in the process.Oceanos did not tell 
them – or the authorities in Chile and Peru, or the potential investors at the 
Open Angel meeting – that because of the great risks to marine ecosystems and 
food chains, ocean fertilization has been subject to a de facto moratorium 
under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), or that the 2013 
Amendment to the London Protocol on Ocean Dumping has prohibited marine 
geoengineering. Both cases make exceptions for small-scale scientific 
experiments, but these do not qualify for carbon credits.When civil society 
organisations protested the illegal experiment in Haida Gwaii, Canadian 
environmental authorities began a legal investigation that is still ongoing. 
The experiment caused controversy among the Haida people, but when they 
understood the context and the risks, they rejected the project and the 
company.John Disney, part of the Oceaneos team alongside HSRC member Peter 
Gross, managed the Indigenous community’s financial support to HSRC. The 
current President of Oceaneos, Michael Riedijk, was responsible for 
“monetising” the carbon credits to be generated by HSRC’s ocean fertilisation 
activities, through his company Blue Carbon Solutions.In an attempt to distance 
itself from this murky episode in which HRSC was subject to legal questioning, 
Oceaneos changed its company name and activity. Geoengineering with ocean 
fertilisation was rechristened “ocean seeding’. There is no more open talk of 
carbon credits: it is merely a technology to increase fish populations. Before 
it was presented as a magic solution to climate change; now it is the technique 
that will solve the problem of declining ocean fish stocks. However, there is 
still references to the illegal Haida Guaii experiment as evidence of success 
of the technology.In the “Deal Book” presented by Open Angel to the investors 
for the 2018 event, Oceaneos presents itself as a Vancouver-based “Green Tech 
Company, with a unique Ocean Seeding Technology to restore ocean life and bring 
collapsing fish stocks back to historical levels”. In the Company Description 
of the same document, they explain what ocean seeding (ocean fertilization by 
another name) is, and they add: “A first trial project executed by our 
scientific team in British Columbia resulted in an 85% increase in wild fish 
stock with a market value of $ 400 million. Currently [Oceaneos is] raising $ 
10 million to execute two large scale commercial trials in Latin America and 
Asia Pacific”.In Chile, they present themselves as the “Oceaneos Marine 
Research Foundation” but it is evident they stem from the for-profit Canadian 
company Oceaneos Environmental Solutions, which owns numerous patents for ocean 
fertilisation techniques as a means for carbon capture.In Peru, they presented 
themselves directly as a commercial company: Oceaneos Peru S.A.C. They filed 
requests to carry out ocean fertilisation 

[geo] Mitigation terminology

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Dear Mike
On terminology, your use of "mitigation" may reflect common usage but has a 
problem.  Mitigation means slowing climate change, so includes carbon removal. 
Restricting mitigation to slowing emission growth wrongly leaves out the main 
agenda required for climate stability.
Full implementation of Paris by 2030 would only remove 1% of the 6000 GT of 
carbon the world must get out of the air this century to achieve the 2° target, 
according to Bjorn Lomborg.  I have not seen any refutation of his calculation, 
although he is comparing the 14 years of Paris to the 83 years of the century, 
so a like for like comparison might be more like 6%, but still effectively 
nothing, and risking a Permian Great Dying repeat.
By contrast, my calculation is that a Manhattan/Apollo type project to remove 
carbon could remove 200% of emission growth by 2030, putting us back on a path 
to retain the stable Holocene climate, addressing the top security threat 
facing our planet.
Robert Tulip

  From: Michael MacCracken 
 To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com 
Cc: Douglas MacMartin ; Greg Rau 
; geoengineering 
 Sent: Monday, 13 November 2017, 5:42
 Subject: Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth 
exploring.’
   
 Hi Peter--Interesting--a couple of questions that might be covered in the type 
of assessment that you suggest (and I agree) is worth doing: 1. Were the world 
to get serious enough to be taking on the issue in the way you suggest, what 
are the relative costs and benefits of investing the same amount of money and 
effort on mitigation, so not putting the materials into the atmosphere in the 
first place? Would it make more sense to just be investing in CDR research 
until the cost-benefit leans to CDR versus mitigation (and considering other 
effects, such as job creation, etc. (this point/plateau might vary a great deal 
by location, etc.)? 2. Once one captures the C, what does one do with it all? 
Where does one put all the captured CO2? What is the cost of 
disposal/storage/sequestration, etc. and what are the implications and risks of 
the various approaches? Best, Mike
  
 On 11/12/17 6:15 AM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
  
 Hi Mike , 
  The key issue is your sentence  "While CDR can get started now, scaling up 
seems likely to take a bit of time, though this depends mainly on level of 
commitment." .  A serious Manhatten Project Level Project or Going to the moon 
effort would make an assessment of the time versus commitment level for the 
only known solution at this time  that can scale  -DAC where the carbon is 
either stored in a material (carbon fiber or cement and sequestered or 
sequestered directly  The number of units needed are comparable and less  than 
many things we already mass produce by sigificant ratios - a shipping container 
sized unit of GT technology captures 2000 tpy and is amenable to mass 
production .  :For 40 giga tonnes pyr capacity one would need 20 million units 
-there are currently  17 million shipping containers used in the world . Today 
GT has made two such units in a year say which is conservative estimate for 
installed capacity  for the industry as a whole .To make the 20 million  one 
would need would take 22 doublings of capacity. If one had a conservative  2 yr 
doubling time this would take  44 years and if it was a global emergency so one 
had a high doubling time of 1 year it would take us only 22 years to install 40 
gigatonnes per year capacity with us making  4 million units per year at the 
end - we currently make 60 million new cars per year . The capital cost to make 
a DAC 2000 tpy unit is about $500,000 which in the end would cost 2 trillion 
dollars or close to 1 % of GGDP at that time and like solar it would create 
jobs.  My only point is that these are not unreasonable numbers and most 
importantly no one has tried to do a serious assessment , yet many make 
statements as if it is obvious that the needed capacity cannot be reached in a 
timely fashion . But even more significant is that we seem content with a 
research effort rather than an implementation effort yet we claim we are in an 
emergency .   As I am prone to say - the only barrier to CDR to remove the 
needed capacity (we know how to do it and that it is affordable) is to decide 
to do it.  
  Peter         
 On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Michael MacCracken  
wrote:
 
  Hi Peter--You might be interested that at the hearing Rep. Veasey (ranking 
Democratic member on one of the subcommittees at the hearing--see 
https://veasey.house.gov) indicated that he would soon be putting forward a 
bill pursuing CDR research/efforts. He has a Subcommittee on Energy minority 
staffer, Joe Flarida, working on this issue who sounds both quite well-informed 
and also interested in getting input (joe.flar...@mail.house.gov). While there 
was discussion 

Re: [geo] Geostorm

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

r could do something 
interesting that was not so absurdly overdone and said to be an example of the 
env movement being far too alarmist and so the do-nothings can dismiss the 
whole issue.Mike


On 10/26/17 8:35 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:

"Dear Robert--Personally, I'd rather there were a movie focusing on the how the 
world could accomplish aggressive mitigation and necessary adaptation... then 
showing how modest climate engineering could be used to shave the peak warming 
and impacts down further" Thanks Mike McCracken for your thoughtful response to 
my review. Climate documentaries are important but don’t engage a mass 
audience, and can struggle to engage on the strategic issues around 
geoengineering.  Geostorm earned $16m in its first week, released in over 3000 
cinemas. Amid all the entertaining nonsense, it poses the simple serious 
strategic question of whether climate intervention will be needed soon.  
I like that message because mitigation of climate change through emission 
reduction is a pointless failure.  The world is best off just abandoning 
emission reduction as a goal and instead looking to how to use technology to 
remove more carbon from the air than total emissions, with solar radiation 
management as a stopgap.  Field trials of methods like the Iron Salt Aerosol 
dispersion that Frank Dietrich Oeste just mentioned should be championed by 
world political and business leaders.  The system needs the type of shock that 
this fantasy movie helps to send. We live in a Huxleyan Brave New World where 
the majority are made complacent and ignorant by the consumer society.  Most 
people do not engage well with scientific information at the level needed to 
influence politics.  Debating adaptation and mitigation can help to refine 
messages, but does not change many people’s opinion about the need for action, 
especially when the advocacy message oversells the prospect for emission 
reduction to solve climate problems. Before The Flood, a free climate 
documentary made last year by National Geographic and Leonardo DiCaprio, had 
more than sixty million viewers in 2016, but contains the false messages that 
net zero emissions through decarbonisation of the economy should be a goal (we 
need massive negative emissions alongside continued fossil fuel use), and that 
individual footprint actions matter (they don’t).  Such documentaries attract 
people who already have interest and sympathy for the existing failed political 
messages of the climate lobby, and do little to address the blockages of social 
polarisation or the business drivers for increased emissions.Aggressive 
mitigation through steep emission cuts faces immense political obstacles 
demonstrated by the US Paris withdrawal and business resistance.  And even if 
somehow emission reduction was achieved at large scale, it would do little to 
stop warming, since it only slows CO2 growth rather than removing carbon.  
Germany is spending nearly a trillion euros on emission reduction but only 
expects to achieve 80% of its 2020 target.  Those subsidies should shift to 
technological R as Lomborg advocates. To stop global warming we need 
geoengineering, primarily oceanic carbon mining. As well as addressing the 
cause of global warming and acid at the source rather than just patching 
symptoms, carbon removal has the advantage over SRM that it is likely to prove 
safer and more politically palatable, especially as commercially profitable 
methods are developed under sound governance regimes. My rough estimate is that 
emission mitigation can remove about 1% as much carbon as carbon mining could 
over the next decade.  So to put most of our eggs in the tiny basket of 
emission reduction and almost none in the big basket of carbon reduction is 
stupid.  Geostorm helps prepare for a more serious political debate on the need 
for SRM trials as a climate band-aid.  Its real value could then be in helping 
shift popular attitudes on the primary need for the only long-term escape 
route, finding profitable ways to remove excess carbon from the air.  Noting 
your comments about the failure and spin of the IPCC makes me feel that Trump’s 
withdrawal from Paris could perversely have the good effect of shaking up the 
debate to make it more realistic, perhaps even lifting the appalling UN 
informal ‘fatwa’ on geoengineering. I think you misread the politics 
ofGeostorm.  The big takeaway is that the world community in the very near 
future will decide that climate change is so bad and dangerous that drastic 
steps are needed, with real practical change rather than the failed political 
spin agreed at Paris.  And the next message from this movie is that we should 
start now, since waiting to respond to a crisis carries too many risks.     
Robert Tulip

From: Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; "rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu" 
<rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>; "geoengineeri

Re: [geo] Geostorm

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

ive mitigation and necessary adaptation to avoid 
the very serious projected impacts of business as usual (including the limited 
reduction with the present Paris commitments), and then showing how modest 
climate engineering could be used to shave the peak warming and impacts down 
further, with SRM being phased back out as further mitigation and CDR pull the 
GHG loading back down to less than 350 ppm CO2e or so. Without some good 
indication of where we need to go, it will be hard for the public and 
decision-makers to have a sense of the closing escape route from the path we 
are on. The draft IPCC 1.5 report really fails to make all of this clear. They 
label their pathways by its eventual stabilization level, so a 1.5 pathway can 
allow the temperature to go up to 4 C or so if it eventually comes back to 1.5 
C. And then, without really talking about the seriousness of a prolonged 1.5 C 
world, there is an acceptance of long-term stabilization at 1.5 C because that 
will be a less bad world than a 2 C world. In a 1.5 C world, there will be real 
damage to species and landscape  and also to many, many of the most vulnerable 
in the world given what they experience will likely be more than the global 
average. Those most at risk should be clamoring far more than the leaders of 
the island nations who got the Paris Accord expressing a goal of 1.5 C as the 
resulting pace of sea level rise and then also ocean acidification at the 
associated CO2 concentration level will likely be quite serious. I really don't 
see how an absurd fantasy movie based on misusing and misrepresenting the 
tourniquet the would needs to deal with the true situation that we face can 
really help in advancing the discussion of how to work through the delicate and 
combined application of the range of approaches that need to be applied to 
avoid the rapidly worsening situation that we are in. Somehow suggesting that 
climate engineering is at all likely to lead to much, much  worse consequences 
than not using it just seems not helpful at all.
  Mike MacCracken 
  
  On 10/25/17 8:40 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:
  
  Geostorm deserves to be a smash hit. 
  In watching an action fantasy world apocalypse movie like Geostorm, a 
temptation for the cynical can be to just see the surface appearance.  First a 
village mysteriously freezes solid in an instant in Afghanistan, then the 
streets of Hong Kong erupt in flaming explosions sending skyscrapers collapsing 
like dominoes while a driver miraculously escapes through the rippling volcanic 
chasms opening around him.  And next the bikini babes on Copacabana turn to 
blocks of ice as a super cold front somehow pushes a tsunami onto the Rio 
beachfront.  
  The cause of the disasters is problems with geoengineering satellites 
deployed in 2019.  But is this just a programming malfunction? If not, who are 
the baddies who have sabotaged the world weather management system run by the 
USA? Why and how did they do it, and how can they be stopped?  Who is the rogue 
on board the geoengineering space station? Will the clock that he started tick 
down to zero, causing a geostorm, a fiery end to life on earth?  Will the US 
President die in the robot car chase through massive lightning bolts hitting 
every second? Will the hero return from exile, and will he survive on the space 
station? Will his brother get the girl?  Which city is next? 
  Such plot details are classic Hollywood formula.  This movie combines amazing 
disaster scenes, excellent visuals and production, a strong simple plot, a 
vivid range of characters and great acting into a gripping thriller. Geostorm 
is full of tension and drama and surprise and new ideas down to the wire. It is 
a worthy popular successor to Independence Day and Godzilla, which were both 
also produced by the Geostorm producer/director Dean Devlin.  
  Geostorm deserves to be a smash hit for a serious reason though.  This movie 
makes an important and well considered contribution to advancing policy debate 
on response to climate change.  The question raised at the start is how to 
address the threat that global warming could destroy the world economy. This 
explicitly raises the need for urgent concerted technological response to avert 
catastrophe, since previous methods focused on emission reduction have failed.  
 
  The movie deliberately chooses an impossible geoengineering technology, 
aiming to blend the topical ideas of weather management and space travel to 
create a science fiction fantasy. But the risk parable is equally applicable to 
realistic geoengineering proposals, ranging from solar radiation management to 
large scale ocean based algae production for carbon mining.  Any large scale 
climate intervention needs proper risk management if it is to help forestall 
the impending climate impacts.   
  In a nod to human corruption, the plot raises the risk of weaponizing a 
peaceful technology, evoking the failed military St

Re: [geo] Geostorm

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Geostorm deserves to be a smash hit.


In watching an action fantasy world apocalypse movie like Geostorm, a 
temptation forthe cynical can be to just see the surface appearance.  First a 
village mysteriously freezes solid inan instant in Afghanistan, then the 
streets of Hong Kong erupt in flamingexplosions sending skyscrapers collapsing 
like dominoes while a drivermiraculously escapes through the rippling volcanic 
chasms opening around him.  And next the bikini babes on Copacabana turnto 
blocks of ice as a super cold front somehow pushes a tsunami onto the 
Riobeachfront. 


