[geo] Fwd: Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale and Options

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

A substantially revised HPAC cooling paper resubmission: "Addressing the
Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale and Options" has been
posted to the ESS archive:
https://essopenarchive.org/users/673263/articles/716465-addressing-the-urgent-need-for-direct-climate-cooling-rationale-and-options

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9Ch%2B%3D1C6Otxw6%3DSbfqN3%3DSdL6xfmDQGA7OVAeYbPb%3DCCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Reports from recent IMO MEPC meeting suggests continued "emissions reductions only" focus

[Ron Baiman]

 Dear Colleagues,

As many of you know we received an acknowledgement of receipt from the IMO
Secretary General's office that suggested that proposals in the HPAC letter
(
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R9Kg3d1DozwuxPIjyLWljb9Lld_pJCVm/view?usp=sharing)
might be considered in some way at this month's IMO Marine Environment
Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting.

Recent reporting (see links copied below) suggests that the meeting focused
on moving more quickly to non-GHG fuels via mandated carbon taxes or
offsets. This is all for the good, and is fully consistent with the HPAC
letter (and cooling paper:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b0ZHsWX-z1qP5m0sYv5SbRB5xLxzP4Gq/view?usp=sharing
) that has two proposals: *a) an emergency measure to relax sulfur
regulations on fossil fuels (while they are still being used) on the "high
seas", and b) transition to non-GHG emitting fuels that also included
substitute cooling aerosols. *

As climate reporting (conventionally) focuses on GHG emissions so it's hard
to know if they discussed or considered a) (until non-GHG fuels are fully
implemented) or b) of the HPAC petition.  I'm not holding my breath that
they seriously considered or acted on these but believe these proposals are
an important "hook" to focus attention on urgent DCC, regardless of what
the IMO does or does not do!

The statements to the meeting from the (mostly) developing country reps
quoted in the report on the MEPC 81 meeting may be useful for future
lobbying for the proposals in the HPAC IMO letter.

Best,
Ron Baiman

*Wärtsilä Corp. released a new report finding that sustainable maritime
shipping fuels can reach cost parity with fossil fuels by 2035.* The report
finds that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and FuelEU Maritime Initiative
will more than *double fossil fuel costs by 2030, closing the price gap by
2035 with sustainable fuels.*
<https://go.greenbiz.com/MjExLU5KWS0xNjUAAAGSGWSQjuNkni6IxxWyFVZZjyhQv4OG9XUopLreUGNNIszfeNqRZttUf3xLiIFls_YhqFrnQ6c=>
The
report includes new modeling that shows a timeline for which fuels will be
best deployed.


*The International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC 81) meeting came to a close with countries supporting a
global greenhouse gas price on maritime shipping.* *Member states from
across North America, Africa, Caribbean and Europe all expressed support*
<https://go.greenbiz.com/MjExLU5KWS0xNjUAAAGSGWSQjk1zAMjie3jXKUCeTfIRWySo9TAQz-MaySIkj-gUT0SaTgP8Pspq-AwKluiLyYqEBeE=>
for
a price on GHG emissions, leading to the IMO’s first-ever agreed draft
outline of a legislative framework for economic measure and fuel standard
that mandates a growing share of green energy used in ships.

-- 
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/CAPhUB9AAPTyVycXgCJTxyUoEt-n0q6ndGGOF7fNZQGZ-MgTvPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Excellent Doug MacMartin SAI/MCB interview!

[Ron Baiman]

 *(one proposal for possibly "squaring the circle on this" here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing
)*

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:09 AM Ron Baiman  wrote:

>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> An outstanding and extremely informative interview with Doug MacMartin
> IMO  on SAI (with some comments on MCB) shared recently by Andrew (thank
> you!):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/live/_JBLMsXNmhs?si=3qoDl1RNLS4zb_zc
>
> who has also asked and posted in the geoengineering google group a number
> of important follow up questions (that I've taken the liberty of copying
> below this post.)
>
> A few observations that in some ways repeat what many of us have been
> saying repeatedly:
>
> 1) As Doug (and many others - see for example transcription of Ted Parsons
> - advisor to the Climate Overshoot Commission comment shared by Robert T)
> and many others have pointed out, the key problem with SAI (as far as we
> can tell at this point) appears to be political, or social science rather
> than natural science based. After all, volcanoes have been doing this
> throughout geological time with mostly  (at least in human time frames)
> non-catastrophic impact.
>
> 2) Of course ideally we would have perfect democratic participatory global
> governance in place before we begin to pilot-test high leverage Direct
> Climate Cooling (DCC) (
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jt-8OF7ncW71bEPqCDfJS5trr4-Nm4FJ/view?usp=sharing)
> deployment, but if we wait for perfect global governance before deploying
> we're allowing and risking (possibly very harmful) climate catastrophe
> (that we might possibly be able to reduce or prevent) to continue (one
> proposal for possibly "squaring the circle on this" here:
>
> 3) I thought the roughly 20 to 1 tradeoff (highlighted by Dan) between the
> harmful to humans and nature cooling sulfate aerosols we've been
> inadvertently emitting in the troposphere for decades, and roughly 5% of
> these we would need to put up in the stratosphere (where they would also
> have much less harmful impact on life on earth) to cool is a particularly
> good communications "hook". We've been in effect conducting very harmful
> and inefficient "geoengineering" for decades that we're now puting into
> "reverse termination shock" (see:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R9Kg3d1DozwuxPIjyLWljb9Lld_pJCVm/view -
> that is reportedly/hopefully now on the IMO MEPC meeting agenda). See also
> HPAC discussions with Doug (
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EyMvarUBlzon4GNyZlOYrSzSQYpD_m_a/view)
> and David Keith (https://muse.ai/vt/6mt51H5-Dr-David-Keith).
>
> 4) One quibble with Doug. Last I checked Make Sunsets was able to measure
> how high up their balloons lofted, were using helium not hydrogen filled
> balloons and to the best of my knowledge had roughly accurate  (for
> mid-latitude SAI) sulfate aerosol cooling impact estimates (
> https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/calculating-cooling ).  The problem
> with Make Sunsets is that it is not "scalable" politically or
> technologically (and I think MS agrees with this), but the effort has I
> think (following PT Barnum "any publicity is good publicity")  had
> important political protest/awareness generating impact - see HPAC Make
> Sunsets interview (https://muse.ai/v/AW112ix-Make-Sunsets). (As a
> (radical) economist I appear to often be pointing out to many of my more
> natural science and technology oriented colleagues the importance of
> looking at political-economic, not just natural science, constraints and
> affects.).
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
> PS - Make Sunsets' (MS) hydrogen balloon proposal raises important
> questions (MS refers to Make Sunsets) as noted by Andrew:
>
> "1) MS release lifting gas alongside S-compounds
> 2) MS plan to use H2
> 3) H2 is an indirect GHG, GWP100 is ~11
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1067144/atmospheric-implications-of-increased-hydrogen-use.pdf
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00857-8
> 4) stratospheric H2 decomposes to H2O, a GHG
>
> I'm unclear on the following
> A) does the indirect GWP100 of H2 increase if it's directly released into
> the stratosphere? Common sense suggests so, but I can't see figures
> anywhere
> B) if stratospheric wetting is a problem, why isn't jet exhaust a problem?
> It's very wet - C8H18 + 12 1/2O2 => 8CO2 + 9H2O. So in thin air ~1/3 of the
> engine oxygen intake ends up as water. This applies to both commercial and
> geoengineering flights.
> C) is the above effect enough to net off the SAI? It doesn't seem so, SO2
> is a very strong negative forcing agent in the

[geo] Excellent Doug MacMartin SAI/MCB interview!

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

An outstanding and extremely informative interview with Doug MacMartin IMO
on SAI (with some comments on MCB) shared recently by Andrew (thank you!):

https://www.youtube.com/live/_JBLMsXNmhs?si=3qoDl1RNLS4zb_zc

who has also asked and posted in the geoengineering google group a number
of important follow up questions (that I've taken the liberty of copying
below this post.)

A few observations that in some ways repeat what many of us have been
saying repeatedly:

1) As Doug (and many others - see for example transcription of Ted Parsons
- advisor to the Climate Overshoot Commission comment shared by Robert T)
and many others have pointed out, the key problem with SAI (as far as we
can tell at this point) appears to be political, or social science rather
than natural science based. After all, volcanoes have been doing this
throughout geological time with mostly  (at least in human time frames)
non-catastrophic impact.

2) Of course ideally we would have perfect democratic participatory global
governance in place before we begin to pilot-test high leverage Direct
Climate Cooling (DCC) (
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jt-8OF7ncW71bEPqCDfJS5trr4-Nm4FJ/view?usp=sharing)
deployment, but if we wait for perfect global governance before deploying
we're allowing and risking (possibly very harmful) climate catastrophe
(that we might possibly be able to reduce or prevent) to continue (one
proposal for possibly "squaring the circle on this" here:

3) I thought the roughly 20 to 1 tradeoff (highlighted by Dan) between the
harmful to humans and nature cooling sulfate aerosols we've been
inadvertently emitting in the troposphere for decades, and roughly 5% of
these we would need to put up in the stratosphere (where they would also
have much less harmful impact on life on earth) to cool is a particularly
good communications "hook". We've been in effect conducting very harmful
and inefficient "geoengineering" for decades that we're now puting into
"reverse termination shock" (see:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R9Kg3d1DozwuxPIjyLWljb9Lld_pJCVm/view -
that is reportedly/hopefully now on the IMO MEPC meeting agenda). See also
HPAC discussions with Doug (
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EyMvarUBlzon4GNyZlOYrSzSQYpD_m_a/view) and
David Keith (https://muse.ai/vt/6mt51H5-Dr-David-Keith).

4) One quibble with Doug. Last I checked Make Sunsets was able to measure
how high up their balloons lofted, were using helium not hydrogen filled
balloons and to the best of my knowledge had roughly accurate  (for
mid-latitude SAI) sulfate aerosol cooling impact estimates (
https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/calculating-cooling ).  The problem with
Make Sunsets is that it is not "scalable" politically or technologically
(and I think MS agrees with this), but the effort has I think (following PT
Barnum "any publicity is good publicity")  had important political
protest/awareness generating impact - see HPAC Make Sunsets interview (
https://muse.ai/v/AW112ix-Make-Sunsets). (As a (radical) economist I appear
to often be pointing out to many of my more natural science and technology
oriented colleagues the importance of looking at political-economic, not
just natural science, constraints and affects.).

Best,
Ron

PS - Make Sunsets' (MS) hydrogen balloon proposal raises important
questions (MS refers to Make Sunsets) as noted by Andrew:

"1) MS release lifting gas alongside S-compounds
2) MS plan to use H2
3) H2 is an indirect GHG, GWP100 is ~11
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1067144/atmospheric-implications-of-increased-hydrogen-use.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00857-8
4) stratospheric H2 decomposes to H2O, a GHG

I'm unclear on the following
A) does the indirect GWP100 of H2 increase if it's directly released into
the stratosphere? Common sense suggests so, but I can't see figures
anywhere
B) if stratospheric wetting is a problem, why isn't jet exhaust a problem?
It's very wet - C8H18 + 12 1/2O2 => 8CO2 + 9H2O. So in thin air ~1/3 of the
engine oxygen intake ends up as water. This applies to both commercial and
geoengineering flights.
C) is the above effect enough to net off the SAI? It doesn't seem so, SO2
is a very strong negative forcing agent in the stratosphere."

I'd welcome comments

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 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9D%3Dfu2Rcbc6qMat%3DX7aOeHPHK9GtnvVTEgFob6%2ByaTVWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Energy appetite in US endangers goals on climate

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals (Gift Article)nytimes.comAnother reminder that making up scenarios that “just follow the natural science” is not enough.  As the article notes there are many sustainable ways for US utilities to address this but these require systemic economic and political change that will take more time than the “climate change clock” will allow.  Hence the need for urgent direct climate cooling now!Best,Ron Sent from my iPhone



-- 
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/1D6DDA8A-CEC5-4697-87DA-263CD5F7A798%40gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Next Solar Climate Intervention Virtual Symposium : 15th March 4pm UTC

[Ron Baiman]

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: Next Solar Climate Intervention Virtual Symposium : 15th
March 4pm UTC
To: Ron Baiman 




-- Forwarded message -
From: Matthew Henry 
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:58 PM
Subject: Next Solar Climate Intervention Virtual Symposium : 15th March 4pm
UTC
To: 


*Next Solar Climate Intervention Virtual Symposium : 15th March 4pm UTC*
Hello,

We are writing to announce the next Solar Climate Intervention Virtual
Symposium.

The event will take place on the *15th March 2024 at 4pm UTC*.

*Please double check what local time matches 4pm UTC!*

The speakers will be :

   -

   *Daniel Hueholt* (Colorado State University, USA
   
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=c92fcc8684=41a1204883>):
   "Climate speeds help frame relative ecological risk in future climate
   change and stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios." (Preprint
   
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=ebab0c574f=41a1204883>
   )
   -

   *Prof. David Keith* (University of Chicago, USA
   
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=5d236a602e=41a1204883>):
   "Solar geoengineering could start soon if it is small." (Article
   
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=f865ceffa0=41a1204883>
   )


The Zoom details are as follows:
https://Universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/99166043632?pwd=b05QcnFsU3UwbE1XelRxWitucFpnQT09

Meeting ID: 991 6604 3632
Password: 289535

More information can be found on the website
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=1c3291edb6=41a1204883>,
where you will also find the previous recorded talks.

If you have any questions or would like to give or recommend someone for a
talk at a future symposium, email Simone Tilmes (til...@ucar.edu) or
Matthew Henry (m.he...@exeter.ac.uk).
*Copyright © 2024 Solar Geo Talks, All rights reserved.*
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

*Our mailing address is:*
Solar Geo Talks
23 Park Road
Exeter, Devon EX1 2HS
United Kingdom

Add us to your address book
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/vcard?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=72cbc7f86e>


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/profile?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=72cbc7f86e=41a1204883=5d914d4ee4>
or unsubscribe from this list
<https://gmail.us21.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f=72cbc7f86e=b=41a1204883=5d914d4ee4>.


[image: Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp]
<https://login.mailchimp.com/signup/email-referral/?aid=0673e69ff77bdbc4ef1fe2b5f>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9D4n196XRLUEsH%3DLfdxJEU9KVekpTuhJd-nEcMTz3ehfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Submission Instructions - Scientific American

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Barbara!

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:43 PM
Subject: Submission Instructions - Scientific American
To: Ron Baiman 


Dear Ron,

There was discussion regarding opinion articles which might be written to
explain the necessity of SRM for a livable future.  HPAC etc. folks might
be interested in responding to the latest SRM article in Scientific
American which mentions Leslie Fields’ Ice brightening project and various
SAI projects.  Below, please see the submission details for Scientific
American.

Best wishes,
Barbara

Submission Instructions - Scientific American


https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/submission-instructions/

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DtY_9T24gu_O4%2B0KNT%2B5cfbQ8zvedH1DbF2A6Z1Om5Cg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: [HPAC] A tribute to Stephen Salter

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Robert.

-- Forwarded message -
From: Suzanne Reed 
Date: Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 2:24 PM
Subject: [HPAC] A tribute to Stephen Salter
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>, Daniel Kieve <
dkie...@gmail.com>


Colleagues,

I have posted Robert T's Tribute to Stephen Salter on the HPAC website here
.
Please share with your networks.

Best wishes to all,

Suzanne

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAE0%3DaUBr4W_GnHUa_1GJadZifh%2BjKv5R7uBiudEdJg0K_m%3DHug%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/CAPhUB9C6%3DSGMF_FzS-q5MZ0BrByZ%3DN-XDSq%2BMVrhKSFN%3D0voEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Focus Group organized by NSF Informal Science Education REVISE Center

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks for sharing Barbara!