The cause of the disasters is problems with geoengineeringsatellites deployed 
in 2019.  But is thisjust a programming malfunction? If not, who are the 
baddies who have sabotagedthe world weather management system run by the USA? 
Why and how did they do it,and how can they be stopped?  Who is therogue on 
board the geoengineering space station? Will the clock that he startedtick down 
to zero, causing a geostorm, a fiery end to life on earth?  Will the US 
President die in the robot carchase through massive lightning bolts hitting 
every second? Will the hero returnfrom exile, and will he survive on the space 
station? Will his brother get thegirl?  Which city is next?


Such plot details are classic Hollywood formula.  This movie combines amazing 
disaster scenes,excellent visuals and production, a strong simple plot, a vivid 
range of charactersand great acting into a gripping thriller. Geostorm is full 
of tension and dramaand surprise and new ideas down to the wire. It is a worthy 
popular successorto Independence Day and Godzilla, which were both also 
produced by the Geostormproducer/director Dean Devlin. 


Geostorm deserves to be a smash hit for a serious reasonthough.  This movie 
makes an important andwell considered contribution to advancing policy debate 
on response to climatechange.  The question raised at the startis how to 
address the threat that global warming could destroy the world economy.This 
explicitly raises the need for urgent concerted technological response to 
avertcatastrophe, since previous methods focused on emission reduction have 
failed.  


The movie deliberately chooses an impossible geoengineering technology,aiming 
to blend the topical ideas of weather management and space travel tocreate a 
science fiction fantasy. But the risk parable is equally applicable to 
realisticgeoengineering proposals, ranging from solar radiation management to 
largescale ocean based algae production for carbon mining.  Any large scale 
climate intervention needs properrisk management if it is to help forestall the 
impending climate impacts.  


In a nod to human corruption, the plot raises the risk of weaponizinga peaceful 
technology, evoking the failed military Star Wars Initiative idea ofdeath from 
the skies.  And recognisinghuman fallibility, Geostorm asks if this magical 
system installed bytechnological geniuses at the last minute will become like 
Goethe’s Sorcerer’sApprentice, producing uncontrollable and unforeseen damage.  


The movie explores the real risk of whether a technologicalfix to mitigate 
extreme weather could be built too quickly under politicalimperatives. The need 
to respond to weather events that destroy whole cities couldmean decisions will 
be made by politicians who will not take on board the bestinformation.  The 
rapid deployment thenopens the unsettling policy risks of how such a system 
could be corrupted andmisused for political motives, how it could sideline the 
high ideals of globalscientific cooperation in favour of national or commercial 
interests.  And then, with the process alreadycompromised, could the resulting 
security gaps, political appointments and weakgovernance systems risk 
manipulation by criminals who don’t have a clue aboutthe science of what they 
are doing, and who lack concern about the scale ofdamage they might cause?


The need for geoengineering means these issues should alreadybe big questions 
in world politics today. Unfortunately they are not, becausethe dominant 
attitude is that if we ignore or deny climate change or only acceptunworkable 
responses the problem will go away. With CO2 level continuing togrow apace, the 
risk is that far from going away, the problems will go awry. 


Emission reduction alone cannot hold temperature rise thiscentury below four 
degrees Celsius, so technological fixes are essential.  Putting on an alarmist 
hat, it seems possiblethat failure to deploy geoengineering could even make the 
current sixth worldextinction event rival the mass death that ended the Permian 
Age 252 millionyears ago.  That seems to be the partly unconsciousapocalyptic 
worry driving popular interest in movies like Geostorm.  


Geoengineering is absolutely necessary and urgent forclimate stability.  We 
need world leadersto take up the ideas implied by this movie, through large 
scale funding of laband field trials looking to select and 

Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Dear AndrewThank you very much for bringing this potential problem with Deep 
Ocean Water as an algae nutrient source to attention. I would like to find out 
more about the possible mechanism that you allude to.  I looked again at the 
2005 IPCC paper on Ocean Storage led by Professor Caldeira but did not find 
anything to support your reference.  If more recent work shows that raising DOW 
could cause warming I would like to see it.  I am following up other responses 
to my comments directly with their authors. Robert Tulip

  From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
 To: Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>; geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Friday, 8 September 2017, 10:47
 Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
   
Caldeira et al showed that moving water in this way causes warming.
A
On 8 Sep 2017 00:15, "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering" 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Thanks Cristoph.Deep Ocean Water, with volume about a billion cubic kilometres 
below the thermocline, has about three ppm nitrate and phosphate, about 3000 
cubic kilometres of each, as I understand the numbers. Tidal pumping arrays 
along the world's continental shelves could raise enough DOW to the surface, 
mimicking natural algae blooms, to fuel controlled algae production at the 
scale required for seven million square kilometres of factories.  Piping CO2 
from power plants etc out to ocean algae farms could clean up all the polluted 
air of the world.Robert Tulip

  From: Christoph Voelker <christoph.voel...@awi.de>
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups. com 
 Sent: Friday, 8 September 2017, 8:43
 Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
  
 I must admit that I am getting skeptical when I hear numbers in that order of 
magnitude: 
  The total net primary production in the oceans presently is about 50 Gt 
carbon, and 80% of that is converted back into inorganic carbon (and nutrients) 
by heterotrophs before it gets a chance to sink out from the sunlit upper layer 
of the ocean. The roughly 10 Gt carbon (some newer works even estimate just 6 
Gt carbon) that sink out have to be balanced by the upward mixing of nutrients 
(and a little bit by atmospheric deposition of bioavailable nitrogen and 
phosphorus) in the Redfield ratio of about 106:16:1 of C:N:P. 
  So, if you want to remove 20 Gt carbon per year from the atmosphere, you'd 
have to increase the nutrient supply to the total surface ocean by a factor of 
three, maybe four. Maybe I am a bit too pessimistic here, because there are 
species like Sargassum which have a higher C:N:P ratio than the average 
phytoplankton, so you get somewhat more carbon per nitrogen/phosphorus. But 
even if it is just doubling, I can't imagine that you can sustain such a 
nutrient consumption by fertilizing from outside the ocean (especially since 
phosphorus is scarce already now), you'd have to tap into the inorganic 
nutrients stored in the deep ocean. How long can you do that? 
  If we assume that we harvest all the 20 Gt carbon in algae from these 
factories and do something durable with them (to minimize lossed through 
heterotrophy and problems with creating oxygen minimum zones), we effectively 
remove nitrogen/phosphorus from the ocean. How much is that per year? 
  Let us for simplicity assume Redfield ratios, I grant errors by a factor of 
two or so. 20 Gt carbon then corresponds to (20 g/12(g/mol)/6.625(molC/molN))* 
1.0e15 or about 2.5e14 mol nitrogen. The ocean has a volume of 1.33e18 m^3, and 
the average concentration of available nitrogen (mostly nitrate) is 30 
micromol/L or mmol/m^3 (calculated from the world ocean atlas), most of that is 
in the deep ocean. This gives a total inventory of 4.0e16 mol nitrogen. 2.5e14 
mol/year is thus more than half of a percent of the total available nitrogen in 
the world oceans, which means you could try that for about 150 years, then 
everything is gone At that pace, nitrogen fixers are unlikely to resupply the 
loss (nowaday, the residence time of nitrogen is roughly 5000 years), and they 
can do that only for nitrogen, not for phosphorus  anyway. Letting 
technological problems aside (like: How do you move 2.5% of the total nitrogen 
in the world oceans evry year up to an area 2% of the ocean surface) I would 
call the whole idea - at least that the scale suggested - a prime example of an 
unsustainable process.  
  Best regards, 
  Christoph Voelker
  
 On 07.09.17 23:37, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:
  
 
 The assumption behind the NYT interactive model that the upper bound for 
carbon removal is 12 GT CO2 by 2080 is too slow and small.  We should think 
five times as much and five times as fast.   Immediate aggressive investment to 
build industrial algae factories at sea could remove twenty gigatons of carbon 
(50 GT CO2) from the air per year by 2030, using 2% of the ocean surfa

Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Thanks Cristoph.Deep Ocean Water, with volume about a billion cubic kilometres 
below the thermocline, has about three ppm nitrate and phosphate, about 3000 
cubic kilometres of each, as I understand the numbers. Tidal pumping arrays 
along the world's continental shelves could raise enough DOW to the surface, 
mimicking natural algae blooms, to fuel controlled algae production at the 
scale required for seven million square kilometres of factories.  Piping CO2 
from power plants etc out to ocean algae farms could clean up all the polluted 
air of the world.Robert Tulip

  From: Christoph Voelker <christoph.voel...@awi.de>
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, 8 September 2017, 8:43
 Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
   
 I must admit that I am getting skeptical when I hear numbers in that order of 
magnitude: 
  The total net primary production in the oceans presently is about 50 Gt 
carbon, and 80% of that is converted back into inorganic carbon (and nutrients) 
by heterotrophs before it gets a chance to sink out from the sunlit upper layer 
of the ocean. The roughly 10 Gt carbon (some newer works even estimate just 6 
Gt carbon) that sink out have to be balanced by the upward mixing of nutrients 
(and a little bit by atmospheric deposition of bioavailable nitrogen and 
phosphorus) in the Redfield ratio of about 106:16:1 of C:N:P. 
  So, if you want to remove 20 Gt carbon per year from the atmosphere, you'd 
have to increase the nutrient supply to the total surface ocean by a factor of 
three, maybe four. Maybe I am a bit too pessimistic here, because there are 
species like Sargassum which have a higher C:N:P ratio than the average 
phytoplankton, so you get somewhat more carbon per nitrogen/phosphorus. But 
even if it is just doubling, I can't imagine that you can sustain such a 
nutrient consumption by fertilizing from outside the ocean (especially since 
phosphorus is scarce already now), you'd have to tap into the inorganic 
nutrients stored in the deep ocean. How long can you do that? 
  If we assume that we harvest all the 20 Gt carbon in algae from these 
factories and do something durable with them (to minimize lossed through 
heterotrophy and problems with creating oxygen minimum zones), we effectively 
remove nitrogen/phosphorus from the ocean. How much is that per year? 
  Let us for simplicity assume Redfield ratios, I grant errors by a factor of 
two or so. 20 Gt carbon then corresponds to (20 
g/12(g/mol)/6.625(molC/molN))*1.0e15 or about 2.5e14 mol nitrogen. The ocean 
has a volume of 1.33e18 m^3, and the average concentration of available 
nitrogen (mostly nitrate) is 30 micromol/L or mmol/m^3 (calculated from the 
world ocean atlas), most of that is in the deep ocean. This gives a total 
inventory of 4.0e16 mol nitrogen. 2.5e14 mol/year is thus more than half of a 
percent of the total available nitrogen in the world oceans, which means you 
could try that for about 150 years, then everything is gone At that pace, 
nitrogen fixers are unlikely to resupply the loss (nowaday, the residence time 
of nitrogen is roughly 5000 years), and they can do that only for nitrogen, not 
for phosphorus  anyway. Letting technological problems aside (like: How do you 
move 2.5% of the total nitrogen in the world oceans evry year up to an area 2% 
of the ocean surface) I would call the whole idea - at least that the scale 
suggested - a prime example of an unsustainable process.  
  Best regards, 
  Christoph Voelker
  
 On 07.09.17 23:37, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:
  
 
 The assumption behind the NYT interactive model that the upper bound for 
carbon removal is 12 GT CO2 by 2080 is too slow and small.  We should think 
five times as much and five times as fast.   Immediate aggressive investment to 
build industrial algae factories at sea could remove twenty gigatons of carbon 
(50 GT CO2) from the air per year by 2030, using 2% of the ocean surface, 
funded by use of the produced algae.   That would stabilise the climate and 
enable no change in emission trajectories, a policy result that would satisfy 
both the needs of the climate and the traditional economy. Robert Tulip  
 
From: Eric Durbrow <durb...@gmail.com>
 To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
 Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 3:13
 Subject: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
  
  #yiv1081158045 body{font-family:Helvetica, Arial;font-size:13px;}  
  FYI There is a slick interactive graphic at the NYTimes that lets people see 
if they can meet the world’s carbon budget restriction but a combination of 
reduced emissions AND achieving Carbon Removal.  
  At  
  
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/29/opinion/climate-change-carbon-budget.html?action=click=Homepage=story-heading=opinion-c-col-right-region=opinion-c-col-right-region=opinion-c-col-right-region
 
  I failed after clicking on Reduce in all geographic

Re: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The assumption behind the NYTinteractive model that the upper bound for carbon 
removal is 12 GT CO2 by2080 is too slow and small.  We should think five times 
as muchand five times as fast.  Immediateaggressive investment to build 
industrial algae factories at sea could removetwenty gigatons of carbon (50 GT 
CO2) from the air per year by 2030, using 2%of the ocean surface, funded by use 
of the produced algae.  That would stabilise the climate and enableno change in 
emission trajectories, a policy result that would satisfy both theneeds of the 
climate and the traditional economy.Robert Tulip 



  From: Eric Durbrow 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 3:13
 Subject: [geo] Carbon budget/removal in NYTimes interactive
   
#yiv3066183641 body{font-family:Helvetica, Arial;font-size:13px;}
FYI There is a slick interactive graphic at the NYTimes that lets people see if 
they can meet the world’s carbon budget restriction but a combination of 
reduced emissions AND achieving Carbon Removal. 
At 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/29/opinion/climate-change-carbon-budget.html?action=click=Homepage=story-heading=opinion-c-col-right-region=opinion-c-col-right-region=opinion-c-col-right-region
I failed after clicking on Reduce in all geographic areas and Achieve in Carbon 
Removal. 



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Humans add about ten cubic kilometres of carbon to the air every year.  The 
ocean is about a billion cubic kilometres in size.  Storing all the added 
annual carbon in the sea would add 0.01% to the size of the sea, if the CO2 
could be converted to pure carbon.  A better storage location might be tarring 
all the roads of Asia, using bitumen made from ocean produced algae,Robert 
Tulip .

  From: Peter Eisenberger 
 To: Klaus Lackner  
Cc: Robert H. Socolow ; Greg Rau ; 
Geoengineering ; "vcar...@umich.edu" 

 Sent: Saturday, 26 August 2017, 10:17
 Subject: Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for 
mitigation policies
   
On the question of whether there is enough storage capacity to accomodate the 
amount of carbon we need remove in human infrastructure I would like to point 
out that the answer is not a matter of some constraint because as far as I know 
there is no limit to the useful carbon based infrastructure one could build. 
Since the building  of infrastructure is known to have the largest positive 
feedback in terms of its social return on capital employed the more 
infrastructure we build the more jobs there will be , the more poverty will be 
eliminated (see attached paper) .  A good example of a different way of 
thinking about  carbon based infrastructure is that carbon  based buildings can 
be much taller allowing for more space to provide living space without 
consuming more land area. Architects I talk to alrady recognize that carbon 
fiber will revolutionize our buildings and of course our transportation system 
as well. Less well appreciated is the carbon based technlogy is likley in the 
longer term to replace silicon. Of course all our chemicals and pharmecuticals 
are also carbon based and all of them can be made starting from gaseous CO2. 
But my point is that using Co2 from the air removes the classic problem that 
has plaqued our natural resource economy where there are mal distribution of 
resources and limits to their availabiity.I once asked my Princeton Economic 
Professor what prevents our economy from being a big posey scheme -the more 
people buy the more jobs there are the more people have income to buy etc his 
answer was resource constraint that would eventually raise the cost and today 
he would add the cost to our environment. In the attached paper is a formal 
argument how having an economy that does not have constraints and does not have 
environmental costs formally enables this postive feedback economy. A simple 
way to make this point is that in nature an ecosystem that uses more sun , more 
water and more CO2 is a tropical forest -nature propers - I argue we are part 
of nature and will also prosper if we make our in puts renewable energy , water 
and co2 from the air. 
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Klaus Lackner  wrote:

Let me clarify a point.  CCS is not just geological storage, it is not just 
point source capture at power plants and CCS in my view is necessary to balance 
the books.  If we do not capture CO2 and store it safely and permanently, we 
will not manage 2 degrees.  We may make 5 degrees without it.  Unlike Peter, I 
am not sure that we have enough infrastructure to hold the carbon we need to 
hold.  I am very open to all sorts of strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. If we 
do, that would be great, if not we end up storing the carbon we get from 
somewhere. I very much doubt that this somewhere includes many old coal plants. 
 I very much doubt that retrofitting of coal plants is what will save us.  
First there are not enough of them, and second we haven’t figured out how to do 
it cost-effectively.  I think we have to seriously consider the possibility 
that fossil fuels will keep playing a role in the future.  But I also want to 
be very clear that looking to retrofitting old coal plants is a lousy insurance 
policy.  In my view it will simply not work. At the same time, I understand the 
conundrum of the old coal plants, which is mainly a problem for their owners.  
I also realize that many of these “old” coal plants outside of the United 
States are brand new coal plants and therefore would under normal circumstances 
have a 50 to 70 year life span left.  They are only “old” in the sense that 
they have been built already and are running.  They result in a locked in 
amount of future CO2 emissions. Eliminating these emission means shutting them 
down.  The hope is that we can remove 70% of their carbon footprint by 
retrofitting them with scrubbers and CCS. I doubt this will work. This makes a 
2 degree strategy very difficult.  I also agree with you that our strategy 
should not be 2 degree or bust, we should figure out how to stop warming as 
expeditiously as we can.  In part, this will depend on the political will to 
deal with the 

[geo] Can Seaweed Save the World? Australian Television Program

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 
Can Seaweed Save the World?


 
Thisprogram aired on Tuesday, 22 August 2017 on the ABC Catalyst ScienceShow.  
It can be viewed at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4722454.htm  
Transcript Downloadvideo: mp4 | Watchon iview
 
ABC Summary: “ProfessorTim Flannery investigates how seaweed is helping to save 
the world - fromgrowing the foods of the future, helping clean polluted water 
and evencombating climate change.  Growingseaweed is now a ten billion dollar a 
year global industry. Tim travels toKorea to see some of the biggest seaweed 
farms in the world and meets thescientists who are hoping to create a seaweed 
revolution here in Australia.”

  

Comment

Thisprogram is an essential milestone in the movement of carbon removal into 
the centreof the climate debate. The scale of potential seaweed production at 
sea, andthe range of storage and profitable commodity options, mean that 
industrialseaweed production is the best option for a scalable method to 
stabilise theplanetary climate by removing carbon from the air. Flannery cites 
the work ofOcean Foresters that found “if you cover 9% of the world ocean in 
seaweedfarms, you could offset all of current emissions.” 

Theprogram starts by discussing the range of technological innovations 
occurringin North Queensland, interviewing Professor Rocky de Nys of James 
CookUniversity, who is leading research on seaweed as a profitable method to 
removenutrient pollution that is harming the Great Barrier Reef, using the 
produced seaweedfor food, biochar fertilizer, reduction of cattle methane 
emissions and to growfish. De Nys observes that the lack of structure in 
seaweed enables it to growfar faster than any terrestrial plant, with major 
productivity benefits.

Next PiaWinberg explains the high value nutraceutical, plastic, food and carbon 
removalpotential of seaweed.  Then Dr Flannery visits South Korea, where 
theInternational Seaweed Expo illustrates the current large scale and 
lift-offpotential once the industry goes pelagic.  He visits the small islandof 
Wando which produces a million tons of seaweed a year, and could roll out 
onoceanic scale once nutrient supply is developed. That problem should be 
simpleto solve as noted below, since wave energy can pump rich water from below 
thethermocline. Such farms could remove an estimated 160,000 tons of carbon 
persquare kilometre, either sending it to long term storage on the ocean floor 
orusing it for stable construction storage such as bricks.  But in atelling 
comment, Professor Ik Kyo Chung explains that “everyone wants to dosome 
terrestrial environment like trees.” The barrier is political - the 
carboncapture industry suffers from terrestrial bias, ignoring how seaweed 
grown atsea has much greater technical and economic potential than trees, and 
does notcompete with other higher value uses of the space.

A marinepermaculture solution to some of the engineering problems, using wind 
and waveand solar to pump ocean nutrient to the surface, is being developed by 
Dr BrianHerzen of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. With ocean sediments 
alreadynaturally storing millions of tons of seaweed carbon each year, speeding 
upthis process offers excellent prospects.

AdamBumpus explains research status on conversion to bricks, and the potential 
forseaweed to address global food security.

Flannerycomments that “when transformative new ideas grip the world, the 
changes theycreate can happen quickly.”

My reviewof Flannery’s recent book Sunlight and Seaweed is here.

 

RobertTulip

RelatedInfo

Feeding seaweed to cows to reduce methane levels

Prof Rocky de Nys looks at applied algal biotechnologies

The unique Wando Seaweeds Expo

Seagrasses, saltmarshes and mangrovesas a climate change solution

 


 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] The international politics of geoengineering

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The problem with the supposed “Plan A” of global agreementon mitigation is that 
it cannot possibly deliver climate stability.  All the Paris commitments can 
only reduceexpected warming by a fraction of a degree. The withdrawal of 
America and the duplicity of other Paris signatoriesmean even that minimal 
impact is not realistic. Emission reduction faces insuperable political and 
economic barriers. Likea mirage, emission goals will evaporate as they are 
approached. Putting eggs inthe emission reduction basket condemns the world to 
worsening conflict,dislocation and loss of biodiversity.  Theinstability and 
risk of a four degree warmer world is inevitable under theglobal agreement 
path.  Research anddevelopment of new technology to remove carbon from the air 
at a larger scalethan total emissions should be Plan A. Large scale ocean based 
algae production could achieve that goal.

Robert Tulip 



  From: CE News 
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2017, 22:53
 Subject: [geo] The international politics of geoengineering
   
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0967010617704142  Corry, Olaf 
(2017): The international politics of geoengineering. The feasibility of Plan B 
for tackling climate change. In Security Dialogue 48 (4), pp. 297–315. DOI: 
10.1177/0967010617704142.  AbstractGeoengineering technologies aim to make 
large-scale and deliberate interventions in the climate system possible. A 
typical framing is that researchers are exploring a ‘Plan B’ in case mitigation 
fails to avert dangerous climate change. Some options are thought to have the 
potential to alter the politics of climate change dramatically, yet in 
evaluating whether they might ultimately reduce climate risks, their political 
and security implications have so far not been given adequate prominence. This 
article puts forward what it calls the ‘security hazard’ and argues that this 
could be a crucial factor in determining whether a technology is able, 
ultimately, to reduce climate risks. Ideas about global governance of 
geoengineering rely on heroic assumptions about state rationality and a 
generally pacific international system. Moreover, if in a climate engineered 
world weather events become something certain states can be made directly 
responsible for, this may also negatively affect prospects for ‘Plan A’, i.e. 
an effective global agreement on mitigation.   -- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet” | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

It is surprising that a professor of physics at Oxford could state "If we emit 
a trillion tons of carbon  ... most of that warming will still be around in 
10,000 years."  
Carbon Removal, either by sequestering and storing carbon or converting it into 
useful products at larger scale than total emissions, would mean that all of 
that warming would not still be around in ten thousand years. 
If instead of a focus on emission reduction, the world just focused on removing 
the extra carbon, preferably using algae to convert it into useful products, 
addressing global warming would be simpler, quicker and cheaper.
Why do people on the IPCC continue to peddle this mistruth about the permanency 
of emissions?
Robert Tulip

  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2017, 3:50
 Subject: [geo] The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet” | Bulletin 
of the Atomic Scientists
   
http://thebulletin.org/trouble-geoengineers-%E2%80%9Chacking-planet%E2%80%9D10858
FacebookTwitterLinkedInPinterestYouTubeGoogle+SearchMENU    
   - 
   - 
   -   
  - The John A. Simpson Archive
  - About John A. Simpson

   -   
  - Agree to Disagree
  - Analysis
  - Columnists
  - Development and Disarmament Roundtable
  - Explain This
  - Multimedia
  - Nuclear Notebook
  - Opinion
  - Reports
  - Nuclear Roundup
  - What We're Reading
  - Voices of Tomorrow

   - 
   -   
  - Biosecurity
  - Climate Change
  - Nuclear Energy
  - Nuclear Weapons

   -   
  - Background and Mission
  - Staff
  - Science and Security Board
  - Board of Sponsors
  - Governing Board
  - Media Center
  - Columnists
  - Next Generation Program
  - 2016 Annual Report
  - 2015 Annual Report
  - Donor Information
  - Open Positions
  - Write for The Bulletin
  - Contact Us

   -   
  - Current time
  - Timeline
  - Multimedia
  - FAQ
  - Museum exhibit


You are here
   
   - Home › 
   - Features › 
   - Analysis › 
   - The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet”
ANALYSIS23 JUNE 2017
The trouble with geoengineers “hacking the planet”
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
Ray-pierrehumbert1.jpg

RAYMOND T. PIERREHUMBERT
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is Halley Professor of Physics at the University of 
Oxford. He was a lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, and co-author 
on several...MoreSUBSCRIBEFOLLOWGeoengineering seems to be the new darling idea 
making the rounds of the science and technology media. But what is 
geoengineering? Loosely speaking, the term refers to deliberate manipulation of 
the Earth’s ecosystem so as to achieve some desired climate effect—usually a 
cooling to offset the effects of human-caused global warming. Many researchers 
who have studied the subject are uncomfortable with the word “engineering” 
applied to meddling with a system we still understand rather poorly, so other 
terms—such as “Hacking the planet”—have come into play. In National Research 
Council reports on the subject, of which I was a co-author, we settled on the 
term “Climate Intervention,” which carries less freight in assuming that the 
undertaking will necessarily achieve the desired end.Climate intervention comes 
in two main flavors. One is albedo (i.e., reflectivity) modification, which 
involves putting something in the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back out 
into space. The other is carbon dioxide removal and sequestration, which 
involves removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stowing it somewhere 
where it will hopefully stay put for a few thousand years. The latter technique 
is relatively benign, though highly technologically challenging. It is albedo 
modification, which has some truly terrifying implications, which I will be 
concerned with here.Geoengineering in the news. Albedo modification has been 
mooted as the savior of the Great Barrier Reef. The Christian Science Monitor 
wonders if it’s time to re-engineer our climate. MIT’s Technology Review 
basically thinks the answer is “yes,” having described it earlier as “cheap and 
easy.” The Atlantic seems quite smitten with Economist writer Oliver Morton’s 
vision of remaking the planet, which geoengineering booster Jane Long 
breathlessly called “geopoetry.”  The idea received recent coverage (much of it 
favorable) by New Scientist, NBC, and in TED talks; I myself have recently 
participated in an NPR panel discussion  on the subject.Too many science 
writers have been suckered in by one of two seductive narratives, which make 
for easy copy and a ready-made lead. One is the panic attack: After noting 
(with justifiable alarm) the woefully insufficient progress on reducing carbon 
dioxide emissions, the storyline goes that it’s time to get ready for albedo 
modification as a fallback measure, or in other words a bad idea 

[geo] Paris Pledges

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

DearDr Burns

Thankyou for the link to the clarification by MIT’s Dr Reilly of his2015 
statement about the Paris Accord that “those pledges shave 0.2 Cof warming if 
they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessedwould have been 
the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020]based on earlier 
international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun,”


I do not see how mystatement that “all Paris commitments would only 
reducewarming by 0.2 degrees” mischaracterises Dr Reilly’s point.  “All Paris 
commitments” mean those newly madein Paris.  They do not include theprevious 
commitments or possible future commitments that Dr Reilly cited in 
hisexplanation that emission reduction efforts could be greater than just the 
Parispledges.


RobertTulip 

  From: Wil Burns 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Sunday, 11 June 2017, 23:01
 Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering fears make scrutiny of ocean seeding test 
vital | New Scientist
   
While I won't wade into the OIF controversy (at least right now), I think it's 
important to note that Robert's characterization of the MIT study's conclusions 
about the impacts of the Paris Agreement is, in itself, a mischaracterization. 
See: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/trump-used-our-research-to-justify-pulling-out-of-the-paris-agreement-he-got-it-wrong/?utm_term=.f70b18f5c27a.
 Donald Trump cited this study as one of his justifications to withdraw from 
Paris, and I thought the researchers did an excellent job of explaining why 
this interpretation was incorrect.
Moreover, the stocktaking and review provisions of the Paris are designed to 
ensure that the level of Party commitments increase over time (see, 
particularly, Arts. 4(3), 4(9) and Art. 14, so taking a snapshot of what 
Nationally Determined Contributions will yield by 2100 based on current NDCs is 
misleading. I also don't think it makes sense for the geoengineering community 
to denigrate Paris as a justification for geoengineering. wil

|  Dr. Wil Burns
 Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, School of 
International Service, American University  |
|  650.281.9126 | w...@feronia.org | http://www.ceassessment.org | Skype: 
wil.burns |
 2650 Haste St., Towle Hall #G07, Berkeley, CA 94720| View my research on my 
SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348  |


On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:49:04 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/ article/2133372- geoengineering-fears-make- 
scrutiny-of-ocean-seeding- test-vital/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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Geoengineering fears make scrutiny of ocean seeding test vital | New Scientist

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

In amplifying the observation that New Scientist magazine was guilty 
of"mischaracterising” the evidence of benefits from the Haida Ocean 
IronFertilization Project, the blog of Russ George is a helpful source which 
the NewScientist journalist could have easily used. Here are some informative 
comments on the science.



http://russgeorge.net/2014/06/23/worlds-first-commercial-scale-ocean-pasture-restoration/describes
 the project and says that as a result of the OIF work “theSE Alaska Pink catch 
in the fall of 2013 was a stunning 226.3 millionfish. This when a high number 
of 50 million fish were expected.” Thatis 450% of the catch that fishery 
scientists expected. 
http://russgeorge.net/2013/10/28/fish-came-back-next-day/describes the simple 
program logic: “everywhere from Alaska to the lower 48,baby salmon that swam 
out to sea, instead of mostly starving were treated to afeast on newly vibrant 
ocean pastures where once they could neither thrive norsurvive. They grew and 
grew and before too long they swam back to our rivers ahundred million strong.” 
 



http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/25/six-year-look-at-ne-pacific-blooms/provides 
satellite images showing the exact plankton growth impact of the OIF program.At 
http://russgeorge.net/2014/07/10/salmon-counts-break-records-alaska-columbia-river/Russ
 George says “This story and science of Pacific salmon numbers being at 
orbreaking historic abundance is of course related to my 2012 ocean 
‘salmon’pasture restoration.  Keep in mind that the context of salmon 
projectionsis based on the collective wisdom of scores of reporting scientists 
in many institutionswho have for decades been making salmon forecasts that have 
been traditionallyvery accurate with regard to salmon returns in the region.” 