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 9:05 AM
Subject: Focus Group organized by NSF Informal Science Education REVISE
Center
To: Herb , Ron Baiman 


Hi Ron and Herb,

I will attend this online meeting to discuss climate change education.
There is funding available from NSF AISL for outreach programs to educate
the general public about science.  Unfortunately, this year’s January
deadline, if I recall correctly, has passed.  Also, there’s funding for
conferences with proposal submissions required one year before the proposed
conference date.

MEER would be happy to apply for conference funding for a Direct Climate
Cooling conference with a hybrid format of in-person and virtual sessions.

If anyone else is interested in attending then they should contact the
organizer via the email address at the end of the note below.

Best wishes,
Barbara

InformalScience.org Focus Group @ Wed Feb 28, 2024 2pm - 3pm (EST) (
bjsne...@meer.org)


You have been invited to the following event with this note:
"You are receiving this calendar invitation because you have expressed
interest in attending a focus group to talk about informalscience.org at
this time slot. Thank you for expressing your interest in giving feedback
on informalscience.org! The REVISE Center hopes that our conversations and
your feedback will help the website become an even stronger resource for
the informal STEM field, especially regarding equity. We will first give a
brief website tour, then ask you a set of questions on your experience with
the website and how you would like to see it more equitably serve the
informal STEM field. If you have any questions or would prefer to meet at
another time slot, please contact equ...@informalscience.org."


https://www.informalscience.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/CAPhUB9BwcCcX15ic9dGzWHbMgp7Naghs0TM%3DheVkEyZD_x_7NA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Switzerland proposes an UN expert group on solar geoengineering

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

FYI, see link below. This looks like an effort in the right direction!

Thanks for sharing Barbara!

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 9:57 PM
Subject: Switzerland proposes an UN expert group on solar geoengineering
To: Ron Baiman 


Switzerland proposes an UN expert group on solar geoengineering


https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/02/15/switzerland-proposes-first-un-expert-group-on-solar-geoengineering/

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CDQJbK9DYYf9kw6KX%3DA%2BsJyN29Bo8Hi01zM84iNtThCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Dennis Garrity on Climate Cooling Advocacy at this Thursday Feb. 22 4:30 EST HPAC General Meeting

[Ron Baiman]

*What’s* *the Plan for Climate Cooling Advocacy?’*


Dear Colleagues,

It is our pleasure to host Dennis Garrity for a presentation on:

"What's the Plan for Climate Cooling Advocacy?"

at our next Thursday Feb. 22, 2024, 4:30 PM EST HPAC General Meeting.

The (recurring) Zoom link for HPAC General Meetings is here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09



*Dr. Dennis Garrity is a systems agronomist and research leader* whose
career has been focused on the development of small-scale farming systems
in the tropics. He is currently Chair of the Board of the Global
EverGreening Alliance, with 95 member organizations that are collaborating
to implement massive-scale programs on land restoration in the developing
world. He leads the Alliance’s Campaign to EverGreen the Earth. The
Campaign advocates for achieving the goal to drawdown 20 billion tons of
CO2 annually from the atmosphere through evergreening practices that also
enhance biodiversity and improve livelihoods in the tropics.

He is Distinguished Senior Research Fellow at the World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF), Nairobi. He served as Director General of the Centre from 2001 to
2011. He then served as Drylands Ambassador for the UN Convention to Combat
Desertification from 2011 to 2018, emphasizing the role of agroforestry,
evergreen agriculture and landcare as critical to sustainable land
management. He is also a member of the Board of Global Landcare, a
worldwide effort to support grassroots community-based natural resource
management. He is currently co-leading an effort to secure a global pledge
among nations to restore a safe climate by accelerating carbon removals.

Some of Dennis' most recent co-authored publications are:

Detecting vulnerability of humid tropical forests to multiple stressors

Article

2021
Farming systems and food security in Africa: Priorities for science and
policy under global change

Book

2020
Managing perennial Conservation Agriculture systems: orchards, plantations
and agroforestry

- Chapter

2020
For a more complete listing of Dennis' publications see:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Dennis-Garrity-2046785871

Hope you can make it!

Best,
Ron
For the HPAC SC

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DpUBba%2BK5GEKG82eDV2WCpy93%3DhqMxzSGRyU4DGPgjWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: MEERTALK Sunday March 3 - Tim Garrett

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

FYI

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: MEERTALK Sunday March 3 - Tim Garrett
To: Ron Baiman 


Dear Ron,

I would be grateful if you could publicize this webinar.

Best wishes,

Barbara

-- Forwarded message -
From: MEER 
Date: Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:58 AM
Subject: MEERTALK Sunday March 3 - Tim Garrett
To: Barbara 


Are Clouds a Dial We Can Control to Mitigate Climate Change?
View this email in your browser
<https://mailchi.mp/74363181d913/meertalk-sunday-march-3-tim-garrett?e=565485f92a>
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=8c18790ee3=565485f92a>
Communities worldwide, particularly in the Global South, are experiencing
rising temperatures. Your donation to MEER will support the development and
implementation of heat adaptation and mitigation solutions.
DONATE TO SUPPORT MEER
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=cecc880d09=565485f92a>
Download MEERTALK PDF poster *HERE*
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=d22ce85e07=565485f92a>
to
email or post
Printer friendly black/white poster *HERE*
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=b9fbd2ae28=565485f92a>

Hope to see you on March 3!
[image: Twitter]
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=829a364a3d=565485f92a>
[image: Website]
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=1aafff898a=565485f92a>
[image: YouTube]
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=9cd0b72199=565485f92a>
*Copyright ©2024 MEER All rights reserved.*
You have contacted MEER to be on our mailing list.

*Our snail mail address is:*
Social & Environmental Entrepreneurs (MEER)
23564 Calabasas Road, Suite 201
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/23564+Calabasas+Road,+Suite+201+%0D%0ACalabasas,+CA+91302?entry=gmail=g>
Calabasas, CA 91302
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/23564+Calabasas+Road,+Suite+201+%0D%0ACalabasas,+CA+91302?entry=gmail=g>

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/profile?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=885b0d87ea=565485f92a=a155e563a0>
or unsubscribe from this list
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=885b0d87ea=b=565485f92a=a155e563a0>.

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DVJBOfCXXB%3DvEvcRQEQiy9OzBywQ2_3ip_EP1E9q8WwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: MEER / CIimate Fest

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Opportunity to show climate change films at Climate Fest in NYC!
Submissions now being considered.

Thanks for sharing Barbara!

Best,
Ron




-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:43 PM
Subject: Fwd: MEER / CIimate Fest
To: Ron Baiman 


Dear Ron,

MEER will submit the Cooldown Freetown short ten-minute documentary film to
this Climate Fest in New York City.  Please spread the word that
submissions are now being accepted for this climate film festival.

Best wishes,
Barbara

-- Forwarded message -
From: J. English Cook 
Date: Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: MEER / CIimate Fest
To: Eric Golden 


Hi Eric,

I wanted to follow up and let you know that our call for submissions is now
live on FilmFreeway <https://filmfreeway.com/ClimateFilmFestival>!

If you or anyone you know might be interested in submitting, please feel
free to pass on the word. And if you have any questions, just give us a
shout.

Thanks again for reaching out, and we hope to be able to watch your film
soon.

All the best,
English

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BoXHFQBCaddd14PWzV0Q6Yi2yJEY%3D76gXrOSUnw3%3DR9w%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

Lol Greg!  Wake Smith's papers include many of these aircraft and
deployment details. But you hit on an important problem. We really won't
know how best to deploy until we start trying to do it, small scale and
gradually. That is why some of us are so keen on a gradual polar pilot
program and not (just) spending 10 years working in labs, models, and very
small scale experiments before beginning to try to actually test this out.
No need to stop researching but there is a need for a simultaneous pilot
program to get this up to speed as quickly as possible (or not if it turns
out that it doesn't work as well as all, or almost all, of the modeling has
suggested).
Best,
Ron


On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:05 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:

>
> Okay, thanks again Ron.  Looks good...
>
> ...but, you don't get my $25 X-Prize unless you specify how many aircraft,
> of what make(s), to what set of altitudes at what set of latitudes, with
> how many kg of SO2 (or whatever) per flight, at what set of flight
> frequencies...etc... to get the job done today.  Or if it's MCB, or
> whatever, or a combination of methods, what are the equivalent set of
> details on those to drop global mean temperature by 1 deg and reduce sea
> level rise rate by an order of magnitude (or whatever).  I want those
> details written out.  I want the detailed 'recipe' or 'prescription' that
> you could hand to someone and tell them to go do it, and he goes off and
> drops the global mean temperature by a degree in the shortest time possible
> from tonight.  I want the irreducibly simplest, klugiest, fastest set of
> directions which gets us to 1 deg C below where we are now in the shortest
> time from tonight.  Quickest mods to a set of existing aircraft models
> specified.  In the mean time, one can be building Wake Smith's super fleet
> or whatever, but until that's ready you're doing it with all these kluges.
>
> Why can't we at least generate that set of specs?
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:36 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
> Agreed Greg! This is the HPAC position, this is from the cooling paper
> (bolding is mine - there is similar language in the Vision document and in
> the open letters):
>
> "
>
> *To moderate global warming before key impacts become irreversible, a
> climaterestoration plan that returns global warming to well below 1°C in
> the near-term needs to beadopted and then promptly implemented. *Such a
> plan would need to have three
> complementary components:
> 1. Deployment of near-term direct cooling influences, particularly focused
> at first on
> reducing amplified warming in the polar regions and the Himalayas,
> 2. Accelerated reductions of GHG emissions, including especially an early
> focus on
> methane and other short-lived warming agents, and
> 3. Building capacity to reduce the legacy concentrations of CO2 , methane,
> and other
> GHGs in the atmosphere and oceans."
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:12 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, okay, but David Keith is arguing in the opposite direction than
>> me.  He's saying, '...so we got time'.  I'm saying we drop global mean temp
>> by a degree today, and then we'll actually test for the existence of
>> tipping points *in the real world*, rather than sit on our butts
>> speculating about their possibly existence.
>>  - Greg
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> And as you may recall, there was enormous push back on David Keith's
>> view, that I don't think is credible, at that HPAC meeting (see McKay,
>> Lenton, etc. papers).  In any case, an easy response is that of Doug
>> McMartin when asked about David's view during his (Doug's) HPAC
>> presentation. Can we afford to risk the chance that warming above 1.5 C (or
>> whatever warming we have now!) will (is) leading to crossing irreversible
>> and extremely harmful tipping points (like sea level rise as you've pointed
>> out)?  The obvious answer is that it would be (is) lunacy to assume this
>> kind of risk for human civilization and our fellow living species - whether
>> it pans out or not.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ron
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:40 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Ron,
>>>
>>> Well, yes, the 'tipping point thing' is presumably key.  From my
>>> pedestrian understanding, there's ~50+ ft of sea level rise in the
>>> Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets alone, so if indeed we've
>>> passed whatever relevant 'tipping point' for those ice sheets (for example,
>>> undercutting the coastal structure of these sheets in some way, or
&g

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

Agreed Greg! This is the HPAC position, this is from the cooling paper
(bolding is mine - there is similar language in the Vision document and in
the open letters):

"

*To moderate global warming before key impacts become irreversible, a
climaterestoration plan that returns global warming to well below 1°C in
the near-term needs to beadopted and then promptly implemented. *Such a
plan would need to have three
complementary components:
1. Deployment of near-term direct cooling influences, particularly focused
at first on
reducing amplified warming in the polar regions and the Himalayas,
2. Accelerated reductions of GHG emissions, including especially an early
focus on
methane and other short-lived warming agents, and
3. Building capacity to reduce the legacy concentrations of CO2 , methane,
and other
GHGs in the atmosphere and oceans."

Best,
Ron

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:12 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:

>
> Well, okay, but David Keith is arguing in the opposite direction than me.
> He's saying, '...so we got time'.  I'm saying we drop global mean temp by a
> degree today, and then we'll actually test for the existence of tipping
> points *in the real world*, rather than sit on our butts speculating
> about their possibly existence.
>  - Greg
>
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> And as you may recall, there was enormous push back on David Keith's view,
> that I don't think is credible, at that HPAC meeting (see McKay, Lenton,
> etc. papers).  In any case, an easy response is that of Doug McMartin when
> asked about David's view during his (Doug's) HPAC presentation. Can we
> afford to risk the chance that warming above 1.5 C (or whatever warming we
> have now!) will (is) leading to crossing irreversible and extremely harmful
> tipping points (like sea level rise as you've pointed out)?  The obvious
> answer is that it would be (is) lunacy to assume this kind of risk for
> human civilization and our fellow living species - whether it pans out or
> not.
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:40 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> Well, yes, the 'tipping point thing' is presumably key.  From my
>> pedestrian understanding, there's ~50+ ft of sea level rise in the
>> Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets alone, so if indeed we've
>> passed whatever relevant 'tipping point' for those ice sheets (for example,
>> undercutting the coastal structure of these sheets in some way, or
>> whatever) then, apparently, we could now cool the earth by 40 deg C at this
>> point, and these sheets would still inexorably melt away.  On the other
>> hand, as you know, David Keith told HPAC staright up that ice sheet tipping
>> points are bulls**t.  Who has the final authoratative word on whether we're
>> past those or other tipping points?  Fas ar I can tell, it's all vapor at
>> this point,  and that therefore '*as far as we know*' SAI can stop (not
>> just freaking 'mitigate' (hate that utterly defeatist word!) ) the
>> inevitable 40+ feet of sea level rise - and I'm sticking to that until
>> there's something authoratative on ice sheet tipping points.  We're still
>> not helpless victims of the inevitable ice sheet melt.
>>
>> Please correct any misinformed or delusion points in the above.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:09 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg, The problem is that some melting processes, once set in motion,
>> become irreversible on human time scales as reforming the ice would require
>> extremely cold temperatures over extended periods of time. The ice will not
>> be restored by simply going back to pre-industrial temps (technically
>> called ‘hysteresis’ , ‘path dependency’ or simply irreversibility).
>> My understanding is that we have likely started some of these
>> irreversible tipping points.  But totally agree that slowing and stopping
>> melting as much as possible should be a priority. I think we can restore
>> polar sea ice for example by urgent cooling.  And if we can slow the
>> melting down to centuries for example it would be much easier for human
>> civilization to adapt.
>> Best,
>> Ron
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:41 PM, Gregory Slater  wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ron,
>>
>> Thanks for reply and link.  I'll look at this.
>>
>> However. Ron. It totally depresses me when you write, "At this point it
>> appears that it may be very hard to reverse substantial sea level rise over
>> next centuries".  Seriously?  Why?  The only, only reason I am
>> interested in SAI (and the other cooling technologies) is its capability to
>> halt glo