Seeing this media “mischaracterising” by New Scientist magazine at work,it is 
useful to look at the history of lies that have attended media hostilityto this 
simple successful ocean experiment. See for example 
http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/22/lies-damned-lies-and-the-liars-who-tell-them/on
 the fictional narrative promulgated about the project by Jim Thomas of theETC 
Group and Martin Lukacs of the Guardian that caused the outrage and drovethe 
baseless UN CBD ban.



But it is far worse than that. 
http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/30/swat-team-swarms-village-science-office-with-overwhelming-force/
 explains, as summarised here using Russ George’s own published comments, 
thatthe main reason the Haida Salmon Restoration Project did not fully write up 
itsocean iron fertilization experiment was that Environment Canada arranged 
forthe Haida research office in Vancouver and other project locations to be 
raidedby police who removed scientific material. This was two days before a CBC 
NEWS television special attacking theproject. The raid had a search warrant 
which specified that they were allowedto take evidence and command assistance 
from everyone there. These visitorstook the entire scientific data collection 
of the office, notebooks and journals,electronic data, legal files, reference 
books, scientific paper collections,desktop notebooks, etc.  



These law enforcement officers said during the raid that never in theirpersonal 
history had they ever participated in a “raid”, their word, of thischaracter. 
They resisted the explanation that the Haida Project were putting ironsulphate 
and iron ore rock dust into its ocean pasture for a beneficial purpose. The job 
they were there to do was toapply overwhelming force and intimidation to a 
small group of villagescientists working to replenish and restore ocean 
productivity.  Environment Canada simultaneously raidedoffices and homes all 
over British Columbia, the ship owners, the captains ofthe ship, Haida 
charitable organization. It was such a large operation the policeofficers said 
they had been flown in from all across Canada to conduct theraids.



Despite this heavy-handed official suppression and intimidation by 
theGovernment of Canada, later reports on big increase in fish numbers provided 
aclear and simple causality illustrating the apparent success of the Haida 
OIFexperiment, despite its scandalous lack of institutional endorsement.  I am 
not up to date on the legal case, but 
http://russgeorge.net/2013/04/17/haida-salmon-project-files-proof-with-bc-supreme-court-proving-illegal-search-and-seizure/explains
 the original situation.  

Further,http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/29/scientists-given-notice-speak-to-haida-salmon-at-your-peril/says
 there was an official level “embargo” on the project.  “That the black list 
threat was and is realis made painfully clear by the very recent experience of 
one scientist ingovernment who did indeed help us.” Science does not generally 
progress throughlies, bullying and intimidation.  Butthat is the modus operandi 
of the critics of this successful ocean ironfertilization experiment.  It is 
reasonable to argue this shows the political barriers that 

Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Thanks Phil, it seems Russ maynot have been familiar with the UN accreditation 
process. 




 
The big issues here are about the debatearound the IPCC vision of climate 
change, the political priority the ParisAccord gives to emission reduction, and 
how OIF and carbon dioxide removal morebroadly fit that vision.  


 
The Convention on Biological Diversitymeeting in December 2016 agreedthat 
“climate change should primarily be addressed by reducing 
anthropogenicemissions by sources and by increasing removals by sinks of 
greenhousegases”.  Further linkedstatements indicate that sinks do not include 
Ocean Iron Fertilization.




 
A mediareport interpreted this CBD decision as “the UN is sticking to afamiliar 
line: pumping the atmosphere with tiny mirrors to deflect sunlight,boosting the 
uptake of CO2 in oceans by stimulating plankton growth, or burningwood and 
pumping the emissions underground could be a bad idea.”  Leaving aside SRM and 
wood burning,ocean management is key to climate stability so this decision 
against OIFshould be much more widely discussed.




 
The science on ocean ironfertilization is fairly simple in its significant 
contribution tobiodiversity.  Claims thatstimulating plankton/algae growth is a 
risk for biodiversity look like anexcuse to retain the political focus and 
pressure on emission reduction.




 
Volcanic ash as fertiliser for the surface ocean is a scientific paper which 
found“strong evidence for natural fertilisation in the iron-limited oceanic 
area ofthe NE Pacific, induced by volcanic ash from the eruption of Kasatochi 
volcanoin August 2008. Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were favourable to 
generatea massive phytoplankton bloom in the NE Pacific Ocean which for the 
first timestrongly suggests a connection between oceanic iron-fertilisation and 
volcanicash supply.”  The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after 
the eruptionof Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model 
study found the eruption “led to ashdeposition into the iron-limited NE Pacific 
Ocean… and generated a massivephytoplankton bloom.” 

This volcano releasedfar more iron than Russ George’s tiny experiment.  
Considering related general observationsthat phytoplankton blooms 
generateincreased fertility up the food chain and thereby enhance biodiversity, 
thisUN decision gives the impression that CBD opposition to Russ George 
isprimarily political, in a perception that OIF challenges the paradigm 
ofemission reduction. It looks like his independent approach, 
replicatingKasatochi on small scale, was just used as an excuse to attack him, 
despite thelow risk and apparent success of the Haida Salmon Experiment.


 
Robert Tulip



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Fw: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

- Forwarded Message -
 From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: Robert Tulip  
 Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017, 18:00
 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
   
Suggest you post this to the list 
On 7 Jun 2017 00:10, "Robert Tulip"  wrote:

Hi Andrew
I have been thinking about your email below, and looking at some of the sources.
I had thought Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) and biodiversity was a 
'no-brainer', but can see that this analysis is not shared by others.
Today Russ George posted a really good summary of why ocean restoration 
including OIF is key to planetary biodiversity at http://russgeorge.net/2017/ 
06/06/un-ocean-conference- denies-oceans-what-it-offers- lands/
I have been reading some of the scientific papers on OIF against the challenge 
you raise and look forward to further discussion on how we can best focus on 
ocean biodiversity.
Russ was physically banned at the gate from attending the UN Ocean Conference.  
To me this is a highly disturbing and puzzling occurrence, in view of his 
highly informed scientific approach, and indicates that the UN is unable to 
cope with legitimate debate.
Regards, Robert  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: Robert Tulip  
 Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017, 16:46
 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
  
I suggest you've yet to successfully make your case on biodiversity benefits of 
OIF 
On 27 May 2017 04:19, "Robert Tulip"  wrote:

Thanks Andrew, I understand your policy and am sorry if you considered any of 
my statements to be personal criticisms rather than responses to specific 
statements and policies. My comments were not intended as personal criticisms, 
but as factual statements about ideological views that are widespread among 
climate activists.  It is a scandal that OIF action that promotes biodiversity 
is prevented by activists who hypocritically claim to represent biodiversity.   
Robert

  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: Robert Tulip  
 Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017, 3:04
 Subject: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
  
Ad hominem attacks are not permissible 
A
On 26 May 2017 13:28, "Robert Tulip"  wrote:

This article from Nature contains an appalling lie about the 2012 Haida Salmon 
Experiment.  
The Nature article falsely states "scientists have seen no evidence that the 
experiment worked."  This alleged failure to see any evidence ignores extensive 
data and theory supporting the Haida Salmon results.
Here is one link to the scientific evidence that Nature claims does not exist.  
Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave states the 
Haida Salmon Restoration Project may have "worked much more dramatically than 
anyone could have foreseen... satellite imagery showed that a massive 10,000 
square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf of Alaska, 
centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The following year, 
in 2013, catches of pink salmon from the Pacific Northwest showed a 400% 
increase over the previous year."
The corrupted politics of the climate lobby are vividly illustrated by this 
failure of Nature magazine to apply basic standards of rigour and fact checking 
to its false statement about evidence for the Haida Salmon experiment.  
Best of luck to the Chile entrepreneurs.  You are up against a venal climate 
lobby who do not appear to care about biodiversity or climate repair, and who 
are happy to promote false claims denigrating ocean iron fertilization in 
support of dubious political objectives.
Robert Tulip
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave
 A rogue ocean fertilization experiment carried out in 2012 may well prove to 
be the saviour of the world-renowne...  |   |

  |

  |

 




  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2017, 17:11
 Subject: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
  

https://www.nature.com/news/ iron-dumping-ocean-experiment- 
sparks-controversy-1.22031

Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but 
researchers doubt its motives.   
   - Jeff Tollefson
 23 May 2017
Article tools
   
   - PDF
   - Rights & Permissions
Blickwinkel/AlamyPhytoplankton need iron to make energy by 
photosynthesis.Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop 
tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, 
the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it 
wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 

Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This article from Nature contains an appalling lie about the 2012 Haida Salmon 
Experiment.  
The Nature article falsely states "scientists have seen no evidence that the 
experiment worked."  This alleged failure to see any evidence ignores extensive 
data and theory supporting the Haida Salmon results.
Here is one link to the scientific evidence that Nature claims does not exist.  
Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave states the 
Haida Salmon Restoration Project may have "worked much more dramatically than 
anyone could have foreseen... satellite imagery showed that a massive 10,000 
square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf of Alaska, 
centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The following year, 
in 2013, catches of pink salmon from the Pacific Northwest showed a 400% 
increase over the previous year."
The corrupted politics of the climate lobby are vividly illustrated by this 
failure of Nature magazine to apply basic standards of rigour and fact checking 
to its false statement about evidence for the Haida Salmon experiment.  
Best of luck to the Chile entrepreneurs.  You are up against a venal climate 
lobby who do not appear to care about biodiversity or climate repair, and who 
are happy to promote false claims denigrating ocean iron fertilization in 
support of dubious political objectives.
Robert Tulip
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave
 A rogue ocean fertilization experiment carried out in 2012 may well prove to 
be the saviour of the world-renowne...  |   |

  |

  |

 




  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2017, 17:11
 Subject: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
   

https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031

Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but 
researchers doubt its motives.   
   - Jeff Tollefson
 23 May 2017
Article tools
   
   - PDF
   - Rights & Permissions
Blickwinkel/AlamyPhytoplankton need iron to make energy by 
photosynthesis.Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop 
tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, 
the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it 
wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 
project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium on 
commercial ocean fertilization.The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of 
Vancouver, Canada, says that it is seeking permits from the Chilean government 
to release up to 10 tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of 
Coquimbo as early as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the 
organization grew out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions 
of Vancouver, that has sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some 
researchers suspect that the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an 
unproven and potentially harmful activity.“They claim that by producing more 
phytoplankton, they could help the recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo 
Ulloa, director of the Millennium Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, 
Chile. “We don’t see any evidence to support that claim.”
Related stories
   
   - Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods
   - Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire
   - Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan
More related storiesTensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute 
went public with their concerns in response to Chilean media reports on the 
project. The government has since requested input from the Chilean Academy of 
Science, and the institute is organizing a forum on the project and related 
research on 25 May, at a marine-sciences meeting in Valparaíso, Chile. The 
Oceaneos foundation, which declined an invitation, has accused the scientists 
of improperly classifying its work as geoengineering, rather than ocean 
restoration. Oceaneos president Michael Riedijk says that his team wants to 
work with Chilean scientists and will make all the data from its experiment 
public. The foundation plans to hold its own forum later, but if scientists 
aren’t willing to engage, he says, “we’ll just move on without 
them”.Researchers worldwide have conducted 13 major iron-fertilization 
experiments in the open ocean since 1990. All have sought to test whether 
stimulating phytoplankton growth can increase the amount of carbon dioxide that 
the organisms pull out of the atmosphere and deposit in the deep ocean when 
they die. Determining how much carbon is sequestered during such experiments 
has proved difficult, however, and scientists have raised concerns about 
potential adverse 

Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Adam
Your quantification of the world carbon storage need at 800 GtC has to be 
annualised to produce a realistic path and to address the problem you raise of 
the absence of viable technologies for climate stabilisation.  
Humans add about ten gigatonnes of carbon to the air every year, in the form of 
40 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent.  A gigatonne of water is a cubic kilometre.  
The order of magnitude for a path to climate stability is therefore roughly 
equivalent to storing about twenty cubic km of algae in geotextile bags at the 
bottom of the ocean every year. 
Such a scale of storage would enable fossil fuel emissions to continue, 
obviating the need for decarbonisation, while also reducing the amount of 
carbon in the air.  Is such a proposal technically feasible?  If carbon in the 
form of algae (mainly hydrocarbon) could be marketed as a valuable commodity, 
such a method could pay for itself. My estimate is that the implication of 
these numbers is that industrial microalgae production on one percent of the 
world ocean would solve global warming. 
Ocean Foresters propose a less intensive strategy, using nine percent of the 
world ocean for macroalgae, in their article Negative Carbon via Ocean 
Afforestation published in 2012 in the Process Safety and Environmental 
Protection journal of the European Federation of Chemical Engineering.  Tim 
Flannery cited this paper in his popular book Atmosphere of Hope as a key 
climate solution, but Ocean Foresters have not found much traction for 
research.  It looks like the politics of negative emission technology is too 
difficult for the climate movement to engage on it.
Robert Tulip

  From: Adam Dorr 
 To: jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au 
Cc: Geoengineering 
 Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017, 14:57
 Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In
   
I should perhaps clarify that I have thus far seen no viable CDR scenarios that 
depend on social/political/economic change alone in the absence of major 
technological shifts. Perhaps this book will be filled with new a compelling 
evidence to the contrary, but my current understanding is that no practicable 
amount of recycling and biking to work and conservation tillage and 
reforestation and BECCS and all the rest can get us anywhere near sequestering 
800 GtC by 2050. And that 800 *billion* tons (!) is only what must come out of 
the air that we've already put in - it doesn't include the 300 GtG more we're 
slated to emit by then! There are pathways to CDR at the hundred-gigaton scale, 
but they are entirely dependent upon future technologies like 
machine-labor-driven DACCS and enhanced weathering. Again, I do very much hope 
I'm wrong, but the task ahead of us is absolutely staggering and the 
social/political/economic pathways that depend on local conservation practices 
(as this book seems to imply) are likely doomed to disappoint.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Jonathan Marshall 
 wrote:

​I certainly agree that it sounds as if it is overly optimistic It will be 
interesting to see whether it suggests any socio-political remedies or whether 
it will be purely technological

jon

From: adamd...@gmail.com  on behalf of Adam Dorr 

Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:53 PM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Paul Hawken et al Weigh In Again, without salient details my 
fear is that this is the pop-science version of clickbait. I'm surely do hope 
I'm wrong, but unless these are fundamentally new CDR scenarios that have not 
yet been discussed anywhere in the geoengineering literature, my confidence in 
the claim that we can somehow "reverse the build-up of atmospheric carbon 
within thirty years" in the absence of radical technological change will have 
to remain discouragingly low.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Marshall 
 wrote:

I thought the website was reasonably clear as to what the book was about
"Drawdown maps, measures, models, and describes the 100 most substantive 
solutions to global warming. For each solution, we describe its history, the 
carbon impact it provides, the relative cost and savings, the path to adoption, 
and how it works. The goal of the research that informs Drawdown is to 
determine if we can reverse the buildup of atmospheric carbon within thirty 
years. All solutions modeled are already in place, well understood, analyzed 
based on peer-reviewed science, and are expanding around the world."​
In other words they are asserting that viable solutions already exist - and 
perhaps that if you combine them you can get a successful programme

whether we do have viable solutions, or they can achieve a description in a 
useful way, is another matter.
jon


From:adamd...@gmail.com  on behalf of Adam Dorr 

Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:29 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: 

Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Copying also to Russ George, whose work on the Haida Salmon Project prompted 
much of this debate.  
It is clear that the Haida iron fertilization work successfully produced a 
massive salmon population boom, and that failure to fertilize the oceans - 
along the lines Russ proposes in his "ocean pasture" concept - is causing 
catastrophe.  
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity campaign against ocean geoengineering 
deserves primary blame and censure for this catastrophe - see 
http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2016/12/un-to-extend-freeze-on-geoengineering/
A review of the Haida experiment at Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment 
Gone Right | PlanetSave rightly states that "satellite imagery showed that a 
massive 10,000 square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf 
of Alaska, centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The 
following year, in 2013, catches of pink salmon from the Pacific Northwest 
showed a 400% increase over the previous year."
As Russ George explains at 
http://russgeorge.net/2017/03/22/alaska-salmon-emergency-order-halts-2017-king-salmon-season/
 the prevention of fertilization means salmon are starving at sea.
As Greg Rau says in his comment below, emission reduction will very likely 
fail.  The UN is using emission reduction as a futile gesture, while preventing 
essential action to protect biodiversity.
Robert Tulip

  From: Greg Rau 
 To: "macma...@cds.caltech.edu"  
Cc: geoengineering ; "kgeo...@middlebury.edu" 
; Jim Thomas ; "moo...@etcgroup.org" 
; "di...@etcgroup.org" 
 Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 5:07
 Subject: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, 
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization
   
Roger that, Doug.  As we've learned casting doubt and fear can be very 
effective in countering reason in the climate change arena, and now applied by 
fringe elements to potential climate solutions.  Given that their apparently 
favored solution, emissions reduction, will very likely fail to single handedly 
solve the problem (IPCC), it would seem counterproductive to attack additional 
actions without making sure that a particular action's risks an impacts in fact 
do out weight its benefits. I'm no fan of OIF, but under the circumstances it 
would seem unwise to ignore the ocean's CO2 and climate management potential - 
Mother Nature doesn't.
I cite the following, little-noticed legal review as a counter to the "hands 
off the ocean" governance mentality that dominates some quarters: 
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771=lawreview
which concludes:"Until nations sit down for real discussions to support risk 
assessments of ocean fertilization experiments,rogue environmentalists will 
likely continue to act as a distraction using the lack of international 
progress as a rationale for their actions."
Greg




On Apr 11, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Douglas MacMartin  wrote:



#yiv2565813334 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv2565813334 
filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv2565813334 
p.yiv2565813334MsoNormal, #yiv2565813334 li.yiv2565813334MsoNormal, 
#yiv2565813334 div.yiv2565813334MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2565813334 h1 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2565813334
 a:link, #yiv2565813334 span.yiv2565813334MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2565813334 a:visited, #yiv2565813334 
span.yiv2565813334MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2565813334 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2565813334 
span.yiv2565813334Heading1Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv2565813334 
span.yiv2565813334EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2565813334 
.yiv2565813334MsoChpDefault {}#yiv2565813334 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in;}#yiv2565813334 div.yiv2565813334WordSection1 {}#yiv2565813334 I haven’t 
read the article, but just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t been following 
this, the abstract by itself is extremely misleading.  It would be pretty 
stupid and irresponsible to issue carbon credits for an approach for which 
there is no evidence for the claimed amount of net drawdown of atmospheric CO2. 
 I suppose that being aware of big uncertainty could be labeled as an 
“interpretation” of uncertainty.  And contrary to what ETC folk keep repeating 
endlessly no matter how many times people point out that they are wrong, the 
governance that was put in place doesn’t ban further research on OIF.  This 
basically elevates the role of the extreme anti-geoengineering rhetoric of ETC 
rather than emphasizing the role played by basic common sense.  From: 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of 

Re: [geo] A roadmap for rapid decarbonization - Science

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This roadmap paper is unrealistic. The numbers involved in its calculations are 
not politically feasible, and have major technical and economic conceptual 
weaknesses.  The main value I would suggest in this roadmap is in enabling 
discussion and debate about possible realistic strategies to achieve climate 
stability.  My view is that we need radical questioning of the dominant climate 
language around decarbonisation and mitigation.
Expanding on Greg Rau's observation that the roadmap paper ignores ocean sinks, 
its proposal for  "pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 
2050" is too small and slow to materially affect climate change, let alone to 
deliver climate stability, and the related decarbonisation proposals are 
politically and economically impossible.  
My view is that a possible roadmap should focus on ocean sinks.  Industrial 
algae factories on one percent of the world ocean could remove twenty cubic 
kilometers of carbon from the air every year, a goal that can be called Carbon 
Mining, funded mainly by conversion of CO2 to hydrocarbons.  Twenty cubic 
kilometers is double total emissions, and fifteen times the 5 gigatonnes of CO2 
proposed in this paper. 
Addressing ocean based methods of carbon mining can replace the need for 
decarbonisation, mitigation and solar radiation management.  The ocean is the 
main new planetary frontier, with more than double the total area of the land, 
and desert areas bigger than Australia.  Using the ocean the world can mine 
more carbon than we add, improving biodiversity in locations with no competing 
spatial use, rapidly stabilising the climate and removing the need for 
decarbonisation as a climate change goal. 
Mitigation of emissions cannot lead a viable path to climate stability.  In 
fact, mitigation has glaring inadequacies.    Mitigation is far too small and 
slow to actually affect the climate. As the UN INDC 2015 Synthesis Paper noted, 
total Paris commitments would still have emissions up to 52% above 1990 levels 
over the next decade. Mitigation technology such as solar and wind crowds out 
the real solutions of simple technology for carbon dioxide removal.  Add to 
those technical problems the powerful political hostility from the fossil fuel 
industry and its allies, and it is clear that mitigation strategies need a 
rethink.
I believe the thinking in the roadmap is constrained by failure to engage with 
oceanic scale and energy.  Using the ocean, climate stability could be achieved 
with a practical roadmap, as a politically, economically and environmentally 
sound and viable approach.
Robert Tulip


  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: RAU greg  
Cc: "johan.rockst...@su.se" ; geoengineering 
; "rog...@iiasa.ac.at" ; 
"direc...@pik-potsdam.de" 
 Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2017, 2:19
 Subject: Re: [geo] A roadmap for rapid decarbonization - Science
   
Yes I agree this paper is based on a dubious premise. In all likelihood the 
doubling rate of renewables will be the controlling factor. 
There's going to be a slow start, a rapid transition, but then a tailing-off - 
as hard-to-switch uses (eg intercontinental flight) become dominant in carbon 
budgets 
Andrew 
On 24 Mar 2017 17:06, "Greg Rau"  wrote:




http://science.sciencemag.org/ content/355/6331/1269/tab-pdf
"...we propose framing the decarbonization challenge in terms of a global 
decadal roadmap based on a simple heuristic—a “carbon law”—of halving gross 
anthropogenic carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions every decade. Complemented by 
immediately instigated, scalable carbon removal and efforts to ramp down 
land-use CO2 emissions, this can lead to net-zero emissions around mid-century, 
a path necessary to limit warming to well below 2°C."
"We need urgent research to ascertain the resilience of remaining biosphere 
carbon sinks (10). Strong financial impetus must be provided for afforestation 
of degraded land and for establishment of no-regret approaches to net removal 
of CO2 from the atmosphere—such as the combination of second- and 
third-generation bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) or direct air CCS (DACCS). Trials 
of sustainable sequestration schemes of the order of 100 to 500 MtCO2/year 
should be well under way to resolve deployment issues relating to food 
security, biodiversity preservation, indigenous rights, and societal 
acceptance."

GR - Seems unlikely we can halve emissions each decade, or that AR, BECSS and 
DAC alone can take up the slack. So given the task and the risk of failing, how 
is it that we have the luxury to ignore enhancing the sink potential of the 
ocean - 70% of the Earth surface, half of the bio C cycle, and half of the 
annual CO2 sink? Wouldn't this help "resolve [CDR] deployment issues relating 
to food security, biodiversity preservation, indigenous rights, and societal 

[geo] Geoengineering by whales

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Sustainable Human  This five minute video explains how whales transfer iron and 
nitrogen to the ocean surface to increase the fish and krill population in a 
benign form of geoengineering.  We should mimic this activity.

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Sustainable Human
 When whales were at their historic populations, before their numbers were 
reduced, it seems that whales might ha...  |   |

  |

  |

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Record Increase in Air CO2

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The International Energy Agency and Financial Times are claiming the opposite.
https://www.ft.com/content/540ebb0c-0a60-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43 makes the false 
claim of "global CO2 levels in 2016 virtually unchanged from the two previous 
years, the International Energy Agency said."

Robert Tulip

  From: Greg Rau 
 To: Geoengineering  
Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group 
 Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2017, 5:41
 Subject: [geo] Record Increase in Air CO2
   
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-carbon-dioxide-rose-pace-2nd.html

"The two-year, 6-ppm surge in the greenhouse gas between 2015 and 2017 is 
unprecedented in the observatory's 59-year record. And, it was a record fifth 
consecutive year that carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 2 ppm or greater, said 
Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network."
GR - If anthro emissions have plateaued, 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-nearly-stable-for-third-year-in-row
 why the dramatic increase in CO2? A runaway GH is upon us? Anyway, is it time 
yet to admit that anthro emissions reduction is failing and to find out if CDR 
is more than a figment of IPCC's imagination?
-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Ideological obstacles to effective climate policy:

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The implication of the policies proposed by this article, as with many anti 
growth opinion pieces, appears to be that the authors consider the best way to 
fix the climate is to institute a global communist dictatorship with enforced 
mass poverty. 
That is a highly unrealistic suggestion. It illustrates the need instead for 
practical ways to address climate stability within the parameters of existing 
democratic politics.  The technological challenge is to find ways to protect 
the environment that are compatible with economic growth.
Robert Tulip  

On Wednesday, 22 February 2017, 9:36, Andrew Lockley 
 wrote:
 

 Poster's note : I don't find this seemingly neo-Luddite philosophy persuasive 
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309816817692127
Ideological obstacles to effective climate policy: The greening of markets, 
technology, and growthRyan Gunderson, Diana Stuart, Brian PetersenFirst 
Published February 16, 2017 research-article
|  |  |
|

    

Abstract
In light of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, this project synthesizes and 
advances critiques of the possibility of a sustainable capitalism by adopting 
an explicit ‘negative’ theory of ideology, understood as ideas that conceal 
contradictions through the reification and/or legitimation of the existing 
social order. Prominent climate change policy frameworks – the ‘greening’ of 
markets (market-corrective measures), technology (alternative energy, energy 
efficiency, and geoengineering), and growth (the green growth strategy) – are 
shown to conceal one or both of the two systemic socio-ecological 
contradictions inherent in the current social formation: (1) a contradiction 
between capital’s growth-dependence and the latter’s degrading impact on the 
climate (the ‘capital-climate contradiction’) and (2) a contradiction between 
the potential of using technological infrastructure that aids in emissions 
reductions and the institutionalized social relations that obstruct this 
technical potential (the ‘technical potential-productive relations 
contradiction’). Attempts to reform the very techniques and institutions that 
brought about the climate crisis will remain ineffective and reproduce the 
social order that results in climate change. After proposing a way in which 
societies might move out of the ideological trappings of green markets, 
technology, and growth, two alternatives are proposed: economic degrowth 
coupled with Marcuse’s conception of a ‘new technology’.
 -- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This article makes observations about the inadequacy of renewables for climate 
repair which have been extensively discussed by Bjorn Lomborg for years, but 
which have been ignored by the climate lobby because Lomborg is right wing and 
opposed to subsidies for renewable energy.  
Expanding renewables does nothing for climate stability.  The only way to 
prevent dangerous warming is to remove carbon from the air and sea on very 
large scale.  
The article concludes with the false statement "Unless the emissions from 
fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an impossibility."  That is untrue.  
With negative emission technology at very large scale, alongside ongoing fossil 
fuel emissions, the world could remove double the amount of carbon we add to 
the air.  Under that scenario fossil fuel emissions are compatible with a path 
towards climate stability.  
Until this NET bullet is bitten, the world will remain on a path to climate 
crisis.

Robert Tulip
Carbon Mining 

On Friday, 3 February 2017, 12:54, Greg Rau  wrote:
 

 via This Week in Carbon 
Removal:https://phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html

""Wind and solar alone are not sufficient to meet the goals," Peters said.The 
bottom line, the study suggests, is how much carbon pollution seeps into the 
atmosphere, and on that score renewable have—so far—barely made a dent. 
Investment in solar and wind has soared, outstripping fossil fuels for the 
first time last year. And renewables' share of global energy consumption has 
increased five-fold since 2000.  But it still only accounts for less than three 
percent of the total.Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has 
not budged due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period. Even 
a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, 
the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be 
absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."
""Unless the emissions from fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an 
impossibility."In an informal survey last week of top climate scientists, 
virtually all of them said that goal is probably already out of reach."
GR - So do we hold a wake for the Earth now, or seriously explore other options 
in the time remaining?



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Carbon Mining

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Here is a letter published in The Australian at 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/last-post-january-25/news-story/f80bbc5b900fa469495044963915048b
Malcolm Turnbull should immediately cancel the gesture politics of renewable 
energy targets. RETs harm the economy and do nothing for the climate. However, 
the PM can restore credibility for his themes of agility and innovation by 
opening a discussion about negative emission technology. Carbon dioxide removal 
is emerging as the best market method to stabilise the global climate and 
reverse global warming.

Robert Tulip
I expand on my views on carbon mining at a blog on Governance and Extractive 
Industries Carbon Mining
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Carbon Mining
 Carbon Mining - A Better Way to Fix the Climate Reducing carbon dioxide 
emissions, far from being the only solut...  |   |

  |

  |

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Tidal Pump

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

This proposal has advanced as a finalist to the MIT CoLab public voting stage 
open to 12 September.  
The Energy-Water Nexus Competition Judges wrote: Combining ocean energy with 
algae production is an interesting topic. This revised proposal incorporates 
the judge comments well and brings forth an intelligible process for which 
algae farming can lead to a significantly positive impact on our environment. 
This proposal recognized the issue regarding commercial viability and does a 
good job at presenting possible solutions to that issue. The end product focus 
and using locally provided energy to generate the end products are welcome 
considerations. 
  From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, 6 July 2015, 11:04
 Subject: [geo] Tidal Pump
   
The tidal pump is a proposal I have submitted to the MIT Climate Collaboration 
Energy-Water Nexus Challenge, as a first step to enable commercial 
implementation of global carbon dioxide removal as a practical method to 
stabilise the climate.  
The judges have described the proposal as technically very interesting 
indeed, and have selected it as a semi-finalist.  I have responded to judges 
comments at the link below, and would welcome comment or suggestions.