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

See also related thread on possible AMOC reversal this century mostly due
to polar ice melt.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:57 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> And as you may recall, there was enormous push back on David Keith's view,
> that I don't think is credible, at that HPAC meeting (see McKay, Lenton,
> etc. papers).  In any case, an easy response is that of Doug McMartin when
> asked about David's view during his (Doug's) HPAC presentation. Can we
> afford to risk the chance that warming above 1.5 C (or whatever warming we
> have now!) will (is) leading to crossing irreversible and extremely harmful
> tipping points (like sea level rise as you've pointed out)?  The obvious
> answer is that it would be (is) lunacy to assume this kind of risk for
> human civilization and our fellow living species - whether it pans out or
> not.
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:40 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> Well, yes, the 'tipping point thing' is presumably key.  From my
>> pedestrian understanding, there's ~50+ ft of sea level rise in the
>> Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets alone, so if indeed we've
>> passed whatever relevant 'tipping point' for those ice sheets (for example,
>> undercutting the coastal structure of these sheets in some way, or
>> whatever) then, apparently, we could now cool the earth by 40 deg C at this
>> point, and these sheets would still inexorably melt away.  On the other
>> hand, as you know, David Keith told HPAC staright up that ice sheet tipping
>> points are bulls**t.  Who has the final authoratative word on whether we're
>> past those or other tipping points?  Fas ar I can tell, it's all vapor at
>> this point,  and that therefore '*as far as we know*' SAI can stop (not
>> just freaking 'mitigate' (hate that utterly defeatist word!) ) the
>> inevitable 40+ feet of sea level rise - and I'm sticking to that until
>> there's something authoratative on ice sheet tipping points.  We're still
>> not helpless victims of the inevitable ice sheet melt.
>>
>> Please correct any misinformed or delusion points in the above.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:09 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg, The problem is that some melting processes, once set in motion,
>> become irreversible on human time scales as reforming the ice would require
>> extremely cold temperatures over extended periods of time. The ice will not
>> be restored by simply going back to pre-industrial temps (technically
>> called ‘hysteresis’ , ‘path dependency’ or simply irreversibility).
>> My understanding is that we have likely started some of these
>> irreversible tipping points.  But totally agree that slowing and stopping
>> melting as much as possible should be a priority. I think we can restore
>> polar sea ice for example by urgent cooling.  And if we can slow the
>> melting down to centuries for example it would be much easier for human
>> civilization to adapt.
>> Best,
>> Ron
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:41 PM, Gregory Slater  wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ron,
>>
>> Thanks for reply and link.  I'll look at this.
>>
>> However. Ron. It totally depresses me when you write, "At this point it
>> appears that it may be very hard to reverse substantial sea level rise over
>> next centuries".  Seriously?  Why?  The only, only reason I am
>> interested in SAI (and the other cooling technologies) is its capability to
>> halt global warming *and sea level rise* immediately.  Today.  If we but
>> choose to do so.  Is there anyone who actually doubts that SAI can halt
>> global warming and sea live rise immediately?  Is there anyone who does not
>> think we have the capacity to do this?  This is my baseline assumption.
>> That, whether or not we have the brains and the balls to do so, we have the
>> technology to actually halt global warming ~instantly.  We have that
>> capacity.  Now.  Does anyone seriously disagree with that?
>> Thanks,
>> Greg Slater
>>
>>
>> On 2/13/24 12:26 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:
>>
>> Agreed Greg!  At this point it appears that it may be very hard to
>> reverse substantial sea level rise over next centuries but we should at
>> least be trying to slow it down and minimize it as much as possible!
>>
>> Jim's short summary of OTEC from (6/19/2023) from p. 15-16 of "The Case
>> for Urgent Direct Climate Cooling" (slight mislabeling on the HPAC
>> website):
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view
>> is copied below.
>>
>> 

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

Hi Greg,

And as you may recall, there was enormous push back on David Keith's view,
that I don't think is credible, at that HPAC meeting (see McKay, Lenton,
etc. papers).  In any case, an easy response is that of Doug McMartin when
asked about David's view during his (Doug's) HPAC presentation. Can we
afford to risk the chance that warming above 1.5 C (or whatever warming we
have now!) will (is) leading to crossing irreversible and extremely harmful
tipping points (like sea level rise as you've pointed out)?  The obvious
answer is that it would be (is) lunacy to assume this kind of risk for
human civilization and our fellow living species - whether it pans out or
not.

Best,
Ron

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:40 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:

>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Well, yes, the 'tipping point thing' is presumably key.  From my
> pedestrian understanding, there's ~50+ ft of sea level rise in the
> Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets alone, so if indeed we've
> passed whatever relevant 'tipping point' for those ice sheets (for example,
> undercutting the coastal structure of these sheets in some way, or
> whatever) then, apparently, we could now cool the earth by 40 deg C at this
> point, and these sheets would still inexorably melt away.  On the other
> hand, as you know, David Keith told HPAC staright up that ice sheet tipping
> points are bulls**t.  Who has the final authoratative word on whether we're
> past those or other tipping points?  Fas ar I can tell, it's all vapor at
> this point,  and that therefore '*as far as we know*' SAI can stop (not
> just freaking 'mitigate' (hate that utterly defeatist word!) ) the
> inevitable 40+ feet of sea level rise - and I'm sticking to that until
> there's something authoratative on ice sheet tipping points.  We're still
> not helpless victims of the inevitable ice sheet melt.
>
> Please correct any misinformed or delusion points in the above.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:09 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
> Hi Greg, The problem is that some melting processes, once set in motion,
> become irreversible on human time scales as reforming the ice would require
> extremely cold temperatures over extended periods of time. The ice will not
> be restored by simply going back to pre-industrial temps (technically
> called ‘hysteresis’ , ‘path dependency’ or simply irreversibility).
> My understanding is that we have likely started some of these irreversible
> tipping points.  But totally agree that slowing and stopping melting as
> much as possible should be a priority. I think we can restore polar sea ice
> for example by urgent cooling.  And if we can slow the melting down to
> centuries for example it would be much easier for human civilization to
> adapt.
> Best,
> Ron
>
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:41 PM, Gregory Slater  wrote:
>
> Hello Ron,
>
> Thanks for reply and link.  I'll look at this.
>
> However. Ron. It totally depresses me when you write, "At this point it
> appears that it may be very hard to reverse substantial sea level rise over
> next centuries".  Seriously?  Why?  The only, only reason I am
> interested in SAI (and the other cooling technologies) is its capability to
> halt global warming *and sea level rise* immediately.  Today.  If we but
> choose to do so.  Is there anyone who actually doubts that SAI can halt
> global warming and sea live rise immediately?  Is there anyone who does not
> think we have the capacity to do this?  This is my baseline assumption.
> That, whether or not we have the brains and the balls to do so, we have the
> technology to actually halt global warming ~instantly.  We have that
> capacity.  Now.  Does anyone seriously disagree with that?
> Thanks,
> Greg Slater
>
>
> On 2/13/24 12:26 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:
>
> Agreed Greg!  At this point it appears that it may be very hard to reverse
> substantial sea level rise over next centuries but we should at least be
> trying to slow it down and minimize it as much as possible!
>
> Jim's short summary of OTEC from (6/19/2023) from p. 15-16 of "The Case
> for Urgent Direct Climate Cooling" (slight mislabeling on the HPAC
> website):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view
> is copied below.
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
> "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) would utilize the temperature
> difference
> between surface and deeper ocean waters to cool the planet while
> generating baseload
> energy and removing CO2 from the atmosphere.76,77,78 Deployment of 31,000
> one
> gigawatt OTEC plants has been estimated to: a) displace 0.8 W/m2 of
> average global
> surface heat from the surface of the ocean to deeper water for 200 years;
> b) produce 31
> terawatts of electricity per year (6

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Oswald,

My understanding (from Doug McMartin) is that there a small number of
countries that have (military grade) jet propulsion technology that would
be necessary for SAI, and that the US in particular has existing aircraft
that could deliver small sulfur or other aerosol precursors to the
stratosphere particular (though using these aircraft would not be efficient
for a longer term global SAI program) in the poles where the tropopause is
lower (see Wake Smith earlier papers and more recent paper with Keith).

The more difficult issue, I believe, is how to urgently begin pilot testing
so that we can gradually ramp up to larger scale implementation (if there
are no major unintended adverse consequences). As you may know I have been
proposing one possible scenario for this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing

In any case I believe that it would be a terrible mistake to 'write off'
SAI, as though other direct climate cooling (DCC) methods could also be
important and useful, I believe that SAI is the only high-leverage DCC
method that could deliver significant global cooling at minimal cost and
resource use at the quick and urgent time scale that Ithink is imperative.

Best,
Ron


On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 4:43 PM Oswald Petersen 
wrote:

> Dear Greg,
>
>
>
> could you please point out who has the technology to do SAI ? I am not
> aware or any organization, be it a company, a government or an individual,
> who has such technology or claims to have it. Actually I don´t even know
> anyone who has a clear technical concept how to do this.
>
>
>
> So, to answer your question: Yes I really disagree with that.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald
>
>
>
> *Von:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *Im Auftrag von *Gregory
> Slater
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2024 22:42
> *An:* Ron Baiman 
> *Cc:* Jim Baird ;
> carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of
> the Earth's oceans..
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Ron,
>
> Thanks for reply and link.  I'll look at this.
>
> However. Ron. It totally depresses me when you write, "At this point it
> appears that it may be very hard to reverse substantial sea level rise over
> next centuries".  Seriously?  Why?  The only, only reason I am
> interested in SAI (and the other cooling technologies) is its capability to
> halt global warming *and sea level rise* immediately.  Today.  If we but
> choose to do so.  Is there anyone who actually doubts that SAI can halt
> global warming and sea live rise immediately?  Is there anyone who does not
> think we have the capacity to do this?  This is my baseline assumption.
> That, whether or not we have the brains and the balls to do so, we have the
> technology to actually halt global warming ~instantly.  We have that
> capacity.  Now.  Does anyone seriously disagree with that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg Slater
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/13/24 12:26 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:
>
> Agreed Greg!  At this point it appears that it may be very hard to reverse
> substantial sea level rise over next centuries but we should at least be
> trying to slow it down and minimize it as much as possible!
>
>
>
> Jim's short summary of OTEC from (6/19/2023) from p. 15-16 of "The Case
> for Urgent Direct Climate Cooling" (slight mislabeling on the HPAC
> website):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view
>
> is copied below.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) would utilize the temperature
> difference
> between surface and deeper ocean waters to cool the planet while
> generating baseload
> energy and removing CO2 from the atmosphere.76,77,78 Deployment of 31,000
> one
> gigawatt OTEC plants has been estimated to: a) displace 0.8 W/m2 of
> average global
> surface heat from the surface of the ocean to deeper water for 200 years;
> b) produce 31
> terawatts of electricity per year (67% more than total world use), and c)
> absorb about
> 4.3 GtCO2 per year from the atmosphere by cooling ocean surface waters.79
> At an
> estimated cost of $2.9 trillion per year, it would take 30 years to ramp
> up to 31,000
>
> 73 Nature Communications 12: 6713 (2021).
> 74 Sci. Rep. 6: 35070 (2016).
> 75 White-roofed greenhouses in Almeria have cooled the regional climate.
> 76 Rau, Greg and Jim R. Baird. 2018. Negative-CO2-emissions ocean thermal
> energy conversion. Renewable an

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

Hi Greg, The problem is that some melting processes, once set in motion, become irreversible on human time scales as reforming the ice would require extremely cold temperatures over extended periods of time. The ice will not be restored by simply going back to pre-industrial temps (technically called ‘hysteresis’ , ‘path dependency’ or simply irreversibility). My understanding is that we have likely started some of these irreversible tipping points.  But totally agree that slowing and stopping melting as much as possible should be a priority. I think we can restore polar sea ice for example by urgent cooling.  And if we can slow the melting down to centuries for example it would be much easier for human civilization to adapt. Best,Ron Sent from my iPhoneOn Feb 14, 2024, at 4:41 PM, Gregory Slater  wrote:

  

  
  
Hello Ron,Thanks for reply and link.  I'll look at this.
However. Ron. It totally depresses me when you write, "At this point it appears that it may be very hard to reverse substantial sea level rise over next centuries".  Seriously?  Why?  The only, only reason I am interested in SAI (and the other cooling technologies) is its capability to halt global warming and sea level rise immediately.  Today.  If we but choose to do so.  Is there anyone who actually doubts that SAI can halt global warming and sea live rise immediately?  Is there anyone who does not think we have the capacity to do this?  This is my baseline assumption.  That, whether or not we have the brains and the balls to do so, we have the technology to actually halt global warming ~instantly.  We have that capacity.  Now.  Does anyone seriously disagree with that?Thanks,Greg Slater
On 2/13/24 12:26 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:


  
  

  Agreed Greg!  At this point it appears that it may be
very hard to reverse substantial sea level rise over next
centuries but we should at least be trying to slow it down
and minimize it as much as possible!
  
  
  Jim's short summary of OTEC from (6/19/2023) from p.
15-16 of "The Case for Urgent Direct Climate Cooling"
(slight mislabeling on the HPAC website): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view
  is copied below.  
  
  
  
  Best,
  Ron
  
  
  
  "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) would utilize the
temperature difference
between surface and deeper ocean waters to cool the planet
while generating baseload
energy and removing CO2 from the atmosphere.76,77,78
Deployment of 31,000 one
gigawatt OTEC plants has been estimated to: a) displace 0.8
W/m2 of average global
surface heat from the surface of the ocean to deeper water
for 200 years; b) produce 31
terawatts of electricity per year (67% more than total world
use), and c) absorb about
4.3 GtCO2 per year from the atmosphere by cooling ocean
surface waters.79 At an
estimated cost of $2.9 trillion per year, it would take 30
years to ramp up to 31,000

73 Nature Communications 12: 6713 (2021).
74 Sci. Rep. 6: 35070 (2016).
75 White-roofed greenhouses in Almeria have cooled the
regional climate.
76 Rau, Greg and Jim R. Baird. 2018. Negative-CO2-emissions
ocean thermal energy conversion. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 95:265-272.
77 Baird, Jim. 2022. The physics and economics of
thermodynamic geoengineering. Available from the author upon
request at jim.ba...@gwmitigation.com.
78 Gleckler PJ, Durack RJ, Stouffer RJ, Johnson GC, Forest
CE. Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in
recent decades.2016. Nature Climate Change: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2915
79 Renforth, Phil and Gideon Henderson. 2017. Assessing
ocean alkalinity for carbon sequestration. Reviews of
Geophysics.

Healthy Planet Action Coalition Petition to World Leaders
Page
16
plants.80,81,82,83 Economies of scale have been estimated to
potentially reduce the cost of
OTEC electricity to about 1.1 cents per KWh.84"



  On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at
1:05 AM Gregory Slater <tenk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
  
  

  
  
  Hello Jim,
  
  
  Thank you for the reply and information about
'thermodynamic geoengineering'.  I do not know this
technology.  I a

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

Agreed Greg!  At this point it appears that it may be very hard to reverse
substantial sea level rise over next centuries but we should at least be
trying to slow it down and minimize it as much as possible!

Jim's short summary of OTEC from (6/19/2023) from p. 15-16 of "The Case for
Urgent Direct Climate Cooling" (slight mislabeling on the HPAC website):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view
is copied below.

Best,
Ron

"Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) would utilize the temperature
difference
between surface and deeper ocean waters to cool the planet while generating
baseload
energy and removing CO2 from the atmosphere.76,77,78 Deployment of 31,000
one
gigawatt OTEC plants has been estimated to: a) displace 0.8 W/m2 of average
global
surface heat from the surface of the ocean to deeper water for 200 years;
b) produce 31
terawatts of electricity per year (67% more than total world use), and c)
absorb about
4.3 GtCO2 per year from the atmosphere by cooling ocean surface waters.79
At an
estimated cost of $2.9 trillion per year, it would take 30 years to ramp up
to 31,000

73 Nature Communications 12: 6713 (2021).
74 Sci. Rep. 6: 35070 (2016).
75 White-roofed greenhouses in Almeria have cooled the regional climate.
76 Rau, Greg and Jim R. Baird. 2018. Negative-CO2-emissions ocean thermal
energy conversion. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 95:265-272.
77 Baird, Jim. 2022. The physics and economics of thermodynamic
geoengineering. Available from the author upon
request at jim.ba...@gwmitigation.com.
78 Gleckler PJ, Durack RJ, Stouffer RJ, Johnson GC, Forest CE.
Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in
recent decades.2016. Nature Climate Change:
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2915
79 Renforth, Phil and Gideon Henderson. 2017. Assessing ocean alkalinity
for carbon sequestration. Reviews of
Geophysics.

Healthy Planet Action Coalition Petition to World Leaders Page
16
plants.80,81,82,83 Economies of scale have been estimated to potentially
reduce the cost of
OTEC electricity to about 1.1 cents per KWh.84"

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1:05 AM Gregory Slater  wrote:

>
> Hello Jim,
>
> Thank you for the reply and information about 'thermodynamic
> geoengineering'.  I do not know this technology.  I am still learning.
> Please send links to more detailed summaries of the technology.
>
> My bottom line is that the over-riding priorities must be to stabilize
> (and reduce) global mean temperature, and stabilize global mean sea level.
> Immediately.  Not in years or decades.  Whatever set of technologies can
> realistically make that happen should be carefully but swiftly deployed,
> with appropriate testing, modifications, and scale up, but as quickly as
> possible.  It is an emergency, an actual crisis,  No time to lose.
> Whatever gets this done the fastest I am in favor of.
>
> There should be a session on this technology along with all the others at
> the 'effective geoengineering' conference/summit that I am proposing.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg Slater
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2024, at 10:04 PM, Jim Baird 
> wrote:
>
> Gregory, what is the fault in this logic?
>
>
> The thermal coefficient of expansion of seawater is about half at a depth
> of 1,000 meter it is at the surface per the following graphic.
>
> 
> Heat moved into deep water to a median depth of 500 meters as
> Thermodynamic Geoengineering would provides with heat pipes produces 25%
> less sea level rise due to thermal expansion. And this heat would be
> unavailable to melt icecaps, or the glaciers that accounted for about 21%
> of the recorded sea level rise of the past two decades.
>
> I share your concern with coastlines.
>
> Jim Baird
>
>
> *From:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com *On Behalf Of 
> *Gregory
> Slater
> *Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2024 8:55 PM
> *To:* Ron Baiman 
> *Cc:* carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com; healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of
> the Earth's oceans..
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> Thanks for the link.  I had not read this, though I am sure you and others
> announced it when it came out.
>
> My question reflects my interest in understanding the likely net zero
> 'end-state' that is the focus of the vast share of discussion around global
> warming and climate change, and your paper discusses that.  Certainly I
> regard even the current state of the Earth with regard to atmospheric CO2
> to be unacceptable, let alone where ever we 'land' at net zero.  My
> specific interest in the question is where sea level ends up upon reaching
> the (still quite hypothetical) 'net zero'.  But of course, wher

[geo] Re: [HPAC] A general question about the thermal response of the Earth's oceans..

[Ron Baiman]

Hi Greg,

Recent modeling suggests that the oceans will gradually release heat to the
atmosphere but not sure at what rate.

This is from the HPAC cooling paper:
https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.169755546.65919302/v1

"Failure to begin deployment of direct cooling influence in the very
near-term necessarily
will lead to greater harm and increased risk, at least until net-zero
global GHG emissions are
achieved and legacy concentrations of GHGs are removed from the atmosphere
and oceans.
Recent modeling suggests that, in the absence of direct climate cooling, if
(anthropogenic and
natural) net-zero emissions were to be achieved after 3667 Gigatons of CO2
eq GHG (or 1000
Gigatons of carbon estimated to result in global warming of about 2.0°C)
were accumulated in
the atmosphere, global warming would remain at roughly 2.0° C for at least
another 50 years due
to continued thermal rebalancing from legacy ocean warming, even with
continued ocean uptake
of legacy CO2 from the atmosphere (MacDougall et al., 2020; Hausfather,
2021). This suggests
that even after net-zero is achieved, a combination of continued direct
climate cooling and
drawdown of legacy GHG would be necessary to expeditiously restore and
regenerate a stable
climate and healthy ecosystem (Schuckmann et al., 2020; Baiman, 2021,
footnote 9)."

Best,
Ron

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 3:14 PM Gregory Slater  wrote:

>
> Hello All,
>
> If we managed to reach 'net zero' by, say, 2050, so that, to zeroth
> order, the concentration of CO2 ceased to increase due to human
> activities after that time, how would the (mean) ocean temperature
> respond (over years, decades)?
>
> I am happy to be directed to any published papers or group threads which
> discuss this.
>
> Thanks, in advance, for any help.
>
> Greg Slater, East Palo Alto, CA
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/53b39682-29d1-4fc7-a0ee-c3814acdeb50%40gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BX7PZ1OpLTBFC%3D-ymn0K04pu-zJ3y_iUZfamNdKy-2xg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [prag] [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if it starts small | MIT Technology Review

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Alan,I believe that the current version:  is general enough to include many possibilities.Open Letter on Shipping Fuel Regulation_2_9_2024.docxdocs.google.comBest,RonSent from my iPhoneOn Feb 10, 2024, at 12:45 AM, Alan Kerstein  wrote:





Ron,

The original proposal, though technically infeasible, had the virtue of being actionable in the sense that once an additive composition and mass fraction within the fuel were established, the deployment protocol would be well defined. For example, deployment would be universal among ships that use such fuel and the additive deposition in the atmosphere by a ship would be proportional to its fuel consumption. Injection into engine exhaust is technically less problematic but is not actionable as now stated (and not just because exhaust injection is not mentioned).

Rather than quibbling further, I’ll outline an approach that at least has no obvious (to me) showstoppers. The first question is who pays for implementation and how is payment organized? The obvious answer is to imitate what is already working on the decarbonization side, which is offsets. So MCB using the commercial fleet is now couched in the bigger question of how to put a price on a ‘unit increment’ of cooling and how to organize an offset market for this entity so that Adam Smith’s ‘unseen hand’ (my apologies to the anti-capitalists) can then organize private-sector cooling efforts much as it is presently organizing private-sector decarbonization efforts. This alone is a gigantic challenge but is vital for timely progress, so I hope that people with the expertise and job description that enable them to wrap their arms around this will delve into it.

In case this seems so intractable that it deters people from even trying, consider the alternative of solely public-sector funded and directed MCB. This might involve purpose-built ships, platforms, etc. There’s no problem with that, but it would be a pity to let all the aerosol-lofting capability emanating from engines and other thermal-fluid processes go to waste. In that regard, there are surely many land-based smokestacks and related exhausts along the shoreline that are situated so that seawater injection would provide beneficial cloud brightening.

In short, there is a lot of unexploited aerosol-lofting capability and a variety of bespoke solutions might be needed to make good use of it. If there’s a better way to enable this than monetizing them by means of some type of offset market, then those on distribution are invited to tell us about it. Even better, tell us how to put a price on a ‘unit increment’ of cooling.

AlanOn Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:34 PM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com> wrote:Thank you Alan and Clive! I have updated the letter and petition: Please review it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcmRgEREmL1j18EE4HLN2MK6zi_kGuJy/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=trueUnfortunately, the hard copy of the original version has been sent tot he IMO but future downloads will be corrected. Best, RonOn Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:03 PM Clive Elsworth <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:

  
   
 
 
  
   Alan, Ron
   
  
    
   
  
   We have never said that climate catalyst can be added to ship fuel, so I don’t know how that found its way into the document, and how we missed it.
   
  
    
   
  
   Climate catalyst could be added to ship exhaust gases after they emerge from flues, or from UAVs, or from cheap, remotely controlled buoys and so forth.
   
  
    
   
  
   Years ago it was thought that Ferrocene, a fuel additive, might be added to ship bunker fuel to produce a form of iron salt aerosol, but we recognised the problems you raise below, plus it is a rather expensive option.
   
  
    
   
  
   Clive
   
   
   
On 09/02/2024 20:25 GMT Alan Kerstein <alan.kerst...@gmail.com> wrote:

   
 

   
 


Ron, 
  
Concerning the second ask, engines and the fuels that they are designed to burn are highly optimized systems such that any additives are introduced in small proportions of carefully tuned composition to tweak engine performance. Additive modification involves a good deal of testing, often in conjunction with adjustments to engine design or operating procedures. Putting the type and amount of aerosol precursor required to have geophysical impact into the fuel, even if feasible, is not an approach that could be considered low-hanging fruit in terms of opportunities for timely impact on global warming. 
  
I think that the maritime industry might be more amenable to a suggestion to spray ocean water into the engine exhaust. The idea would be to piggyback the saline aerosol on the rising warm exhaust for a free ride to cloud altitude. If there is further communication with the IMO on this topic, you might float this as an alternate option. 
  
More generally, MCB that is portrayed as a restoration of the originally unintended effect of 

[geo] Re: [prag] [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if it starts small | MIT Technology Review

[Ron Baiman]

Hi Rocio,

Regarding distributing aerosols from commercial ships, the second "ask" of
this letter:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MwB5PuV0GuqzcINowIXrJBqQkSgwI5Lv/view?usp=sharing
(now being reviewed by the Secretary General of the IMO - or so his office
has informed us) may be of interest.

Best,
Ron


On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:07 PM Rocio Herbert 
wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> How about ISA from commercial ships in international waters?  What does
> the  LC/LP say about that?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rocío
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 3:17 PM 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action
> Coalition (HPAC)  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Chris,
>>
>> This is helpful. I did not mean that the LC/LP did not cover EEZ and
>> other national waters, just that it was each nation which  determined its
>> responsibilities in its own waters for actions coming under its
>> responsibilities under the LC/LP. This gives them leeway regarding ocean
>> restoration and direct climate cooling experimentation approvals. Of
>> course, some nations, such as the USA, have not even ratified the LP -
>> though they may still tend to follow its strictures.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sev
>>
>> On 8 Feb 2024, at 9:48 pm, Chris Vivian 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sev,
>>
>> Responding to your 2 emails below:
>>
>>
>>1. It is a widespread misconception that the LC/LP only covers
>>international waters. The LC/LP cover all waters up to the baselines that
>>are the base from which the territorial waters and EEZ are measured. On a
>>straight coast the baseline  is the low water mark. Also, the LP has a
>>provision that it applies to marine internal waters i.e., behind the
>>baselines, that includes large bays and estuaries unless a Party opts out
>>when it then has to have effective permitting and regulatory measures to
>>control dumping activities and marine geoengineering activities when they
>>come into force. So, testing in EEZ waters could fall under the LC/LP
>>depending on what was being done.
>>2. Currently, the LC/LP Parties are considering whether MCB could be
>>regulated under the 2013 marine geoengineering amendments. There is a
>>precedent from the past when the LC regulated marine incineration of toxic
>>(e.g., organochlorines) or very smelly (e.g., mercaptans that are put in
>>natural gas at very low concentrations so you can smell gas leaking)
>>chemicals on the basis that material from the plume was deposited onto the
>>sea surface. I think that spraying ferric chloride aerosols into the
>>atmosphere from vessels which eventually rain out  into the sea would
>>likely be considered to fall under the LP remit. Done from land it would
>>not fall under the LP remit.
>>3. Sea ice thickening may unlikely to fall under the LP.
>>4. About the other things you queried:
>>   1. offshore drilling platforms, their products if released –
>>   activities associated with the exploration, exploitation and associated
>>   offshore processing of seabed mineral resources are excluded from the 
>> remit
>>   of the  LC and LP. The influence of the oil and gas industry!
>>   2. Wind turbines – installation is considered placement that is
>>   excluded from the definition of dumping. This applies to all 
>> construction
>>   activities in the marine environment e.g., sea walls, pipelines 
>> jetties.
>>   3. Unrecovered buoys, containers, plastic waste, nets – this is
>>   not deliberate disposal so therefore not dumping.
>>   4. By-catch – this is incidental to the operation of fishing
>>   vessels so not dumping.
>>   5. Any marine research equipment left in the marine environment
>>   that cannot be recovered e.g., sensors, is not deliberate disposal as 
>> it
>>   was placed for a purpose other than mere disposal.
>>   6. Waste from fish farms – usually regulated as a discharge so not
>>   dumping.
>>
>>
>> I hope that answers your questions.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>> *From:* 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <
>> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 7, 2024 8:51 AM
>> *To:* Clive Elsworth 
>> *Cc:* Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <
>> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; Ron Baiman <
>> rpbai...@gmail.com>; Oswald Petersen ; Mike
>> MacCracken ; Herb Simmens ;
>> Dr. Robert Chris ; Gre

[geo] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if it starts small | MIT Technology Review

[Ron Baiman]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 8:58 AM John Nissen  wrote:

> Hi Ron,
>
> You've hit the nail on the head:
>
> By starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out (in
> the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct
> impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect
> impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and  polar
> ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive.
>
> Cheers, John
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 2:27 AM Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
>> Dear Herb, Mike, and Oswald,
>>
>> I think the issue right now is pervasively couched in far too general and
>> absolutist terms that would make it very difficult/impossible to get
>> universal (or even just Security Council) agreement for deployment from the
>> UN. If pilot testing were started small-scale with willing actors
>> consisting of countries with polar regional jurisdictions that are willing
>> to try this in this from their territory (as probably not all polar
>> jurisdictions or polar peoples will agree right away) and done carefully
>> with maximum transparency, openness, etc. this could hopefully make it less
>> of an abstract 'politicized and moralized' hot potato and more of a cooling
>> method that is perceived as potentially valuable, useful, and (quite
>> likely) indispensable to avoid climate catastrophe.
>>
>> I'm assuming here of course mostly measurable positive impacts from the
>> pilot testing, and an ability to adjust to smaller and less significant
>> undesirable impacts.  My thinking is that this would be a way to make
>> gradual polar SAI a more practical and tangible technique and less of a
>> boogie man on which to project every manner of global geopolitical
>> armageddon (per the Futerman talk and I'm guessing - from the abstract - in
>> the Keith and Smith  paper as well).  At this point, my hope is that it
>> would be easier to arrive at, at least, "tacit" and at some point "formal"
>> consent by the Security Council, or a sufficient number of major world
>> powers, for continued, slowly upscaled, global deployment without
>> geopolitical disaster.
>>
>> *My thinking is that (as with the research/deployment dichotomy), the
>> governance/deployment dichotomy should not be looked at as strictly
>> separable. *My hope is that moving on both tracks simultaneously and
>> trying to build confidence, trust, and knowledge with gradual deployment
>> would hopefully change international perceptions and discussions of SAI and
>> direct climate cooling more broadly in a positive way, and that this could
>> then hopefully allow for global tacit, and at some point formal, political
>> support.
>>
>> I should also note that countries are already currently engaging in large
>> scale climate efforts 'on their own territory' that probably have cross
>> boundary impacts. See for example discussion of China's large scale cloud
>> seeding efforts (as I recall in the Himalayas to regenerate snow pack,
>> discussed in this podcast:
>> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cloud-seeding-law-simon/id1529459393?i=1000632950341
>>
>>
>> Also by starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out
>> (in the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct
>> impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect
>> impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and  polar
>> ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive. .
>>
>> Best,
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:17 PM Oswald Petersen <
>> oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Herb and Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Prenotice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Europeans like me are still quite unfimiliar with the new habit to
>>> adress a community without an adressee. Adressees do have the advantage
>>> that I can disregard everything I am not addressed for. So far for US
>>> globalimsus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The UN are our only hope. We cannot diverge from the UN. Let´s stick to
>>> the UN!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oswald
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oswald Petersen
>>>
>>> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>>>
>>> Lärchenstr. 5
>>>
>>

[geo] Re: [prag] HPAC Meeting Feb 8, 4:30 pm Eastern (Zoom ): Carbon Capture - Monitoring, Safety and Geologic Impact of Underground CO2 Injection

[Ron Baiman]

Reminder and noticed that the Geoengineering google group was inadvertently
missing from the list for this announcement!