 Link is Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus - Climate CoLab
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus -...The Tidal Pump, now 
at proof of concept, aims to shift large volumes of liquid in the ocean at 
lowest possible cost using new technology.. Enter one of 18 contests ... |
|  |
| View on climatecolab.org | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


Robert TulipResources  Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign Affairs 
and Trade   -- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Tidal Pump

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The tidal pump is a proposal I have submitted to the MIT Climate Collaboration 
Energy-Water Nexus Challenge, as a first step to enable commercial 
implementation of global carbon dioxide removal as a practical method to 
stabilise the climate.  
The judges have described the proposal as technically very interesting 
indeed, and have selected it as a semi-finalist.  I have responded to judges 
comments at the link below, and would welcome comment or suggestions. Link is 
Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus - Climate CoLab
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Evaluation - Energy-Water Nexus - Energy-Water Nexus -...The Tidal Pump, now 
at proof of concept, aims to shift large volumes of liquid in the ocean at 
lowest possible cost using new technology.. Enter one of 18 contests ... |
|  |
| View on climatecolab.org | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


Robert TulipResources  Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign Affairs 
and Trade  

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] National Academies reports: CDR

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Noah Deich provides a good summary of the CDR report at Recap and Commentary: 
National Academy of Sciences Report on Carbon Removal
I have made a comment at his blog.
Robert Tulip
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences ...Earlier today, the 
National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) released a comprehensive study dedicated 
to carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”). To date, CDR has largely been ... |
|  |
| View on carbonremoval.wordp... | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |

  
  From: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov
 To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2015, 6:31
 Subject: Re: [geo] National Academies reports
   
Also 
this:http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-suggests-thinking-carefully-first/To
 quote: In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into 
carbon removal technology. Overall, there is much to be gained and very low 
risk in pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies 
that demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more 
cost-effective, regional-scale and larger solutions for the long term, it 
concludes. In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are 
currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues 
rather than direct costs.But beyond the research programs, it's clear that 
neither of these approaches is ready for deployment, and it's not clear that 
either of them can ever be made ready, a fact driven home by the cancellation 
of what would have been the US'largest carbon capture experiment. That's in 
sharp contrast with non-emitting power sources, where technology is already 
mature and costs are in many cases already competitive with those of fossil 
fuels.Very unfortunate that CDR is again equated with CCS. The potential 
approaches and success of the former need not be tied to the ongoing failure of 
the latter.Greg


From: J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Reply-To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] National Academies reports

#yiv1141488040 #yiv1141488040 -- _filtered #yiv1141488040 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 
6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1141488040 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 
3 2 4;}#yiv1141488040 #yiv1141488040 p.yiv1141488040MsoNormal, #yiv1141488040 
li.yiv1141488040MsoNormal, #yiv1141488040 div.yiv1141488040MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1141488040 a:link, 
#yiv1141488040 span.yiv1141488040MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1141488040 a:visited, #yiv1141488040 
span.yiv1141488040MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1141488040 
span.yiv1141488040EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv1141488040 
.yiv1141488040MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1141488040 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 
70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv1141488040 div.yiv1141488040WordSection1 {}#yiv1141488040 
Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume 
report on climate engineering. They are available here 
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth
 
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration
 One must register to download, but may read online without doing so.    The 
newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington 
Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO 
reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came 
out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists, 
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were 
supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution 
expressed).  
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
 
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/
    The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See 
https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal 
https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc    Cheers 
Jesse    - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD 
Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and 
climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center 
Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and 
Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl   
http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/    -- 
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 

Re: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton’s analysis of thepolitics of 
geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technologyadvocates he 
usefully but wrongly describes. I would really welcome intensive Republican and 
military and big oilinterest in carbon dioxide removal, as that is the only 
thing with prospect ofdelivering results on climate security and energy 
security.  
Multinational companies have to invest in CDRto protect their stock prices, 
their reputations and their sources of supply. CDRcan deliver a win-win for the 
climate and the economy. Clive’s scientificdreams falsely assume that the 
science on warming means the science is also inon workable responses (ie 
emission reduction). 


Emission reduction will not happen, and would not stabilisethe climate even if 
it did, since it would only slow the upward CO2 trajectory.We need commercial 
negative emission technology on a scale bigger than totalemissions.  Economic 
growth powered bycoal is a freight train that no one will stop. Emission 
reduction is as likelyas suggesting the French could have stopped Hitler by 
reforming their taxsystem.  UN emission targets, even if anyare agreed, are 
nothing but a mirage that will recede as their datesapproach.  


The entire emission reduction strategy is based on falseassumptions about 
science, economics and politics.  The power of the fossil energy industry will 
easilybrush aside carbon taxes and global regulations.  So rather than demonise 
Newt Gingrich asHamilton suggests, a better strategy is to reach out to the 
right wing, to getmoney, political will and ingenuity to identify and deliver 
mutual goals onglobal scale.  The political reality is that anyone perceived as 
hostile to the oil and coal and gas industry cannot gain the trust of the 
people who make globally crucial decisions.
As Bjorn Lomborg argues,the priority should be RD to make CDR commercially 
profitable.  My view is that we can burn coal and oil and gas and thenmine the 
produced carbon using industrial algae farms at sea, deliveringprofitable 
commodities to fund scale up.  


Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough abouthow the Earth system 
operates in order to take control of it.  This is a religious argument that 
ignores globalrealities.  Nine billion people means achoice between climate 
regulation and a runaway greenhouse.  Humans have planetary dominion whether 
welike it or not.  A Gaia Apollo project candeliver negative emission 
technology in the next decade to remove more carbonfrom the air than we add. 
The best target for the Paris climate conference isto harness private 
enterprise to remove twenty billion tonnes of carbon fromthe air each year 
within a decade.


Robert Tulip
  From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, 13 February 2015, 10:39
 Subject: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton
   
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html?referrer=By
 CLIVE HAMILTONFEBRUARY 12, 2015THE Republican Party has long resisted action 
on climate change, but now that much of the electorate wants something done, it 
needs to find a way out of the hole it has dug for itself. A committee 
appointed by the National Research Council may just have handed the party a 
ladder.In a two-volume report, the council is recommending that the federal 
government fund a research program into geoengineering as a response to a 
warming globe. The study could be a watershed moment because reports from the 
council, an arm of the National Academies that provides advice on science and 
technology, are often an impetus for new scientific research programs.Sometimes 
known as “Plan B,” geoengineering covers a variety of technologies aimed at 
deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global 
warming.Despairing at global foot-dragging, some climate scientists now believe 
that a turn to Plan B is inevitable. They see it as inscribed in the logic of 
the situation. The council’s study begins with the assertion that the 
“likelihood of eventually considering last-ditch efforts” to address climate 
destabilization grows every year.The report is balanced in its assessment of 
the science. Yet by bringing geoengineering from the fringes of the climate 
debate into the mainstream, it legitimizes a dangerous approach.Beneath the 
identifiable risks is not only a gut reaction to the hubris of it all — the 
idea that humans could set out to regulate the Earth system, perhaps in 
perpetuity — but also to what it says about where we are today. As the 
committee’s chairwoman, Marcia McNutt, told The Associated Press: The public 
should read this report “and say, ‘This is downright scary.’ And they should 
say, ‘If this is our Hail Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.’ ”Even 
scarier is the fact that, while most geoengineering boosters see these 
technologies 

Re: [geo] 'Climate hacking' would be easy – that doesn't mean we should do it

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Thisarticle claims that we already have an affordable solution with 
arelatively well-understood outcome: reducing our carbon emissions. This isa 
political assertion with dubious empirical basis. Their claims that global 
agreement on emissionreduction is “affordable” and has “relatively well 
understood outcomes” are tendentiousand rhetorical.   It is entirely wrong 
tojump from the true observation that the science of climate change is settled 
tothe false claim that our knowledge of what to do about it is equally settled. 
 Such a jump seems to bedevil climate debate.

Continued net positive carbon emissions will merely delay thearrival of 
probable dangerous environmental tipping points.  And we do not know if global 
agreement toreduce emissions is politically feasible in the face of the power 
of fossil fuel industries. The likely outcomes of efforts to achieve global 
agreements are not wellunderstood at all, and hold planetary stability hostage 
to a dubious politicaltheory. The debate on climate stability needs to be 
reframed to includenegative emission technology such as BECCS,but this is often 
seen as outside the scope of the global agreement process.

The upheaval that would result from a winding down of fossil fuelindustries 
presents highly complex technical, political and economic problems,and in any 
case the ambition would be crueled by optouts.  Blithely asserting that these 
problems for emissionreduction are well understood and affordable does not 
serve the interests ofevidence based policy.

Use of the derogatory terms “hacking” and “immoral” furtherillustrates the 
politically driven nature of the comments from these academics.They make the 
particularly weak assertion in their argument against SRM that “manyspecies are 
already struggling to adapt tothe current pace of change.”  Surely thatis a 
reason to try to slow down climate change through all means available, notan 
argument to rule out major methods?

SRM is hardly a cure-all for the climate.  But putting all our eggs in the 
basket theypropose, “to negotiate a worldwide treaty to cut carbon emissions 
from nationsacross the globe”, involves extremely high stakes and is hardly 
well understoodand affordable.   

Robert Tulip


 

 
From: AndrewLockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Monday, 5 January 2015, 9:27
Subject: [geo] 'Climate hacking' would be easy – that doesn't mean weshould do 
it


 
Poster's note : the site onwhich this article appears is straplined academic 
rigour, journalisticflair. In my opinion, neither applies to this piece, 
despite itsseemingly credible authorship. 

http://theconversation.com/climate-hacking-would-be-easy-that-doesnt-mean-we-should-do-it-35200

‘Climate hacking’ would beeasy – that doesn’t mean we should do it

AUTHORS

Erik van Sebille, ResearchFellow and Lecturer in Oceanography at UNSW Australia

Katelijn Van Hende, Lecturerin Energy Law and Geopolitics at University College 
London

Some people might argue thatthe greatest moral challenge of our time is serious 
enough to justifydeliberately tampering with our climate to stave off the 
damaging effects ofglobal warming.

Geoengineering, or “climatehacking”, to use its more emotive nickname, is a 
direct intervention in thenatural environments of our planet, including our 
atmosphere, seas and oceans.

It has been suggested thatgeoengineering might buy us time to prevent warming 
above 2C, and that weshould look at it seriously in case everything goes 
pear-shaped with ourclimate.

There are two problems withthis argument. The first is that we already have an 
affordable solution with arelatively well-understood outcome: reducing our 
carbon emissions.

The second is thatgeoengineering itself is fraught with danger and that, 
worryingly, the mostdangerous version, called solar radiation management, is 
also the most popularwith those exploring this field.

Down in flames

In essence, solar radiationmanagement is about mimicking volcanoes. Climate 
scientists have known foryears that major volcanic eruptions can eject so much 
ash into the highatmosphere that they effectively dim the sun.

The tiny ash particles blockthe sunlight, reducing the amount of solar energy 
that reaches Earth’s surface.A major volcanic eruption like that of Mount 
Pinatubo in 1991 can causeworldwide cooling of about 0.1C for about two or 
three years.

As global temperatures willrise in the business-as-usual scenario, leading to a 
projected increase ofalmost 4C in the coming century, the ash of a few volcanic 
eruptions each yearcould theoretically offset the temperature rise due to the 
burning of fossilfuels.

Science has also taught usthat depositing the ash, or something similar, into 
the high atmosphere is notvery difficult. Some studies show that by using 
balloons, it could cost aslittle as a few billion dollars per year.

It certainly sounds like amuch cheaper and easier approach than trying to 

[geo] Sixth Extinction

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

I have just read this great new book and was interested to see Ken Caldeira 
feature, discussing coral futures at One Tree Island on the Great Barrier Reef.
My review is at Amazon.com: Robert Tulip's review of The Sixth Extinction: An 
Unnatural History.
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Amazon.com: Robert Tulip's review of The Sixth Extinctio...Find helpful 
customer reviews and review ratings for The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural 
History at Amazon.com. Read honest and unbiased product reviews from our... |
|  |
| View on www.amazon.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |

  

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Bill Stahl's perceptive observationthat Ocean Iron Fertilization (ie algae 
production) could be independent andprofitable as a carbon dioxide reduction 
technology points to the centrality ofalgae for climate stabilisation, as a way 
to mimic and industrialise naturalprocesses to provide scalable and sustainable 
rapid ways to fix more carbonthan we emit and drive down CO2 ppm levels.


OIF should be consideredthe starting point for scientific research programs to 
define objectives andmassively boost algae yield through a range of spinoff 
technologies.  For example, containing the produced algae fromOIF in the OMEGA 
membrane enclosures developed by NASA, and then concentratingthis algae as a 
useful commodity, offers a path to global economictransformation, turning 
carbon dioxide from waste to resource.  

Carbon taxes are merely anincidental distraction to this objective of carbon 
dioxide removal, which willstand or fall on the capacity of new technologies to 
compete against fossilfuels on purely market based economics without long term 
subsidy.  The role of governments is to provide seedfunding for innovation, in 
recognition that global warming is a primaryplanetary security emergency.  


Robert Tulip


  From: Bill Stahl bstah...@gmail.com
 To: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; jrandomwin...@gmail.com; 
rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; nua...@gmail.com 
 Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2014, 4:08
 Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
   
good point Bhaskar. 
What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of 
some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral 
sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF 
you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent  
profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a 
CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF 
actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with 
circumstances).

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote:



Bill
The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very 
low.The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special 
ships used.
You wrote -And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any 
other serious way?) 

Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida 
Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at 
just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.So Iron Fertilization 
does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish can be caught and sold.
Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion tons 
200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring fish back 
to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would be very 
profitable.
Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the 
goal of increasing fish.
Regards
Bhaskar
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:
 A belated response:
This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per Bhaskar) 
was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the results in 
the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the previous record 
(and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - what is the value per 
fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could guess at that. And the 
resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?

On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history... the 
man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in addition* to that I 
see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the speaker's 
respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded paragraph on the 
value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for Russ George's work which 
has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) The recent Newsweek article on 
GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If the guy (and the Haida of course) 
did an experiment and generated data, then that's interesting and will have 
consequences. It's not as if he was beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! 
(Oh wait, that's entirely respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the 
subject forward, even amid a storm of disapproval.

If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can deliver 
at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless of whether 
it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other reasons, that will 
pretty hard to stop. 

Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce emissions 
and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage the latter, 
even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. 

[geo] Forward Osmosis Membrane

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

ForwardOsmosis Membrane


 
DearMichael  other readers


 
Responseto comment from Michael Hayes that plastic bags are too flimsy for 
industrialproduction of algae at sea.


 
Mydiscussion of the use of plastic bags to grow algae at sea is based on 
mycooperation with Mr Terry Spragg, another of those failed 
Californiaentrepreneurs who had a great visionary idea that no one has ever 
funded.  Terry’s site www.waterbag.comdescribes his invention of a floating 
flexible barge using strong flexible plasticbags (not osmotic membranes) to tow 
fresh water from areas of abundance (egPacific Northwest USA, North Queensland, 
Turkey) to areas of shortage (egCalifornia, Southeast Australia, Gaza). His 
1996 waterbag demonstrationvoyage in Puget Sound failed due to quality control 
on stitching, not weakmaterials. 


 
As StevenJohnson explains in his wonderful book WhereGood Ideas Come From – The 
Natural History of Innovation, inventors often needto make mistakes and fail 
before they can succeed with a radically innovativenew technology that opens up 
undreamt of realms of the adjacent possible.  That is the evolving situation 
for marinealgae production.  Safe controlled scientificexperiments are needed 
to test what can work. Unfortunately there is an intense and pervasive 
political hostilitytowards innovation which results in market failure to 
provide the necessaryventure capital or even discuss the ideas properly in any 
public forum.