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:39 PM Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <
bmel...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> *Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) Meeting Presentation, Thursday,
> February 8, 4:30 pm Eastern *
>
> *Topic: Carbon Capture - Monitoring, Safety, and Geologic Impact of
> Underground CO2 Injection*
>
> *Presented by: Dr. Katherine Romanak, University of Texas*
>
>
> *Everyone is welcome. *
>
> ZOOM Link:
> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
>
>
> Dr. Romanak is an expert in near-surface geochemical monitoring, safety,
> and environmental impacts of geologic carbon storage. She is currently a
> Research Professor at the Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of
> Geosciences, UT Austin.
>
> She has developed and implemented monitoring plans for at least six
> actively-injecting, large-scale CO2 storage projects dating back to 2007,
> and pioneered a process-based soil gas approach which avoids costly and
> complex baseline data collection creating a paradigm shift in near-surface
> monitoring which has become the standard approach worldwide.
>
> Katherine has also provided technical input into global regulations at the
> United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in the
> USA (EPA Class VI and California Low Carbon Fuel Standard CCS protocol),
> which has led to an improvement in regulations that protect the
> environment. She is an advisor on many international project panels and
> effectively conveys science-based information on monitoring and
> environmental safety of geological CO2 storage to a wide audience of
> stakeholders.
>
> As an academic, she works alongside industry to develop, innovate, and
> apply CO2 storage technology in real-world applications. Dr. Romanak holds
> a B.S. in Geology from Southern Methodist University, an M.S. in Geology
> from UT Arlington, and a Ph.D. in Geology from UT Austin. She previously
> worked as a staff scientist at the Smithsonian Institution.
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Melton PE
> Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
> President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
> 8103 Kirkham Drive
> Austin, Texas 78736
> (512)799-7998
> ClimateDiscovery.org 
> ClimateChangePhoto.org 
> MeltonEngineering.com 
> FaceBook@Bruce.Melton.395 
> Instagram@Bruce.C.Melton 
> The Band Climate Change
> 
> Twitter - BruceCMelton1 
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Planetary Restoration" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/d761e362-8fe8-424c-a40c-2797e7fd5716%40earthlink.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/CAPhUB9BLdSuYfWcB%3D0ESCKnbE%3DSdFFg%3DATgKZNjAxnCsLBgQhA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if it starts small | MIT Technology Review

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Herb, Mike, and Oswald,

I think the issue right now is pervasively couched in far too general and
absolutist terms that would make it very difficult/impossible to get
universal (or even just Security Council) agreement for deployment from the
UN. If pilot testing were started small-scale with willing actors
consisting of countries with polar regional jurisdictions that are willing
to try this in this from their territory (as probably not all polar
jurisdictions or polar peoples will agree right away) and done carefully
with maximum transparency, openness, etc. this could hopefully make it less
of an abstract 'politicized and moralized' hot potato and more of a cooling
method that is perceived as potentially valuable, useful, and (quite
likely) indispensable to avoid climate catastrophe.

I'm assuming here of course mostly measurable positive impacts from the
pilot testing, and an ability to adjust to smaller and less significant
undesirable impacts.  My thinking is that this would be a way to make
gradual polar SAI a more practical and tangible technique and less of a
boogie man on which to project every manner of global geopolitical
armageddon (per the Futerman talk and I'm guessing - from the abstract - in
the Keith and Smith  paper as well).  At this point, my hope is that it
would be easier to arrive at, at least, "tacit" and at some point "formal"
consent by the Security Council, or a sufficient number of major world
powers, for continued, slowly upscaled, global deployment without
geopolitical disaster.

*My thinking is that (as with the research/deployment dichotomy), the
governance/deployment dichotomy should not be looked at as strictly
separable. *My hope is that moving on both tracks simultaneously and trying
to build confidence, trust, and knowledge with gradual deployment would
hopefully change international perceptions and discussions of SAI and
direct climate cooling more broadly in a positive way, and that this could
then hopefully allow for global tacit, and at some point formal, political
support.

I should also note that countries are already currently engaging in large
scale climate efforts 'on their own territory' that probably have cross
boundary impacts. See for example discussion of China's large scale cloud
seeding efforts (as I recall in the Himalayas to regenerate snow pack,
discussed in this podcast:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cloud-seeding-law-simon/id1529459393?i=1000632950341


Also by starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out
(in the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct
impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect
impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and  polar
ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive. .

Best,
Ron


On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:17 PM Oswald Petersen 
wrote:

> Dear Herb and Mike
>
>
>
> Prenotice
>
>
>
> Europeans like me are still quite unfimiliar with the new habit to adress
> a community without an adressee. Adressees do have the advantage that I
> can disregard everything I am not addressed for. So far for US globalimsus.
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The UN are our only hope. We cannot diverge from the UN. Let´s stick to
> the UN!
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald
>
>
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://cool-planet.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *Im Auftrag von *Michael
> MacCracken
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 6. Februar 2024 23:03
> *An:* H simmens ; Ron Baiman 
> *Cc:* robertgch...@gmail.com; Gregory Slater ;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <
> planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <
> healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if
> it starts small | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> It is really not clear to me why the United Nations could (and should) not
> be the structure--or at least the designator of the structure, but better
> yet, of the overall goal, namely to offset future warming and gradually
> return the climate to something similar to its mid-20th century situation
> (with allowances for those nations facing special needs to ask for
> consideration of possible fine scale adjustments as knowledge improves--or
> something similar).
>
> T

[geo] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon if it starts small | MIT Technology Review

[Ron Baiman]

Good catch Herb!  Thanks for sharing. I haven't read the article yet, but
though acknowledging the feasibility and possible relevance gradual polar
SAI scenario would definitely be progress (that David Keith was very
critical of this in his HPAC talk), from skimming the abstract the article
appears to focus on SAI geopolitical concerns that echo Gideon Futerman's
recent HPAC talk.

 On this, needless to say, I agree with Robert C and Mike. Waiting for a
fully operational global governance regime  (like hoping for a super
expidited  emissions and drawdown only policy) is not realistic in the near
future - the only future that counts if humanity is going to have a
non-catastrophic immediate future, at all.

I think the alternative of starting slow by getting the consent of polar
jurisdictions and peoples for  a 'Save the polar ecosystems' effort
(following current MCB 'save the Great Barrier Reef' efforts) and inviting
all nations who wish to contribute to contribute in a 'coalition of the
willing' model (as with the 'International Space Station') that would be
gradual (initially local SAI focused on polar summers), public, and
transparent, and hopefully successful in gradually reducing warming and
cooling the poles and helping to stabilize the global climate is an example
of a more realistic approach for urgent deployment. Waiting for 'global
governance' or 'absolute confidence from research that does not include
deployment pilot testing' before beginning deployment is not an urgently
workable option.  At the risk of beating a dead horse I'm again attaching a
draft of this proposal that many of you may have seen:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing

Best,
Ron

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:38 PM  wrote:

> Hi Herb and Greg and all
>
> Working on something else, the other day I chanced upon the dedication for
> my PhD thesis written in 2012/13.  It was addressed to my then two year-old
> and newborn grandchildren expressing the hope that as adults they would
> come to be awestruck by humanity's achievements, yet forgive it its
> failings, and all the while see the funny side of both.  This piece by
> Keith and Smith definitely requires one to see the funny side.
>
> First, they're playing a great game of dissimulation, straining to present
> their 'we're the good guys' credentials by espousing caution and concern,
> while also chomping at the bit to get some serious sulphates into the sky.
> Their greatest fear is clearly being dubbed the Dr. Strangelove of climate
> change.
>
> But what's even funnier is the bizarre cognitive dissonance displayed by
> those opposed to SAI.  On the one hand the global shipping industry can
> with no serious public debate whatsoever force changes to bunker fuel that
> will greatly accelerate global warming, with who knows what consequences
> for both human and other life, on the grounds that the pollution it will
> reduce will save the lives of a much smaller number of people.  No need to
> consider the negative climate consequences of reducing the sulphur content
> of the fuel because, quite obviously, no one really cares about that.  If
> they did, there would at least have been some public conversation about the
> relative merits of changing the fuel.  They didn't, so there wasn't.  30
> years of IPCC really has changed things, hasn't it!
>
> Other amusing bits from this article are the implications that it'll take
> decades to scale SAI to make a significant difference to global warming and
> that this requires long-term anticipatory action by governments both in
> relation to the technology and its governance.  That completely knocks on
> the head the idea that some maverick Greenfinger or national leader is
> going to go off and do their own thing.  The rogue geoengineer is shown to
> be the joke it always has been.
>
> Similarly, Keith and Smith's highlighting of the social licence issues
> that have hitherto delayed, and are likely going forward to continue
> delaying, if not totally frustrating any move to deploy SAI, or even do the
> research and small scale deployment that they're proposing, completely
> kills off the equally nonsensical moral hazard argument that the mere
> prospect of SAI is sufficient reason for the climate baddies to continue
> being baddies.  The climate baddies can relax, their foes are going to make
> sure we need all the oil and gas they can produce for as long as they can
> so dutifully provide it.
>
> For those of us on this list, it is hard to fathom how humanity has boxed
> itself into this paralysis.  For some us, it has become clear that the
> basic rules of neoclassical economics are unfolding according to plan.
> Boom and bust.  Boom and bust.  As the excesses destabilise the system, the
> system reacts.  This is euphemistically called a correction.  The greater
> the excess.  The more severe the correction.  The corrections are a form of
> catharsis.  But at some point the excess becomes 

[geo] Fwd: Reminder for The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios - Bad Advice Makes Risky Business

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Link to actuaries report on underestimated risk from climate change,
presented at recent 2/4/2024 MEER Talk.

Thank you Barbara!

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder for The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios - Bad Advice
Makes Risky Business
To: Ron Baiman 


This is the report of folk are interested.  Underestimated financial risks
from climate change.

https://actuaries.org.uk/emperors-new-climate-scenarios


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 11:08 PM Barbara Sneath  wrote:

> No worries.  It was my fault because I should have sent it earlier.  There
> were about 40 people on the call and the video recording will be available
> in a week or so.
>
> Barbara
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 9:08 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
>> Sorry I missed this Barbara!
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 10:01 AM Barbara Sneath  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ron,
>>>
>>> Would you mind reminding HPAC etc. folk about this MEERTALK at 2 pm EST
>>> today.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Barbara
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: UK Divest 
>>> Date: Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 2:02 PM
>>> Subject: Reminder for The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios - Bad Advice
>>> Makes Risky Business
>>> To: 
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Eventbrite]
>>> Your event, The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios - Bad Advice Makes
>>> Risky Business
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.com/x/the-emperors-new-climate-scenarios-bad-advice-makes-risky-business-tickets-775758684107?utm_source=eventbrite_medium=email_campaign=reminder_attendees_48hour_email_term=eventname=eemaileventremind>
>>> is happening soon.
>>>
>>>
>>> How to join
>>>
>>> This event will be hosted online. Log in and check the event page for
>>> instructions to join.
>>> View the event
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.com/x/the-emperors-new-climate-scenarios-bad-advice-makes-risky-business-tickets-775758684107?utm_source=eventbrite_medium=email_campaign=reminder_attendees_48hour_email_term=cta=eemaileventremind>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Monday, 5 February 2024 from 19:00 to 20:30 (GMT)
>>>
>>> Add to my calendar:
>>>
>>> Google
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.com/calendar.ics?utm_campaign=event_reminder_medium=email=eemaileventremind=775758684107_source=eventbrite_term=googlecal=google>
>>> · Outlook
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.com/calendar.ics?utm_campaign=event_reminder_medium=email=eemaileventremind=775758684107_source=eventbrite_term=outlook=outlook>
>>> · iCal
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.com/calendar.ics?utm_campaign=event_reminder_medium=email=eemaileventremind=775758684107_source=eventbrite_term=ical=ical>
>>> · Yahoo
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.com/calendar.ics?utm_campaign=event_reminder_medium=email=eemaileventremind=775758684107_source=eventbrite_term=yahoocal=yahoo>
>>>
>>> Online Event
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Create your own event
>>>
>>> Anyone can sell tickets or manage registration with Eventbrite.
>>> Learn more <https://eventbrite.com/features/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Discover great events
>>>
>>> Find local events that match your passions.
>>> See events <https://eventbrite.com/directory/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eventbrite for mobile
>>>
>>> Easily pull up event details and discover upcoming events on the go.
>>>
>>> Download
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/eventbriteapp?utm_source=eventbrite_medium=email_campaign=reminder_attendees_48hour_email_term=ebmobiledownloadimg>
>>>
>>>
>>> Questions about the event?
>>> Contact the organiser
>>> <http://www.eventbrite.com/e/775758684107?contact_organizer=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Eventbrite]
>>>
>>> [image: twitter] <https://www.twitter.com/Eventbrite> [image: facebook]
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/Eventbrite> [image: instagram]
>>> <https://www.instagram.com/eventbrite/>
>>>
>>> This email was sent to bjsne...@meer.org
>>> Eventbrite
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.co.uk?utm_source=eventbrite_medium=email_campaign=_term=email_footer_eb_link>
>>> | 535 Mission Street, 8th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/535+Mission+Street,+8th+Floor+%7C+San+Francisco,+CA+94105?entry=gmail=g>
>>> Copyright © 2024 Eventbrite. All rights reserved.
>>> Privacy Policy
>>> <https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/support/articles/en_US/Troubleshooting/eventbrite-privacy-policy?lg=en_US?utm_source=eventbrite_medium=email_campaign=_term=email_footer_eb_link>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CozQ28b8RZvXWxinACokpB-%3DyaQGPmXY1VtsnCN_nBog%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Federal Register :: Scientific Integrity Policy Draft for Public Comment

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

FYI

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 4:06 PM
Subject: Federal Register :: Scientific Integrity Policy Draft for Public
Comment
To: Ron Baiman 


Hi Ron,

The Scientific Integrity policy draft is now open for public comment until
mid February for folks who are interested in protecting scientists in the
USA federal government from political and corporate interference.

Best wishes,
Barbara

Federal Register :: Scientific Integrity Policy Draft for Public Comment


https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/24/2024-01313/scientific-integrity-policy-draft-for-public-comment

-- 
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/CAPhUB9A%2BdNQ_HTOR1sggC5UDhETS7mLK14cTRnwacjuVNDv5Uw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Climate change opinion and recent presidential elections

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Barbara. Interesting.


-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 3:53 PM
Subject: Climate change opinion and recent presidential elections
To: Ron Baiman 


Hi Ron,

Voters’ attitudes to climate change are changing.

Best wishes,
Barbara

Climate change opinion and recent presidential elections


https://zenodo.org/records/10494414

-- 
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/CAPhUB9C%3DNm%2BFuaq3fHojo%3DTtMtCQj2K%3Dnt22hFK7OiRbdPSGTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Deadline Feb 2nd 2023: Expert Input Welcome for the 2024/2025 Edition of the 10 New Insights in Climate Science - 10insightsclimate

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Barbara!

Dear Colleagues,

 I urge all to submit 2023 most important peer-reviewed climate paper and why 
(I submitted Hansen et al pipeline paper and emphasized Hansen et al. support 
for DCC) and 2022 or earlier background papers (I submitted Baiman two climate 
crises and others. ). These don’t have to have been peer reviewed.  It’s a 
very quick and simple questionnaire!

Best,
Ron 


Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Barbara Sneath 
> Date: January 31, 2024 at 6:35:01 PM EST
> To: Ron Baiman 
> Subject: Deadline Feb 2nd 2023: Expert Input Welcome for the 2024/2025 
> Edition of the 10 New Insights in Climate Science - 10insightsclimate
> 
> 
> Dear Ron,
> 
> I’m unsure if HPAC is aware of this opportunity to submit expert information, 
> or if it’s already done so.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Barbara 
> 
> Expert Input Welcome for the 2024/2025 Edition of the 10 New Insights in 
> Climate Science - 10insightsclimate
> 
> 
> https://10insightsclimate.science/2024-call-for-input/

-- 
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/3D9F49D8-8EF2-42AF-B3CF-1438324FB211%40gmail.com.