 
At sea, aplastic bag full of fresh water will float, becoming part of the 
oceanwave.  Such a bag can easily be made strongenough to survive safely in an 
ocean swell. My suggestion is to use plastic waterbags as containers for algae 
farmsat sea, with the surrounding waterbag providing buoyancy, stability and 
pumpingenergy.  In bad weather the whole systemcan be temporarily sunk beneath 
the waves. A great test location would be Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, 
wherealgae farms can provide insurance against global warming by reducing 
waterheat, acid and nutrient load, protecting the coral against the highrisk of 
bleaching and preventing the impending catastrophic loss of reefbiodiversity.


 
Osmosisis only required to dewater the algae once a bloom is mature, not during 
thegrowth phase.  My opinion is that dewateringwould best be done using 
vertical pipes to the deep ocean floor, where highpressure and temperature can 
be applied to convert the algae into hydrocarbonsand other profitable 
commodities.  This methodcould be tested with some the million tonnes of carbon 
that the Gorgon GasProject plans to sequester each year, converting the waste 
CO2 into valuablehydrocarbons and other commodities, providing the revenue 
stream for scalableCO2 removal from air and sea.


 
RobertTulip



From: voglerl...@gmail.com voglerl...@gmail.com
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; bstah...@gmail.com;bhaskarmv...@gmail.com 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; jrandomwin...@gmail.com;nua...@gmail.com 
Sent: Friday, 26 December 2014, 22:01
Subject: RE: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in theNorthwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?


Robert,

. The foreward osmosis membrain is not robust enough for any use 
beyondwhatTrent has indicated. Large scale off shore algal farms will need 
ridgidtanks. 


-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Here is the New Republic article linked by Noah DeichThe Climate Agreement in 
Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Better Solution.
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| The Climate Agreement in Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Bet...This new 
technology stands a better chance of reducing carbon in the atmosphere. |
|  |
| View on www.newrepublic.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |

  
Direct Air Capture could provide CO2 input to grow algae at sea, as a 
profitable scaleable negative emission technology.  That is the sort of thing a 
new Manhattan Project should study.  But the article shows that the global 
climate negotiation process is preventing such essential research by holding 
the planet hostage to its flawed theories of social and political science 
around impossible global agreements on emission reduction.
Robert Tulip
  From: Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
 To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, 21 December 2014, 5:35
 Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs 
to prevent climate change | Deich
   
#yiv2275964106 #yiv2275964106 -- _filtered #yiv2275964106 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2275964106 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2275964106 
#yiv2275964106 p.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106 
li.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 a:link, 
#yiv2275964106 span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 a:visited, #yiv2275964106 
span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 p 
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 
span.yiv2275964106EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2275964106 
.yiv2275964106MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv2275964106 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106WordSection1 {}#yiv2275964106 I 
find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its subset, 
geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset, “how will we 
govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways to take action 
with a smaller chorus of negativity. One constant element in such commentary is 
that any action (sometimes even research) will decrease the incentive for 
emissions reduction, and hence such action should be not taken. I reflect on 
King Canute who, when wanting to convince subjects of the limitations of his 
power, went to the surf and ordered the tide not to come in. Let those 
convinced of the reliable efficacy of CDR travel to China and India to convince 
the masses that they shouldn’t buy a car, and report back. I hope we can reduce 
worldwide emissions, but saying we shouldn’t have research and demonstration of 
thoughtful contingency options strikes me as reckless. I would love to see a 
demonstration scale direct capture program in any country; it would add to the 
body of knowledge about the numerous choices that lie in the future. Ditto re a 
biochar demonstration scale project. Ditto re many others. And I would love to 
see some of the energy that goes into seemingly endless discussions of 
governance shift into populating our knowledge of options. Peter Flynn Peter 
Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for 
EngineersDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of 
Albertapeter.flynn@ualberta.cacell: 928 451 4455   

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: December-20-14 9:44 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to 
prevent climate change | Deich Poster's note : view online for useful graphs. 
https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/The
 flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate 
changeDECEMBER 20, 2014
For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to 
produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track 
record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New 
Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing 
heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments.The idea in 
the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its developed 
country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air Capture (“DAC”) 
systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting CO2 can then be 
buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in impermeable rock 
formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US alone could fund 
massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of global GHG 
emissions.Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan:Problem 
#1: 

Re: [geo] Does this graph tell the truth?

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The NASA graph does 'tell the truth' of CO2 rise since 2005.  Data with 
seasonal variance is also readily available, for example this chart of CO2 as 
measured at Mauna Loa 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png 
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |
|  |
| View on upload.w... | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |

  Two points emerging from this chart are that CO2 level has an annual cycle of 
about up seven down six ppm, and that the rate of increase has accelerated 
significantly since the 1960s.
Brian Cartwright makes a very good point about the potential of the biological 
cycle to draw down carbon.  Leveraging the scale of the natural carbon cycle 
through Carbon Dioxide Removal could deliver a bigger contribution to climate 
stabilisation than reducing anthropogenic emissions.
Robert Tulip
  From: Brian Cartwright briancartwrig...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Cc: Adam Sacks adam_art...@yahoo.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 0:02
 Subject: [geo] Does this graph tell the truth?
   
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

CO2 levels here are corrected for seasonal cycle. I would suggest that by 
showing the annual sawtooth effect of photosynthesis and decay/respiration the 
graph could suggest the potential of the biological cycle to draw down carbon. 
I know many physical scientists discount this as a given, but when an 
increasing proportion of earth's surface is deforested, desertified, etc, the 
natural drawdown effect decreases; it should instead be amplified by 
restorative human activity and not edited out of our climate data.
Brian Cartwright-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

David Lewis commented on November 18 about RussGeorge and the Haida Salmon 
Ocean Iron Fertilization Project.  David said 
Just because a snake oilsalesman happened to find out along with the rest of 
us that there areinteresting indications that, for once, his bottles may 
actually have containedsomething efficacious doesn't mean his critics on this 
OIF project werepersecuting him.

 
It is not fair or correct to describe Russ Georgeas a snake oil salesman, 
despite the problems that David describes in George'swork dating from 1999 on 
another topic.  Indiscussing Ocean Iron Fertilization, the relevant issues are 
what authoritativeresearchers have to say


 

 “Dr. Tim Parsons, an oceanographer and professoremeritus at the University of 
British Columbia said “iron dumping from thevolcano in 2008 produced a diatom 
bloom which coincided with the migration ofyoung sockeye from the Fraser into 
the ocean. The Haida dump may have simulatedthis effect.”   
http://www.lionsbay.net/index.php/ocean-fertilization-insights.html

 
The evidence indicates record salmon yields due to Russ George's OIF 
experiment.  Anarticle in National Review states 
“In the Fraser River, which only once beforein history had a salmon run greater 
than 25 million fish …, the number ofsalmon increased to 72 million.”  

That is nearly triple.

Russ George himself put itclearly: 
“… a yearfollowing our 2012 ocean pasture restoration, …salmon came back in 
tremendousnumbers, more than in all of recorded history.  In many regions such 
as SEAlaska nearest to our ocean restoration project location… baby salmon … 
weretreated to a feast…The SE Alaska Pink catch in the fall of 2013 wasa 
stunning 226.3 million fish. This when a high number of 50million fish were 
expected.”

 
Saying we should not fertilize the ocean toincrease fish stocks is comparable 
to saying all farmers should be banned fromusing fertilizer.  The fishing 
industry should take up iron fertilizationat scale, to help reverse the plunder 
of the oceans and make fisheries moresustainable.  The likely climate impact is 
a bonus.


 
Here is an example of the unjustifiedpersecution of Russ George. L. JimThomas, 
Research Director, ETC Group, wrote an article in2013 in Huffington Post 
headlined Don'tDump Iron -- Dump Rogue Climate Schemes. Thomas called it a 
“pretense that dumpingiron in the ocean to stimulate a plankton bloom would … 
maybe even bring backsalmon stocks.”  Thomascalls the event a “rogue 
‘oceanfertilization’ scheme” and claims “the global chorus of concern was after 
all legitimate.” Thomasexplains his campaign: “Mostworryingly … HSRC haven't 
yet dumped … their support for geoengineering. Theirbusiness plan is still to 
seed the ocean with iron.”  


 
Given theapparent success of the experiment to increase salmon yields, and the 
simplecoherence of the theory of change, that feeding baby fish helps more of 
them tosurvive, the language about a rogue snake oil salesman is unjustified.  
Thomas has no basis to say the “global choruswas legitimate”.  The ‘global 
chorus’ whichThomas helped to orchestrate does indeed appear to be an example 
of unjust persecution.


 
In theworld according to Thomas and his ETC Group, “losing the rogue 
geoengineer maybe good for optics.”  Such statements appear to advocate the 
priority ofspin over science, of politics over evidence, of ideology over 
economics.   Of greatest concern here is the stultifyingeffect of such 
campaigns to prevent important scientific research with highpotential to 
contribute to climate stabilisation and protection of biodiversity.  The misuse 
by UN bodies of the London convention on the dumping ofwastes at sea to 
persecute a legitimate, effective and valuable scientificand commercial 
experiment is the real scandal in this story. 

 

RobertTulip

Disclaimer: Personal Views Only. 


 

 
From: DavidLewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 3:14
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in theNorthwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?


 
Just because a snake oil salesman happened to findout along with the rest of us 
that there are interesting indications that, foronce, his bottles may actually 
have contained something efficacious doesn'tmean his critics on this OIF 
project were persecuting him.  

Eg:  This is the same Russ George who claimed his company was about tobring to 
market room heaters powered by coldfusion.  See:  Unveiling the mystery ofcold 
nuclear fusion... an interview with scientist Russ George.  

A typical Russ Georgism of that time:  Dr. Fleischmann's geniusinspired a 
generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands ofscientific 
reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise ofsolid-state 
fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent discoveries, webelieve it 
is time to start 

Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

What a great vindicationfor Russ George. This article raises issues that all 
concerned with thepolitics, economics and science of climate change should 
consider.  Theenvironmentalists and UN agencies who have persecuted Russ George 
should apologize and hang their heads in shame. The science on iron 
fertilization is not settled, but the indicationsare very positive.

 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722 for the past two years, salmonhave 
flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northwest in sometimesrecord 
numbers  the iron sulfide bloom is a likely factorcontributing to those 
runs.

 It looks like theopposition to the successful Haida Salmon experiment had less 
to do withprotecting the environment than with using climate politics to damage 
thecapitalist system.  The real moral hazardhere is that climate politics has 
been hijacked by people who have an agenda toreduce economic growth on 
principle, and an ideological hostility to the profitmotive.  It appears these 
critics are obliviousto environmental science due to their eagerness to cast 
business as the enemy. The fact is, profitable CDR enterprises are likely to be 
the maincontribution to a possible future stabilisation of the climate.  This 
is insufferable for some who have putall their eggs in the emission reduction 
basket led by expanded governmentregulation and tax. The Pacific salmoniron 
algae project occurred in a safe environmental location with no apparentrisk as 
a limited and well planned scientific experiment aimed to deliversignificant 
economic and environmental benefits, targeted to poor indigenouscommunities.  
It provided a structuredreplication of much bigger natural volcanic processes. 
The fact that this fieldexperiment was not under academic auspices should be 
secondary to the actualmethods and ideas, and the indifference of universities 
is more a condemnationof the failure of experts to be pro-active and get 
involved.  RussGeorge’s logic is impeccable and simple: feed baby fish and more 
of them willsurvive.  

 The false alarmsraised about this pioneering work are entirely unjustified, as 
this articleshows.  The intimidating attacks directedagainst this salmon algae 
work have been damaging for science, growth andecology. 

 Robert Tulip

Disclaimer: PersonalViews Only

  From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, 14 November 2014, 21:23
 Subject: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
   
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722The first of a two-part 
series.GEOENGINEERING:Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a 
controversial CO2 reduction scheme?Joshua Learn, EE reporterClimateWire: 
Wednesday, November 12, 2014The first of a two-part series.For the past 100 
years, the Haida First Nations tribe in Canada has watched the salmon runs that 
provided its main food source decline. Both the quantity and quality of its 
members' catch in the group of islands they call home, off the coast of British 
Columbia, continued to drop.In the late 1990s and early 2000s, they became 
determined to do something about it. They built a hatchery, fixed watersheds 
damaged by past logging practices and sent more fish into the ocean for their 
multiyear migrations.But the larger influx of fish that went out didn't return, 
and the search for better solutions for the small village of Old Massett on the 
north end of Graham Island in British Columbia eventually led the Haida down a 
path that culminated in the largest ocean fertilization project of its kind 
ever attempted.In the summer of 2012, the Haida Salmon Restoration Council 
(HSRC) joined forces with a California businessman, Russ George, and dribbled 
100 tons of iron sulfate into Canadian and international waters in the Pacific 
Ocean off the back of a ship.SPECIAL SERIESDid an ambitious 2012 experiment to 
fertilize the ocean with iron filings reduce CO2? That remains a controversy. 
But Pacific salmon seem to have enjoyed it.The idea, promoted by George, was 
that this would stimulate the growth of plankton, which would be eaten by 
larger ocean dwellers and begin a feeding frenzy by the juvenile fish heading 
into the ocean. That might ultimately lead to higher survival rates and better 
fishing results when the fish came back to the island streams to spawn.The 
sheer size of this experiment, when it was discovered, sent a shock wave 
through communities of environmentalists and scientists concerned about 
geoengineering -- schemes to intentionally manipulate the planet's climate. 
They called the actions a blatant violation of international laws set up to 
restrict the undertaking of such vast experiments due partly to the unknown 
secondary effects they may cause (Greenwire, Oct. 17, 2012).But for the past 
two years, salmon have flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northwest 
in 

Re: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd _the_Carbon_Sink

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Dear Mark

 Some might see me as a sort of devil's advocate,but I wish to respectfully 
challenge your premise that eliminating fossilfuel use is essential to 
stabilise the global climate.

 In terms of carbon utilisation, the problem is thatwe are adding about ten 
billion tonnes and growing of carbon to the air eachyear.  To stabilise the 
climate, the options must include measures toremove this carbon.  That requires 
finding profitable uses in order to generateeconomic incentive for speed and 
scale of response.  Emission reductiononly reduces the amount of carbon we add, 
and does nothing to remove thedangerous carbon we have already added to the air 
and sea.

 Carbon is used for a wide array of usefulproducts.  For example road 
construction uses about two billion tonnes ofasphalt every year, containing a 
significant portion of carbon.  If roadand building and plastic industries 
could find economic ways to incorporate carbonmined from air and sea into their 
construction materials, it would present a longterm sequestration method with 
incentive for replication, including finding innovative new expanded uses for 
carbon.  Such materials could compete against land based products, serving to 
enhance biodiversity and food security.

 My view is that automatic ocean based algaeproduction at mega scale has 
potential to provide carbon products at lower costthan mining fossil fuels.  
Plastic systems can be invented which woulddrive capital and operating cost for 
CDR sourcing from industrial algae down to profitable levels. Thatmeans the 
focus should be on establishing such possible new technology.
Now, the reality is that the best way to achieve this goal of profitable carbon 
extraction is in alliance with the fossil fuel industry, because only they have 
the skillsand power and money and incentive to make it happen.  
If we can use CDR as a source ofindustrial materials, we can foresee a path to 
this growing to bigger than theten billion tonnes of carbon we add through 
emissions, so the net effect willbe to reduce the ppm of carbon in air and sea. 
 