[geo] Gideon Futerman on SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk at Jan 25, HPAC General Meeting, 2024, 4:30 EST

[Ron Baiman]

 Dear Colleagues,

*(My apologies for the mistaken date in my earlier notice!  We will be
hosting Gideon tomorrow Thursday Jan. 25 not Feb 8!)*

It is our pleasure to host Gideon Futerman for a presentation on:

"What's the worst that could happen? Exploring the interaction of SRM and
Global Catastrophic Risk"

at our next Thursday Jan 25, 2024, 4:30 PM EST HPAC General Meeting.

The (recurring) Zoom link for HPAC General Meetings is here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09


Gideon Futerman is a researcher who has been working on the interaction of
SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk since Summer 2022. His work has involved
exploring conflict and SRM, workshops and scenarios to explore the range of
possible futures involving SRM, and SRM and climate tipping points, as well
as more broadly looking at how to conceptualise Global Catastrophic Risk.
Gideon has been involved in the broader 'geoengineering' space for 5 years,
first as a youth activist with Worldward, and now as a researcher. He is
currently a student at the University of Oxford.

The workshop report that much of Gideon's talk will be based on is here
.
See also his recent paper (under review) Gideon et al. (2023) on this
topic: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1753/


Hope you can make it!

Best,
Ron
For the HPAC SC

-- 
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/CAPhUB9C5Eb%3DHwHpQ9c74uqUQbBbUbjgj6xJOG30CpeMJcW83RA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: CPR Initiative’s 3rd Public Hearing on Climate Action – Climate Protection and Restoration Initiative

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

FYI , See link below.

 (Thanks for sharing Barbara!)

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 4:09 PM
Subject: CPR Initiative’s 3rd Public Hearing on Climate Action – Climate
Protection and Restoration Initiative
To: Ron Baiman 


Hi Ron,

HPAC folks might want to attend, in person or remotely, speak in person or
remotely, and written comments to this event.  James Hansen and Tim Lenton
are testifying.

People in California might wish to attend in person in Santa Barbara.

Have you submitted the Direct Cooling paper?

Best wishes,
Barbara


CPR Initiative’s 3rd Public Hearing on Climate Action – Climate Protection
and Restoration Initiative



https://cprclimate.org/cpr-initiatives-3rd-public-hearing-on-climate-action/

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DwgfbTFT6fvFBwRTigG8rGbCtB7Uj%2BARtDqXwgJgqxYw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Gideon Futerman on SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk at Thurs Feb. 8, 2024, 4:30 EST, HPAC General Meeting

[Ron Baiman]

 Dear Colleagues,

It is our pleasure to host Gideon Futerman for a presentation on:

"What's the worst that could happen? Exploring the interaction of SRM and
Global Catastrophic Risk"

at our next Thursday Feb. 8, 2024, 4:30 PM EST HPAC General Meeting.

The (recurring) Zoom link for HPAC General Meetings is here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09


Gideon Futerman is a researcher who has been working on the interaction of
SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk since Summer 2022. His work has involved
exploring conflict and SRM, workshops and scenarios to explore the range of
possible futures involving SRM, and SRM and climate tipping points, as well
as more broadly looking at how to conceptualise Global Catastrophic Risk.
Gideon has been involved in the broader 'geoengineering' space for 5 years,
first as a youth activist with Worldward, and now as a researcher. He is
currently a student at the University of Oxford.

The workshop report that much of Gideon's talk will be based on is here
.
See also his recent paper (under review) Gideon et al. (2023) on this
topic: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1753/


Hope you can make it!

Best,
Ron
For the HPAC SC


If you'd like to include some pre-reading for context, the workshop report
that much of the talk will be based on is here


-- 
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/CAPhUB9D4CLgd0Nv_cuuqeLV-98wRB5ysV2rgTOB2emsEBTZhXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: What Works – Climate Solutions Summit

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

FYI.

Thanks for sharing Barbara!

Best,
Ron

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 11:26 PM Barbara Sneath  wrote:

> Hi Ron,
>
> I apologize if I have already sent this information to you to disseminate
> amongst the HPAC etc. members.  Berlin in June.  Abstracts due 31 Jan.  Net
> zero by 2050!  SRM and CDR essential.
>
> Best wishes,
> Barbara
>
> What Works – Climate Solutions Summit
>
>
> https://whatworksclimate.solutions/
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CRtvxqAGrbdxozyvdq6%2Bw_gRojeuJ%3DkDYTqk1QdWKcJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [HPAC] Re: HPAC COP28 Debrief: Viktor Jaakkola of Operaatio Arktis and Hugh Hunt of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Here's where the QR code on Hugh's hard copy from COP28 sent me:
https://www.srmyouthwatch.org

Looks like an interesting youth group from the global south seeking to
promote awareness about SRM.

It seems like we should get in contact with them!

Best,
Ron

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:07 PM John Nissen 
wrote:

> Here's the chat:
>
> Gregory Slater  to  Everyone 21:41
> How many attendees total to COP?
> small city...carbon footprint?
> Victor, could you describe your personal position on the various forms of
> geoengineering (SRM, CDR, etc.,) and how soon would you deploy first tests
> if up to you?
> Also, Victor, same question for Op Arc group?
>
> Gregory Slater  to  Everyone 21:49
> David Keith says he's found no compelling evidence of arctic ice 'tipping
> points'
> "Research" vs "Deploy"
>
> Ron Baiman  to  Everyone 21:52
> Ani and Hugh's presentation at COP28:
> https://youtu.be/IYfiSWVbFuQ?si=ZUAqApv_0BSm6fwv
>
> Gregory Slater 21:53
> Thank you
>
> Viktor Jaakkola  to  Everyone 21:55
> 61 interventions report by University of Lapland that Hugh mentioned:
> https://www.uarctic.org/news/2023/10/saving-the-frozen-arctic-a-new-assessment-evaluates-potential-climate-action-measures-and-their-feasibility/
>
> Ron Baiman  to  Everyone 21:55
> HPAC direct climate cooling methods paper:
> https://essopenarchive.org/users/673263/articles/672102-understanding-the-urgent-need-for-direct-climate-cooling
>
> Gregory Slater  to  Everyone 22:00
> the problem of "Stranded Assets" for the fossil fuel industry
>
> Gregory Slater  to  Everyone 22:05
> What happens if the "global south" says they don't want any geoengineering?
> How many years of research?
> Please define "research"?
>
> Gregory Slater 22:13
> Thank you!
> re: "Americans, get th f*** on with it"tell the repubs.
>
> Robert Tulip  to  Everyone 22:15
> Next COP is Azerbaijan not Afghanistan
>
> Gregory Slater 22:18
> yeah, thought that was it... not sure the taliban would host...
>
> Bruce MeltOn  to  Everyone 22:16
> Buying time. Thank you David.
>
> Gregory Slater  to  Everyone 22:20
> pushing geoengineering in grade, junior, high school classes as guest
> speakers?
>
> Hugh Hunt  to  Everyone 22:20
> 60th session of IPCC in Turkie https://www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-60/
>
> Gregory Slater  to  Everyone 22:24
> India and China are still pushing ahead with coal plants, and I am not
> sure China is under the thumb of the fossil fuel industry...instead maybe
> they see it as still the fastest way to build up energy capacity...
>
> Jonathan Cole  to  Everyone 22:25
> when will everyone be motivated to act?  when there is no bread at the
> store.
> But we can slowly grow the motivated group, from 10 percent to 11, 12
> etc.  Keep communicating!
>
> Viktor Jaakkola  to  Everyone 22:27
> vik...@operaatioarktis.fi
>
> Gregory Slater  to  Everyone 22:27
> the well has been very much poisoned against geoengineering, by climate
> activists, climate scientists, and, really, liberals...
> Where's Jim Hansen's latest bell curve?
>
> Hugh Hunt  to  Everyone 22:31
> This is Anni Pokela speaking at COP28 - at the end you should listen to
> the question from Martin Siegert at the end - Anni's response is excellent
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYfiSWVbFuQ
>
> John Nissen  to  Everyone 22:38
> At Robert Chris, we need the soft power, which could come from young
> people getting together and making the case for their own future.
>
> Robert Tulip  to  Everyone 22:44
> Hugh, if the fossil fuel industry had actually supported SPICE it would
> have happened.
>
> Mike MacCracken  to  Everyone 22:45
> Jim Hansen’s latest curve is at
> https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/ClimateDice.13July2023.pdf
>
> Leslie Field  to  Everyone 22:48
> My point with the AGU comment is that it sounds like we’re all wishing
> more people understand the need for research testing, and AGU is helping us
> to do exactly that outreach. It’s important for people to actually know the
> facts, politicians especially included.
>
> Rebecca Bishop - Gadigal lands 22:49
>  Thanks Leslie
>
> Herb Simmens  to  Everyone 22:48
> The dilemma is that absent the kind of very well funded lobbying that
> Robert advocated - that I completely with -it will likely take another
> decade or two to create the social license to get repair/cooling accepted
> by the climate decision makers…and the likelihood that the world will have
> the political, economic and supply chain stability to effectively implement
> repair at the scale needed
> Is next to zero
>
> Leslie Field  to  Everyone 22:

[geo] Re: HPAC COP28 Debrief: Viktor Jaakkola of Operaatio Arktis and Hugh Hunt of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Reminder of today's Thursday 1/11/2024 meeting at 4:30 pm EST:
 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09


Also per Suzanne's correction:  This is the link
<https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/12/cop28-what-did-it-accomplish-and-whats-next/>
to the COP28 Outcomes article.

Hope you can make it!

Best,
Ron


On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 1:58 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> At our upcoming Thursday 1/11/2024 4:30 pm EST HPAC General Meeting, it
> will be our pleasure to host Viktor Jaakkola of Operaatio Arktis and Hugh
> Hunt of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair who will be discussing
> their experiences and impressions of COP28. The Zoom Link for the meeting
> is: The recurring link (for is:
> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
>
>
> Viktor Jaakkola has been working full-time in Operaatio Arktis for the
> last year and a half. Operaatio Arktis is a youth-led science communication
> project based in Helsinki, with a special focus on Arctic sea ice
> preservation and climate interventions that could help stabilize the
> climate situation in the Arctic.
> Education-wise Viktor has a couple of years of Environmental Economics
> studies under his belt, but those studies are on break for now.
>
> Professor Hugh Hunt is Deputy Director of the Centre for Climate Repair.
> He is Professor of Dynamics and Vibrations in the Department of Engineering
> at the University of Cambridge. He has been a lecturer here since 1989,
> shortly after obtaining his PhD in Engineering from Cambridge. He is also a
> College Lecturer and Director of Studies in Engineering at Trinity College.
> His principal research interest is in albedo enhancement for climate
> intervention - "how can we refreeze the Arctic?" Within the Centre for
> Climate Repair he is most interested in the engineering aspects of Marine
> Cloud Brightening (MCB) and Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). Other
> interests include railway noise and vibration, gyroscopes and boomerangs,
> wave power, renewable energy, tower clocks and the vibration of bell
> towers.
>
> Related readings for this discussion that may be of interest:
>
> Official "Summary of Climate Action for COP28":
> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/mmaccrac%40comcast.net/FMfcgzGwJSKMKZdHrbLsFPvvKQnBRcQf?compose=CllgCJqVwsJtvXwGLQVtvFzJrJjvqGZNWlHcZqDgLpwCSNJbZkwVJplTbQZzGmmwxkkPxLlCcvq=1=0.1
>
> UNFCCC report leading into COP-28.
> https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Yearbook_GCA_2023.pdf
>
> HPAC OpEd on COP28
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bWsKif8WBr4DfZoC_ilOQ80hlY8AhJ9L/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
>
> Happy New Year and hope to see you there!
>
> Best,
>
> Ron Baiman
>
> For the HPAC SC
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9D3CS2F9qAN1KcYP_VTVDjFnD4nXpENoBms92ma4NmZYw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] HPAC COP28 Debrief: Viktor Jaakkola of Operaatio Arktis and Hugh Hunt of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

At our upcoming Thursday 1/11/2024 4:30 pm EST HPAC General Meeting, it
will be our pleasure to host Viktor Jaakkola of Operaatio Arktis and Hugh
Hunt of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair who will be discussing
their experiences and impressions of COP28. The Zoom Link for the meeting
is: The recurring link (for is:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09


Viktor Jaakkola has been working full-time in Operaatio Arktis for the last
year and a half. Operaatio Arktis is a youth-led science communication
project based in Helsinki, with a special focus on Arctic sea ice
preservation and climate interventions that could help stabilize the
climate situation in the Arctic.
Education-wise Viktor has a couple of years of Environmental Economics
studies under his belt, but those studies are on break for now.

Professor Hugh Hunt is Deputy Director of the Centre for Climate Repair. He
is Professor of Dynamics and Vibrations in the Department of Engineering at
the University of Cambridge. He has been a lecturer here since 1989,
shortly after obtaining his PhD in Engineering from Cambridge. He is also a
College Lecturer and Director of Studies in Engineering at Trinity College.
His principal research interest is in albedo enhancement for climate
intervention - "how can we refreeze the Arctic?" Within the Centre for
Climate Repair he is most interested in the engineering aspects of Marine
Cloud Brightening (MCB) and Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). Other
interests include railway noise and vibration, gyroscopes and boomerangs,
wave power, renewable energy, tower clocks and the vibration of bell
towers.

Related readings for this discussion that may be of interest:

Official "Summary of Climate Action for COP28":
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/mmaccrac%40comcast.net/FMfcgzGwJSKMKZdHrbLsFPvvKQnBRcQf?compose=CllgCJqVwsJtvXwGLQVtvFzJrJjvqGZNWlHcZqDgLpwCSNJbZkwVJplTbQZzGmmwxkkPxLlCcvq=1=0.1

UNFCCC report leading into COP-28.
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Yearbook_GCA_2023.pdf

HPAC OpEd on COP28
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bWsKif8WBr4DfZoC_ilOQ80hlY8AhJ9L/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true

Happy New Year and hope to see you there!

Best,

Ron Baiman

For the HPAC SC

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CdT0DFtp8uYV0HSajO1DVTdOVRTcR4vp%3DdnwZHXxVfsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks for sharing Barbara.  As I understand it this study provides further
confirmation of Hansen's view by finding consistent acceleration
(increasing of the rate of warming) of global warming by using more
differentiated warming metrics than (the standard) global mean surface
temperature.

>From the abstract:
"Global heating of the Earth system is unequivocal. However, detecting an
acceleration of Earth
heating has remained elusive to date, despite suggestive evidence of a
potential increase in
heating rates. In this study, we demonstrate that since 1960, the warming
of the world ocean has
accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0.15 ± 0.05 (W/m 2 )/decade,
while the land, cryosphere,
and atmosphere have exhibited an accelerated pace of 0.013 ± 0.003 (W/m 2
)/decade."


And from the Intro:

" Detecting changes in the rate of warming is crucial for informed
decision-making in international climate negotiations, with the aim
of limiting global warming to specific levels. In this paper, we address
this challenge by examining the global heat accumulation rate across the
entire climate system, including the ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere, and
land. By focusing on this integrated view, rather than solely relying on
changes in global mean surface temperature, we can mitigate the impact of
variability and gain a more compre-
hensive understanding 4,5 .Global heat accumulation in the climate system,
resulting from the current positive Earth’s Energy Imbalance
(EEI) at the top of the atmosphere, is primarily dominated by changes in
Global Ocean Heat Content (GOHC)4 .
GOHC changes account for approximately 90% of the total heat increase in
the past fifty years, while land heat-
ing, ice melting, and atmospheric warming contribute around 5%, 3%, and 1%
respectively 6–8 ."

Perhaps this is not too surprising as the second author of this paper, von
Schuckmann, is also a co-author of the Hansen et al pipeline paper - though
this appears to be an independent confirmation using different data than
used in that paper.

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:56 PM
Subject: Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past
six decades
To: Ron Baiman 


Dear Ron,

FYI, this open access article was just published in Nature.

Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six
decades

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1

Best wishes,
Barbara

-- 
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/CAPhUB9B5r8GaOXnr8UmHDaYLNMUv3%3DgBt08yBzkH0eyBgth0OA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Futerman et. al. 2023 The interaction of Solar Radiation Modification with Earth System Tipping Elements

[Ron Baiman]

 Dear Colleagues,

This paper (flagged by Bruce!) looks interesting!

(preprint) Futerman et al., The interaction of Solar Radiation Modification
with Earth System Tipping Elements, October 10, 2023.
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1753/

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9D-ohdvgmoKDZcEnLMJW9BJ7E0HjX%2BrmqutbR%2Bk-nL2ng%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: An Opportunity to Provide Opinions on Climate Change to NASEM: Projects & Activities

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Barbara!

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Barbara Sneath 
> Date: December 11, 2023 at 11:53:59 AM EST
> To: Ron Baiman 
> Subject: An Opportunity to Provide Opinions on Climate Change to NASEM: 
> Projects & Activities
> 
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Perhaps HPAC can submit relevant documents to the National Academy’s work on 
> the climate crisis.  This is the form for feedback.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Barbara 
> 
> Projects & Activities
> 
> 
> https://www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/feedback.aspx?type=project=NRCEO-CCX-23-01

-- 
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/6C5AC869-BD1B-4728-ACEF-86EE30D8AE7A%40gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: HPAC Meeting, Thursday, December 14, 1:30 pm PST. Guest Speaker: Robert Tulip on Religion and Climate Science

[Ron Baiman]

Sent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:From: Suzanne Reed Date: December 10, 2023 at 9:35:10 PM ESTTo: healthy-planet-action-coalition Subject: HPAC Meeting, Thursday, December 14, 1:30 pm PST. Guest Speaker: Robert TulipHPAC Meeting: Thursday, Dec. 14, 2023, 1:30 pm PSThttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09Robert Tulip has a Master of Arts Honours Degree from Macquarie University in ontology and ethics and a Graduate Diploma in Foreign Affairs and Trade from Monash University.  He worked for thirty years in the Australian Public Service in international development, including policy and program management across a number of different sectors and countries, especially in Papua New Guinea.  He has been working in climate engineering since 2007, when his work on forests and climate led him to see large scale ocean-based algae production as a decisive technology for climate stability.  Robert is an HPAC Steering Circle member. He is collaborating with Stephen Salter on Marine Cloud Brightening.Robert will be discussing Religion's ambiguous relationship with climate science. Religion has an ambiguous relationship with climate science.  On the one hand, conventional religion tends to promote comforting escapist emotional fantasies, and so has a negative role, deflecting attention from the pragmatic problems of a warming planet and enabling the spread of harmful myths.  On the other hand, the religious hope for salvation of the world can be seen in a pragmatic way, helping us to analyse the changes needed to reverse the current trajectory toward civilizational collapse and create a vision of a planetary transformation toward stable and orderly flourishing. Religious framing of central moral values of truth, love and justice can help us to build a brighter world, culturally and physically.  My longstanding research interest in the relationship between Christianity and existential philosophy has led me to the view that heretical forms of Christianity can give absolute ethical priority to science, offering vital contributions to political conversation about the climate emergency.  My presentation to HPAC will cover material I will discuss in a paper to the XIV International Bonhoeffer Congress in January 2024, on how the thought of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer relates to existentialism and climate change.We hope to see you this Thursday.This will be the last meeting of the year.  HPAC will resume meetings on Thursday, January 11, 2024Best wishes,Suzanne and the HPAC Steering Circle



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAE0%3DaUCUq63tJae%2BT3HRO1LLo8BV674PJToYYhGUJ-9HnKvVkA%40mail.gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/E961B695-499F-4661-ABBC-B98EC37EF9EC%40gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Summit of the Future: Invitation to Participate in Virtual Consultation and Submit Written Inputs

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Barbara!Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 5, 2023, at 4:24 PM, Barbara Sneath  wrote:More information regarding a virtual consultation on 13 December.Barbara -- Forwarded message -From: Date: Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:34 AMSubject: Summit of the Future: Invitation to Participate in Virtual Consultation and Submit Written InputsTo:  

	




On 10 October 2023, the President of the General Assembly announced the reappointment of Germany and Namibia as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental preparatory process of the Summit of the Future. As part of the consultative process, the United Nations Secretariat supports the co-facilitators in engaging civil society and other stakeholders.

Following the letter issued on 13 November 2023 and on behalf of the co-facilitators, we are delighted to extend this invitation for your active participation in an upcoming virtual consultation and to request your written inputs.

For more information on the consultation registration, submission guidelines, and deadlines, please refer to the detailed information below.

Virtual Consultation, 13 December 2023

Invitation to Major Group and other Stakeholders (MGoS) and Civil Society representatives to a virtual consultation on 13 December at 10:00 AM.  

The goal of the consultation is to provide the opportunity to share overall views and expectations for the Summit and offer concrete suggestions for the zero-draft of the outcome document, the Pact for the Future.  

Registration link: https://forms.gle/M52wNnSsTe25vEqN8

The deadline for registration is 10 December, midnight Eastern Time.  

Written Inputs for the zero-draft of the Pact for the Future

Invitation to Major Groups and Other Stakeholders (MGoS), other civil society networks and organizations, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and academia to provide written inputs for the preparation of the zero-draft of the Pact for the Future. 

Stakeholders are encouraged to reflect on the scope of the Pact for the Future as decided on in General Assembly Decision 77/568. 

The deadline for the submission of written inputs is 31 December 2023.   

When submitting written inputs, stakeholders are requested to follow the specified format: 


	Inputs must be submitted in Word format using the template provided here: https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/submission_of_inputs_sotf_word_template.docx
	The document should contain concise, concrete, and action-oriented recommendations structured around the elements of the Pact for the Future:  
	Chapeau 
	Chapter I. Sustainable development and financing for development 
	Chapter II. International peace and security 
	Chapter III. Science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation 
	Chapter IV. Youth and future generations 
	Chapter V. Transforming global governance 
	The Word document should be no more than 2000 words in total.
	The Word document must include the name of the organization or network and the contact details of the focal point.
	Only one submission per organization or network will be published. We encourage coordinated work in developing the inputs.  
	Written inputs should be submitted through this form:  https://forms.gle/dnHEvuGr7PfGVh329


We look forward to your participation and valuable contributions.

For more information about the Summit of the Future, please visit: https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future








-- 
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/4452CFB7-5D67-42D1-86A5-547533013986%40gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Hybrid Lecture: David MacKay Memorial Lecture: Going beyond emissions reduction – Climate Repair | London | TLE7662

[Ron Baiman]

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Barbara Sneath 
> Date: December 2, 2023 at 5:03:23 PM EST
> To: Barbara Sneath 
> Subject: Hybrid Lecture: David MacKay Memorial Lecture: Going beyond 
> emissions reduction – Climate Repair | London | TLE7662
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> FYI.
> 
> Barbara 
> 
> Hybrid Lecture: David MacKay Memorial Lecture: Going beyond emissions 
> reduction – Climate Repair | London | TLE7662
> 
> 
> https://events.imeche.org/ViewEvent?code=TLE7662

-- 
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/74799EB5-EC61-42A3-9D57-B9AFC4193629%40gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: MEERTALK Sunday Dec 3 - Peter Carter

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

I'm pleased to publicize this  MEER talk by Dr. Peter Carter who has been
active on the climate front before many of us (like myself) even thought of
it as a critical priority!

Best,
Ron


-- Forwarded message -
From: Barbara Sneath 
Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: MEERTALK Sunday Dec 3 - Peter Carter
To: Ron Baiman 


Hi Ron,
I would be grateful if you would publicize Sunday’s webinar among the
network.
Best wishes,
Barbara

-- Forwarded message -
From: MEER 
Date: Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:18 PM
Subject: MEERTALK Sunday Dec 3 - Peter Carter
To: Barbara 


Climate Change: From Science to Development and Moral Challenge
View this email in your browser
<https://mailchi.mp/617857fdc46e/meertalk-sunday-dec-3-peter-carter?e=0434e43e97>
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=e723453515=0434e43e97>
Download PDF poster *HERE*
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=68594c4b71=0434e43e97>
to
email or post
Download printer friendly black/white poster *HERE*
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=b0360a3be7=0434e43e97>

Hope to see you there!
[image: Twitter]
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=6dc55242d9=0434e43e97>
[image: Website]
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=77a89a838d=0434e43e97>
[image: YouTube]
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=d14d2fdb27=0434e43e97>
*Copyright ©2023 MEER All rights reserved.*
You have contacted MEER to be on our mailing list.

*Our snail mail address is:*
Social & Environmental Entrepreneurs (MEER)
23564 Calabasas Road, Suite 201
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/23564+Calabasas+Road,+Suite+201+%0D%0ACalabasas,+CA+91302?entry=gmail=g>
Calabasas, CA 91302
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/23564+Calabasas+Road,+Suite+201+%0D%0ACalabasas,+CA+91302?entry=gmail=g>

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/profile?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=885b0d87ea=0434e43e97=7f0f6aa244>
or unsubscribe from this list
<https://meer.us5.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=564c3ffefced87780c15bd361=885b0d87ea=0434e43e97=7f0f6aa244>.

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BJODfU%2B8pSRTSC2NhU38kX-_%2Bok-Rb8JfN%3D_1NXb0Vuw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Final call for Signatures to IMO Bunker Fuel Regulations Letter by Friday 12/1!

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

The letter and supporting technical addendum is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true

We are hoping to send these to NGO's with IMO observer status for possible
submission to the upcoming IMO Maritime Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) meeting in March 2024, but we'd like to offer a last chance for more
signatures before we do so!

If you wish to sign, please send a post with your name and institutional
affiliation(s) to Ron Baiman (Corresponding author) at: rpbai...@gmail.com
by Friday 12/1.

Thank you!

Best,

Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9Cz1STyEUyCxt%2Be2-bsyE4FO25mn9TobX4zkm1ekHY_Pw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Reviewer 2 does geoengineering HPAC takeover! Mike MacCracken interviews Chris Field from the Overshoot Commission

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

See link below for an excellent podcast version of the recent HPAC conversation 
and lively discussion. Please share widely!

Best,
Ron


> 
> Reviewer 2 does geoengineering (@reviewer2Geo) posted at 11:47 pm on Tue, Nov 
> 21, 2023:
> HPAC takeover! Ron Baiman frogmarches @geoengineering1 out of the studio, 
> while Mike MacCracken interviews Chris Field from the Overshoot Commission. 
> https://t.co/wcOkgyxw13
> (https://x.com/reviewer2Geo/status/1727111581975417291?t=h9bE2cIaISWzDg8feYdl1g=03)
>  

-- 
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/49789DB3-DC39-473C-B76A-CDDE06959E42%40gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [CDR] Scicomm / Andrew Lockley

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Andrew,I think what you’re doing is vitally important to our cause(s) and hope that you are able to continue! I don’t think you’re “replaceable” even in the strictly  utilitarian sense of someone who could sustain all of these projects - certainly not without much more financial and other support. As you may know HPAC is now working on joining a financial sponsor and non-profit incubator that might lead to more resources. I appreciate that you probably cannot continue your work indefinitely and we (the broad cooling and carbon removal communities) need to find more sustainable ways  to support our activities.  Hopefully in more concrete ways in the future!Best,Ron BaimanHPAC SC Sent from my iPhoneOn Nov 21, 2023, at 5:59 AM, Michael Hayes  wrote:[...] While this isn't a marketing post, [...]MH] All of your posts to the CDR list are heavily 'branded' as being part of your personal 'marketing/branding' scheme.Best wishes, and good luck with your attempted plebiscite to be named ruler of the GE/CDR/SRM space(s). Regrettably, I vote No.MichaelOn Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 12:50 AM Andrew Lockley  wrote:Hi, I've been running a scicomm operation for well over a decade now. It started with the geoengineering Google group, and has expanded to include @geoengineering1 twitterhttps://x.com/geoengineering1@reviewer2Geo podcast https://open.spotify.com/show/2KSB1lU18qh5gYIRDYPJMbCarbon removal updates substackhttps://carbonremovalupdates.substack.com/ SRM substackhttps://solargeoengineeringupdates.substack.com/YouTube play listhttps://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF8369A27273314D8=I6UG42kWNIaSL86hThis is on top of moderating this geoengineering Google grouphttps://groups.google.com/g/geoengineering ...and contributing to the CDR Google group. While this isn't a marketing post, I'd encourage you to check out these brands. This is both for your personal benefit, and for background information to the below discussions.This work is currently funded roughly half by me and half by donations. You can donate via substack subscription, or directly here:patreon.com/GeoengineeringThe current situation isn't ideal. I'm paying hundreds of $/mth to subsidise this community service, which employs one approx. full time staff member (contractor). Furthermore, various people in this community seem to dislike variously me, my leadership, or my academic work - for whatever reason. This likely taints their perception of the brands, and their willingness to engage with them - eg some people block @geoengineering1 on twitter (don't worry, we still track all their posts manually). This apparent animosity to the brands is despite the fact that I have I have no direct involvement in ~95pc of editorial decisions, and I don't use the brands for financial gain (far from it!). Interestingly, these twitter blocks are roughly balanced between pro- and anti- factions, so I'm probably achieving a fairly neutral balance. For the avoidance of doubt, these brands aren't an SRM/CDR advocacy service, and rival views are given equal prominence - although disinformation and bad-faith actors aren't amplified alongside good-faith debate. Two coincidental issues have made it necessary to reconsider the long-term future of these services. Firstly, there's a possible funder available. While I think that crowdfunding is great, it's never been nearly enough to cover basic admin, let alone any outreach, advertising, or public representation at events. Long-term funding would turn this into a proper specialist media operation. Such funding might also suit a different leadership/governance approach.Secondly, my own involvement henceforth has some complications. On the one hand, the long term funding discussed above might possibly result in an insurmountable conflict of interest with other work I do. On the other, there may be a benefit from having either a less controversial leader, or simply a broader range of views on both governance and media strategy.So, it's time for your input. Two key questions:1) what should I/we do 2) do YOU personally want to be part of it (or can you recommend someone)? This could be for an oversight board, or even a paid CEO/operator - if funding was available.Additionally, if you know of funding / sponsorship opportunities, pls let me know. We've sought funding for a while, but this kind of thing isn't really on anyone's funding radar - so the funding stream under consideration seems to be the only game in town. Please keep all comments constructive and respectful. I don't tolerate ad hom attacks or personal hostility on the geoengineering Google group, and they're not welcome or helpful on this thread. I'm seeking views on the future of the brands I've started, not soliciting abuse for my unrelated work, perceived political views, or personal style. Thanks in advance for any constructive contributions. Andrew Lockley 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide 

[geo] Fwd: Climate change: Is the world warming faster than expected?

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks for sharing Barbara! 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Barbara Sneath 
> Date: November 18, 2023 at 9:37:04 AM EST
> To: Ron Baiman 
> Subject: Climate change: Is the world warming faster than expected?
> 
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> FYI.  Aerosol cooling is mentioned.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Barbara 
> 
> Climate change: Is the world warming faster than expected?
> 
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67360929

-- 
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/A1078371-8D7B-4770-B688-349CCA82D3D9%40gmail.com.