And that can happen alongside ongoing fossil fuel extraction, enabling evidence 
based market response to the McKibben stock price problem of energy reserve 
values requiring us to cook the planet.  The 

ODI G20 press release puts this climate problem for the energy industry into 
stark relief, with a direct attack on government subsidies for energy 
exploration.  The energy industry will only prosper if it supports practical 
profitable ways to remove the waste it adds to the environment. Chevron's 
Gorgon project could be a CDR pilot.  Chevron plans to spend $2 billion to 
geosequester four million tonnes of CO2 byproduct peryear as part of its $55 
billion gas project.  This geosequestration has negative commercial value, 
whereas conversion of CO2 to algae could turn a profit, and offer a path to 
sourcing carbon from air and sea. Sources

TheAsphalt Paving Industry - A Global Perspective

Chevron planto invest $2billion to bury four million tonnes of CO2 per year as 
15% byproduct of LNG.  I have suggesteda way to turn this CO2 into useful 
hydrocarbons and related products, usingalgae and hydrothermal liquefaction.  


Robert Tulip

Disclaimer: Personal Views Only.



  From: markcap...@podenergy.org markcap...@podenergy.org
 To: c...@cornell.edu 
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Robert Tulip 
rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au 
 Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2014, 3:50
 Subject: RE: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v 
oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd _the_Carbon_Sink
   


Dear Chuck,
I like to think we are all on the same team with essentially the same two 
goals, 1) eliminate fossil fuel use, and 2) reduce impacts from the sudden 
increase in greenhouse gases.  Our emphasis between the two goals, the scale of 
our efforts, and our planning horizon vary.
Might you share a description of your most promising process?  We should all be 
cheering however much fossil fuels you can displace.  Perhaps the 
PODenergy/Ocean Foresters group can help you past the limits of scale.  Based 
on what I have read below, you have at least two limits on scale: 
1) You may cause a decrease in the commodity price of defatted algal biomass 
unless your production of same is coordinated with expansion of markets.  We 
might help expand the fish feed market.  Also, I have been pushing for someone 
to develop the algae-based equivalent of Plumpy'Nut (a peanut based paste with 
a long non-refrigerated shelf life ready-to-use therapeutic food.)
2)  You will be exporting all the fertilizer and CO2 needed to grow more algae 
with the biofuel and the defatted algal biomass.  Eventually, the cost of 
supplying nutrients will become too expensive.  We should discuss ways to 
extend the nutrient limit.
Hitting these two limits is a great problem to have!
Mark
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org

Re: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and _the_Carbon_Sink

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

 that is ecologically sustainable.  This requires a low cost source of 
CO2 suchas Gorgon to start, and would store the carbon as algae only 
temporarily. Theaim would be to prove that this method can also be economic 
using CO2 minedstraight from the air and sea, using wave and wind power at sea. 
 


 
The scale needed to reduce atmospheric CO2 is aboutten thousand times the 
Gorgon project, producing equivalent of a cube of algaewith edge about three 
kilometres per year. The world ocean is on average four kilometres deep, and 
nearly 400million square km in area.  There isplenty of space to achieve the 
required carbon storage goal, in a way that wouldprovide abundant sustainable 
energy and related carbon products while rapidlyprotecting biodiversity, water 
acidity and temperature, and climate stability.


 
Robert Tulip


 


 Disclaimer: This is my personal work and does notrepresent views of the 
Australian Government.

From: markcap...@podenergy.org markcap...@podenergy.org
 To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, 7 November 2014, 3:09
 Subject: RE: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av 
oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and _the_Carbon_Sink
   
Robert,
Great arguments for countries to adopt simple carbon fees on both domestic 
fossil fuels and imports of fuel and the carbon footprint of imported goods.
Minor edit - We don't want to stash whole algae at the bottom of the ocean in 
plastic bags.  At full scale, the algae would also be storing over 10 times the 
global production of fertilizer nitrogen (ammonia and nitrite) plus similar 
proportions of other nutrients needed to keep growing algae.  Better to 
separate the carbon and the nutrients out of the algae.  Use some carbon to 
replace fossil fuels.  Store some carbon.  Recover all the nutrients to grow 
more algae.  For quick high-volume carbon storage, it is hard to beat storing 
CO2-hydrate in plastic bags on the seafloor.  During the few thousand year life 
of the appropriate geosynthetic membranes, we react the CO2 with silicate 
minerals for more permanent storage or recover the carbon for other uses.
Mark 
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re:_[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av
oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and
_the_Carbon_Sink
From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, November 01, 2014 11:45 pm
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net gh...@sbcglobal.net, geoengineering
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

The 'decarbonisation' theme discussed by Noah Deich has become a central 
concept in advocacy for emission reduction, but in my view it is not a good way 
to understand the CDR agenda.  And the 'moral hazard' of CDR can more usefully 
be framed as a moral opportunity.
The central problem of global warming is summarized in the McKibben Stock Price 
Problem (link).  This is the fact, as noted by leading climate scientist Bill 
McKibben, that the stock prices of leading energy companies all factor in plans 
to move enough carbon from the crust to the atmosphere to cook the planet, 
without any remediation strategy.  This is not possible, because the business 
as usual scenario would lead the world economy to collapse before the 
ecosystems collapse.  Climate stability is a prerequisite for economic 
stability. The solutions to deliver climate stability are either to either move 
less carbon into the air (reduce emissions) or stabilise it once it is moved 
(Carbon Dioxide Removal).  Current plans to move carbon without stabilising it 
are not possible due to the constraints of physics.  And Solar Radiation 
Management is more an emergency tourniquet than a climate solution.  Reducing 
emissions is the primary focus of global warming politics, supporting the 
premise of decarbonisation of the economy.  But emission reduction faces 
massive, apparently insurmountable, problems, seen in the steady 2.5 ppm per 
decade acceleration of the CO2 emission increase rate.  The economic incentives 
to burn coal and gas and oil are more powerful than the political incentives to 
switch to sustainable energy. And in any case, emission reduction still assumes 
ongoing increase in CO2 level in the air.  Ongoing increase should be 
unacceptable, because we need to drive CO2 levels down through negative 
emissions.    Political agreements around emission targets are useless, 
essentially serving as a cover for failure of will and vision.  The political 
targets of ongoing warming build in massive danger of phase shift from the 
stable Holocene climate pattern that has prevailed for the ten thousand years 
of the growth of human civilization on our planet.  The implication is that 
there must be a technological focus on CDR, or we cook.  An end to Holocene 
stability is an unacceptable risk with a planetary population of ten billion 
people, given the likelihood

Re: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

The 'decarbonisation' theme discussed by Noah Deich has become a central 
concept in advocacy for emission reduction, but in my view it is not a good way 
to understand the CDR agenda.  And the 'moral hazard' of CDR can more usefully 
be framed as a moral opportunity.
Thecentral problem of global warming is summarized in the McKibben Stock 
PriceProblem (link).  This is the fact, as noted by leading climatescientist 
Bill McKibben, that the stock prices of leading energy companies all factorin 
plans to move enough carbon from the crust to the atmosphere to cook theplanet, 
without any remediation strategy.  This is not possible, because the business 
as usual scenario would lead the world economy to collapse before the 
ecosystemscollapse.


 
Climate stabilityis a prerequisite for economic stability. The solutions to 
deliver climatestability are either to either move less carbon into the air 
(reduce emissions) or stabiliseit once it is moved (Carbon Dioxide Removal). 
Current plans to move carbon without stabilising it are not possible dueto the 
constraints of physics.  And SolarRadiation Management is more an emergency 
tourniquet than a climate solution.


 
Reducingemissions is the primary focus of global warming politics, supporting 
thepremise of decarbonisation of the economy. But emission reduction faces 
massive, apparently insurmountable,problems, seen in the steady 2.5 ppm per 
decade acceleration of the CO2 emissionincrease rate.  The economic 
incentivesto burn coal and gas and oil are more powerful than the political 
incentives toswitch to sustainable energy. And in any case, emission reduction 
still assumesongoing increase in CO2 level in the air. Ongoing increase should 
be unacceptable, because we need to drive CO2 levelsdown through negative 
emissions.  


 
Political agreements around emission targets are useless, essentially serving 
as a cover for failure of will and vision.  The political targets of ongoing 
warming buildin massive danger of phase shift from the stable Holocene climate 
pattern thathas prevailed for the ten thousand years of the growth of human 
civilization onour planet.  The implication is that theremust be a 
technological focus on CDR, or we cook.  An end to Holocene stability is an 
unacceptablerisk with a planetary population of ten billion people, given the 
likelihood it brings of conflict and collapse of civilization and loss of 
biodiversity.
 
In Londonin 1850, the problem of cholera was solved by pumping sewage out of 
thecity.  Global warming is like a choleraepidemic for the twenty first 
century. We need new sanitarians to work out how to pump carbon out of the air 
tosolve the problem of global warming. Funding that process means establishing 
economic and scalable methods toconvert the harmful extra CO2 into useful 
forms.  That means finding practical commercial usesfor more than ten billion 
tonnes of carbon every year.  The only way to do that, in my view, is toapply 
solar and ocean energy to grow algae on industrial scale.


 
This callto focus on algae as a useful form of carbon requires understanding of 
thedistinction between carbon storage and carbon utilization.  Storing CO2 
through geosequestration is notan economic contribution to stopping global 
warming. Carbon stored as CO2 has no value, except to help pump up more 
fossilfuels.  But if CO2 is converted to algae,and the algae is then held in 
large fabric bags at the bottom of the sea, we havean enduring resource, a 
carbon bank.  


 
The oceanis a perpetual motion machine driven by earth’s orbital dynamics.  1.3 
billion cubic kilometers (teralitres) of water move upand down by about half a 
meter each tide on average.  Tapping a fraction of this energy source 
forpumping should be a primary objective for an algae production and CDR 
system. Such asystem would not decarbonise the economy, but would enable a 
massive increase in thepractical use of carbon.  We can applyingenuity and 
know-how to create innovative new methods to make good use of carbon stored as 
algae for infrastructure, energy and food.  An industrial productionsystem that 
is largely automated, and that uses oceanic energy to manufacture its 
ownreplication resources, can become profitable.  Against this objective, ideas 
about prices oncarbon, and the strategic model of decarbonisation, are not 
helpful.  We need a new integratedeconomic and ecological paradigm with a focus 
on mining more carbon than weemit.


 
The stockprices of energy majors can remain realistic only if their factored 
carbonreserves can be stabilised once they are burnt into the air.  It is 
therefore possible to work in cooperation with the fossil fuel industry to 
stabilise the global climate., turning their commercial resources and skills to 
advantage for new sustainable technology.  Decarbonisation wrongly poses the 
question in terms of conflict rather than cooperation.  CDR is a moral 
opportunity, not a moral hazard. The focus 

Re: [geo] ABO Leads Effort to Get EPA to Recognize Carbon Capture and Utilization

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

DearCharles


 
Thank youfor this CCU concept.  I totally agreewith the utilization theme as a 
superior framework compared to carbonsequestration or storage. We can utilize 
carbon as fuel, food, feed, fertilizerand fabric.  We need to make use of 
theseproductive forms of carbon in order to fund activity to stabilize the 
climate.


 
Now Iwant to raise a controversial claim: We canutilize more carbon than we 
emit.  Thatmeans emission reduction is not necessary to reverse global warming.
 
We canutilize carbon as fabric including for materials construction for roads 
andbuildings. We canutilize carbon as animal feed and fertilizer to improve 
global food securityand nutrition.  We canutilize carbon as fuel to address 
energy security.  If abundantuseful carbon-based products could be made 
economically, the demand could bemore than the ten billion tonnes of carbon 
that humans add to the air everyyear.
 
If we usemore carbon than we emit, the amount of carbon in the air will go 
down.  Is itpossible?
 
Yes.  Ocean based industrial algae production canuse energy from wave, wind, 
tide, current and sun as low cost pumping,transport and heating sources, and 
can use abundant nutrient and carbon dioxide.  Scaling algae production up to 
2% of theworld ocean with efficient energy and materials could be enough to 
reduce theamount of carbon in the air and sea, with a profitable system that 
will pay forits own expansion at scale, while also improving biodiversity 
through reduction of water temperature and acidity.  


 
My mostrecent presentation on this topic, building on my MIT Climate 
Collaboration  Finalist concept 
http://climatecolab.org/community/-/blogs/finalist-results-announced-  
andmaterial from Ocean Foresters http://oceanforesters.org/ was delivered at 
the Australian National University earlier this year.  Here are the slides from 
my presentation, Ocean Forest Cultivation in Pacific Island Countries - 
Environmental and Economic Benefits and Strategies,    
 
Usingcarbon can change the climate stabilization paradigm away from the 
emissionreduction model towards a situation where the main issue is the balance 
betweenemissions and reuse, using technology to manage carbon stock and flow. 


 
Transformingcarbon into useful products could build to a larger scale than 
total emissions.  Carbon can be mined from air and sea to produce valuable 
marketable commodities.  This approach meansthat the fossil fuel economy can 
become compatible with a stable climate.  Like any other product, carbon now 
seen aswaste can be turned into a resource for recycling.  Further, that means 
it can be fine to dig up coal as long as we then turn the produced CO2 into 
something useful, such as roads or buildings.  This objective presents a basis 
for alliance between efforts to stabilize the climate and the fossil fuel 
industry.


 
We do notaddress sewerage by reducing defecation. Nor should we address carbon 
pollution by reducing emissions.  That is like trying to stop the tide.  We now 
have two competing old paradigms, bothof which are unscientific. The fossil 
fuel paradigm ignores globalwarming.  The emission reduction paradigmignores 
the economy.  We need to putthese paradigms together to get a new one, through 
an economic method to removecarbon from the air and sea.  Therequirement to 
achieve this new paradigm is a method to transform carbondioxide and waste 
methane into useable products at a scale sufficient to reducecarbon level in 
the air.  


 
The best,and possibly only, way to turn waste carbon into useful products is to 
mimichow hydrocarbons occurred in nature. Algae falling to the bottom of 
shallow seas was heated and pressurisedover millions of years, gradually 
converting carbon dioxide intohydrocarbons.  Industrial technology canreplicate 
this process in ways that are rapid and commercially profitable.  


 

Robert TulipResources and Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign 
Affairs and Trade
  From: Charles H. Greene c...@cornell.edu
 To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2014, 0:25
 Subject: [geo] ABO Leads Effort to Get EPA to Recognize Carbon Capture and 
Utilization
   
 

From:   
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/encourage-states-use-carbon-utilization-technologies-can-reduce-and-recycle-co2-valuable-products/RMvQcjxd

| 
| 
|  |

 
|  |

 
| Algae InSightEdition: October 16, 2014  |

 |
|  |
| 
| 
| In This Issue |
| Executive Director's Report |
| Algae Biomass Summit Recap |
| Learn Algae Cultivation Basics |
| Student Award Winners |
| Senators Compare Notes on Carbon Utilization |
| Upcoming Events |
| New Members |
| Member News |
| Industry News |
| Join the ABO |

 
| Quick Links |
| ABO Website HomepageMembership Sign-UpABO Events

ABO on YouTube













 |

 |  | 
| Executive Director's Report  |
| Today you have an opportunity to personally help create jobs, reduce 
emissions and unleash the power of