[geo] Please use this thread to sign the Bunker Fuel Regulations Open Letter!

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you all!

This  will make my job of inserting

 signatures a bit easier!

The complete letter: "An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting the Utilization
of Ship Fuels that Cool the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality
Benefits" is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true

Feel free of course to just post to me if you want to: rpbai...@gmail.com.

Please include your institutional affiliation and/or address with your name!

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9C3frN4Dhwbiq4%3D6ZZwWfLmQkmX9NQkvebkbDmE4qq6Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Please sign our Open Bunker Fuel Regulations Letter to the IMO!

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you all again for your many suggested edits!

The main body of our , I think, much improved, letter is copied below:

An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting the Utilization of Ship Fuels that

Cool the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits

November 12, 2023

We are in a global warming emergency that is being exacerbated by a rapid
decline in anthropogenically caused atmospheric aerosol loading (Hansen et
al, 2023).

Recently Implemented (2015 and 2020) International Maritime Organization
(IMO) regulations on bunker-fuel sulfur content are an important
contributor to these reduced aerosol loadings and high sea surface
temperatures  (Hansen, 2023b; Hansen et al., 2023;  WMO, 2014, 2023).

Numerous studies have suggested that these reduced aerosol loadings have
and will significantly increase global warming (Hansen et al., 2023;
Diamond, 2023; Voosen, 2023; Hausfather & Forester, 2023; Yuan et al.,
2022; Bilsback et al., 2020;  Jin et al., 2018;  Sofiev et al., 2018;
Partanen et al., 2013; Fuglestvedt et al., 2009; Lauer et al., 2007).

Higher sea surface temperatures have been implicated in the intensification
of extreme flooding worldwide and in the dying of an estimated 19 percent
of coral reefs globally since 2009 (Aumann & Wang, 2018; UNEP, 2021).

This suggests the need to reconsider refinement of the regulations.

Following Partenan et al (2013), it  may be possible to offset the global
warming harm of these regulations by temporarily relaxing them  for “high
seas” sulfur emissions (i.e., far from ports and population centers) while
largely preserving air quality benefits in ports and coastal areas.

 It may also be possible to increase the cooling effect of shipping
emissions while preserving or enhancing air quality by including benign
tropospheric aerosol precursors in existing and future non-GHG, or net-zero
GHG emitting, maritime fuels (Baiman et al., 2023).

We therefore ask that the International Maritime Organization and other
international and national health and environmental organizations urgently
support and sponsor research, pilot testing and emergency regulations, that
would:

1)  Partially relax the IMO’s maritime bunker fuel sulfur emissions
regulation for “high seas” maritime transport in ways that - as much as
possible-- would increase the global cooling benefits of sulfur or similar
aerosols without causing harm to humans or natural systems, and

2)  Require that benign tropospheric aerosol precursors such as sea
water (referred to as the “marine cloud brightening method”) or other
possible tropospheric aerosols  (referred to as the “climate catalysts
method”) that would create the global cooling benefits of sulfur aerosols
without - as much as possible - causing harm to humans or natural systems
be included in existing fuel, and in future non-GHG and net-zero GHG
emitting fuel (Baiman et al., 2023).



The full letter, including a 6 page Technical Addendum, can be viewed here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true

*Please review it and contact Ron Baiman at: rpbai...@gmail.com
 (cc'd above) if you'd like to sign it.*

Needless to say, we're hoping for a large number of signatures and would
like to get it to the IMO and other relevant organizations as soon as
possible!

*Please also send this letter to colleagues who may be interested in
signing it, and publicize it and invite people to sign in other relevant
forums or social media.*

The letter and signature solicitation will be posted on the HPAC, and
hopefully other, websites.

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CAJfcMSe-NvVfL1DNR1CekmXknH7smHGsLgRz0Pw_9%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Re: Nov. 11, 2023 Deadline for Edits to IMO Bunker Fuel Letter

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Alan!  I think I can speak for all of us in wishing him a speedy
recovery!
Best,
Ron

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 3:31 AM Alan Gadian  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Just a quick message from Stephen Salter.  He is currently chair-bound,
> but well after a small op.
>
> He has asked me to contact you  to let me know that he thinks his email in
> box is full and emails may be bouncing back to the senders.  Apologies if
> so.  He is contacting the mail box provider to increase his allocation, but
> he will get back to you all as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks
> Alan
>
>
> T ---
> Alan Gadian, UK.
> Tel: +44 / 0  775 451 9009
> T ---
>
> On 9 Nov 2023, at 20:04, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
> 
> Reminder!
> Two more days to make suggested edits to this document:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
> Thank you!
> Best,
> Ron
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:24 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the many edits and suggestions!
>>
>> I think the letter here:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
>>
>> is now much improved and it's time to finalize it and move on to
>> signature collection and distribution to the IMO and other organizations.
>>
>> The HPAC SC+ (cc'd above) will be reviewing it and making a decision on
>> adding to the HPAC site for signatures, and perhaps other of our groups
>> could consider doing this or distributing it other ways for signatures,
>> after 11/11 when all of the final edits and comments are reviewed and/or
>> incorporated?
>>
>> Please note in particular that "the ask" in the letter has been changed
>> to emphasize the urgent need for implementation.
>>
>> I think we have a good letter that perhaps can be improved further in the
>> next week, but I think it's time to move from drafting to action!
>>
>> Best,
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> 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/CAPhUB9BPE%3DvCk4JsURnjuh7rJtvuxoOeW4uvznh4piRQhv8PSw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9BPE%3DvCk4JsURnjuh7rJtvuxoOeW4uvznh4piRQhv8PSw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CqJgw%2BdAjtGC0XHsvuTc1fuFAoyds-gZFDUEcfhpwTvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Nov. 11, 2023 Deadline for Edits to IMO Bunker Fuel Letter

[Ron Baiman]

Reminder!
Two more days to make suggested edits to this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
Thank you!
Best,
Ron

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 4:24 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thank you very much for the many edits and suggestions!
>
> I think the letter here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
>
> is now much improved and it's time to finalize it and move on to signature
> collection and distribution to the IMO and other organizations.
>
> The HPAC SC+ (cc'd above) will be reviewing it and making a decision on
> adding to the HPAC site for signatures, and perhaps other of our groups
> could consider doing this or distributing it other ways for signatures,
> after 11/11 when all of the final edits and comments are reviewed and/or
> incorporated?
>
> Please note in particular that "the ask" in the letter has been changed to
> emphasize the urgent need for implementation.
>
> I think we have a good letter that perhaps can be improved further in the
> next week, but I think it's time to move from drafting to action!
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BPE%3DvCk4JsURnjuh7rJtvuxoOeW4uvznh4piRQhv8PSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Doug MacMartin video

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Linked above is a recording of yesterday's (11/2/2023) Doug MacMartin HPAC
presentation and discussion.  I believe that all participants would agree
that this was a superb presentation and good discussion that I heartily
recommend viewing if you were unable to attend.

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Robbie Tulip 
Date: Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:39 AM
Subject: Doug MacMartin video
To: H simmens , Ron Baiman 


Hi Herb & Ron

I got a new computer and have not yet installed my email on it, so can only
use this gmail account to send emails.

Here is the recording of Doug's meeting.  Could you please circulate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVHrTlbfwNQ

I will send a dropbox link to put it on the HPAC website

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/CAPhUB9BzSokeKYtya6-P2MoJhzQCYgS3j%3DiOZ%3D8mJ2Pyt3jhhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [prag] Re: Meeting of possible interest

[Ron Baiman]

Good catch John!  Google says central europe moves to CET on the last day
of Oct, so it appears, per John, that the Nov 7 conference time must be in
CET not CEST.  Per Mike's comment East Coast US goes back to EST Nov. 5
(MacMartin HPAC talk today 11/2 is 3:30 pm EDT).
Best,
Ron


On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 4:58 PM John Nissen  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> CEST appears incorrect.  I believe that Central Europe time has moved out
> of summer time, from CEST to CET, which is GMT + 1.  The UK moved from BST
> to GMT last Sunday.
>
> Somebody needs to check what the actual start time is!  If the organisers
> say CEST they may have made a mistake.
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:59 PM Bruce Parker  wrote:
>
>> Thank you for registering for:* Methane: possible tipping points or
>> surprises. Why is methane rising, how are sources and sinks changing, what
>> is the risk from hydrates?*
>>
>> The event will take place on *7 November, 15:30-17:00 CEST.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce P
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Nissen
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 31, 2023 5:30 PM
>> *To:* Michael MacCracken
>> *Cc:* Tom Goreau; Veli Albert Kallio; Gene Fry;
>> healthy-planet-action-coalition; Robert Chris; Planetary Restoration;
>> 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings; geoengineering
>> *Subject:* Re: Meeting of possible interest
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike,  they give a time for the webinar but no clue I could see for
>> the time zone.  Do you know what it is?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers John from mobile
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, 20:54 Michael MacCracken, 
>> wrote:
>>
>> See https://methane-possible-tipping-points-or-surprises.confetti.events/
>> ?
>>
>> Mike MacCracken
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "NOAC Meetings" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CACS_Fxo%2BEEu1pcV4a%3DRgHO6SC5w-Yg6wxON%2B5YB31ugX%3DfQqNA%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Planetary Restoration" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxqbCOdXBbDanJMWuO%2B6Qvwina1aT8xXGKPjyVTdnkdj8A%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/CAPhUB9AnMDcn98K3ir2vzh96uLQdZO4jR7%3Dupf_1sRR85KFZgg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Nov. 11, 2023 Deadline for Edits to IMO Bunker Fuel Letter

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you very much for the many edits and suggestions!

I think the letter here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true

is now much improved and it's time to finalize it and move on to signature
collection and distribution to the IMO and other organizations.

The HPAC SC+ (cc'd above) will be reviewing it and making a decision on
adding to the HPAC site for signatures, and perhaps other of our groups
could consider doing this or distributing it other ways for signatures,
after 11/11 when all of the final edits and comments are reviewed and/or
incorporated?

Please note in particular that "the ask" in the letter has been changed to
emphasize the urgent need for implementation.

I think we have a good letter that perhaps can be improved further in the
next week, but I think it's time to move from drafting to action!

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9D-E-Y5n-XHkGogtR6MLqOukNLutV%3DDTZcVX0%3D6f0N2cA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [prag] Understanding the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling submission to Earth's Future published in ESS Open Archive

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Herb!  Now let’s see if we can get it through peer review and “real” publication!Best,Ron Sent from my iPhoneOn Oct 19, 2023, at 1:53 PM, H simmens  wrote:Dear Ron,I know that I speak for many in acknowledging and commending your leadership in both conceiving of this critically important paper and working doggedly with the multiple co-authors over the past year or so to reach this milestone. Thank you! Herb






Herb SimmensAuthor of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson@herbsimmensHerbSimmens.comOn Oct 19, 2023, at 1:41 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:Dear Colleagues,We are pleased to inform you that our submission to the AGU journal Earth's Future: "Understanding the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling" has been published in the ESS Open Archive. Please share it widely!Cite as: Ron Baiman, William S Clarke, Clive Elsworth, et al. Understanding the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling.  ESS Open Archive . October 17, 2023.DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169755546.65919302/v1

Best, Ron BaimanCorresponding Author



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9CJD3cAdgL3jdNOkyaqs%3DNA3hUuofCJXsPYhtFwe1L__A%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/647009C7-70EE-4A83-BDF7-265DCB1DAD8B%40gmail.com.

[geo] Understanding the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling submission to Earth's Future published in ESS Open Archive

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to inform you that our submission to the AGU journal *Earth's
Future*: "Understanding the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling" has
been published in the ESS Open Archive.

Please share it widely!

*Cite as: *Ron Baiman, William S Clarke, Clive Elsworth, et al.
Understanding the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling. * ESS Open
Archive .* October 17, 2023.
DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169755546.65919302/v1
<https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.169755546.65919302/v1>

Best,
Ron Baiman
Corresponding Author

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CJD3cAdgL3jdNOkyaqs%3DNA3hUuofCJXsPYhtFwe1L__A%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Final call for edits to Bunker Fuel Regulation Partial Relaxation and/or Benign Aerosol Injection Letter

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Please comment on or make suggested edits to this draft document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WNsRI8GbyZgdso39ptKuKFI2HA6ZuBni/edit?usp=share_link=11646594195452408=true=true

Thank you,
Ron Baiman
For the Bunker Fuel Regulation Relaxation and Maritime Aerosol Injection
drafting group

-- 
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/CAPhUB9AfkwgnOQO0Vf%3DxqNOmaw1emOgG3cNXLmzNsuAF2ZSd7g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Re: Recordings of panel discussions from RFF's Solar Geoengineering Futures event

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Pete!  I just finished listening to the first one that I thought
was quite good though so much more could have been raised and said about
this topic with more time!  For one thing everything except SAI got pretty
short shrift, and potential non-SRM Direct Climate Cooling (DCC) techniques
like for example OTEC that might be able (at scale) to significantly cool
ocean surfaces and raise all the renewable energy that we currently use and
then some (though I'm not advocating an OTEC only energy policy or any
single "silver bullet" DCC method as I think it would be big mistake "to
put all of our eggs in one basket" on either score!). For more see the
Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) cooling paper here :
https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023
.  (We have submitted a later version of this to a journal but want to hold
off on making it public just yet.).
Best,
Ron Baiman
HPAC Steering Circle member
www.healthyplanetaction.org

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:50 PM 'Tyler Felgenhauer' via geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Thank you Pete!
>
> I wanted to make sure that this additional session was also included in
> the list above:
>
> A conversation on the NOAA Earth Radiation Budget
> <https://youtu.be/XXAjW_M62X0>
> Greg Frost, NOAA
> Kristin Hayes, Resources for the Future
>
> Best,
>
> Tyler
>
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 7:14:43 AM UTC-4 p.j.irvine wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here are recordings from the Resources for the Future Solar
>> Geoengineering Futures event in Washington DC from a couple of weeks ago.
>> There were many solar geoengineering experts speaking on a series of panel
>> discussions. The one I personally learned the most from was the Geopolitics
>> panel on the second day, but the whole event was great.
>>
>> Biophysical Impacts <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opZuU2isUWw> (Science
>> of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering)
>> - Pete Irvine, UCL
>> - Babatunde Abiodun, University of Cape Town
>> - John Moore, University of Lapland
>> - Daniele Visioni, Cornell University
>> - Lili Xia, Rutgers University
>>
>> Would Solar Geoengineering Crowd Out Emissions Cuts?
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh5lyhHDcNM>
>> - Joe Aldy, Harvard Kennedy School and RFF
>> - Talbott Andrews, University of Connecticut
>> - Dave McEvoy, Appalachian State University
>> - Christine Merk, Kiel Institute for the World Economy
>> - David Morrow, American University
>>
>> A Conversation with the Right Honourable A. Kim Campbell, P.C.
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdZYessoAYo=7s> (from Climate
>> Overshoot Commission)
>>
>> Solar Geoengineering’s Place in Broader Climate Strategy
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JbRgrXF3F0>
>> - Mariia Belaia, George Mason University
>> - Tony Harding, Georgia Institute of Technology
>> - Doug MacMartin, Cornell University
>> - Massimo Tavoni, RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the
>> Environment
>> - Simone TIlmes, National Center for Atmospheric Research
>>
>> Capacity Building for Competent, Just, & Inclusive Decisionmaking
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79OBOsrUkjk>
>> - Julie Arrighi, Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre
>> - Marion Hourdequin, Colorado College
>> - Hassaan Sipra, Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering
>> - Shuchi Talati, Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering
>> - Billy Williams, American Geophysical Union
>>
>> Plausible Non-optimal Near-term Solar Geoengineering Scenarios
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtacHm2rv40> (Geopolitics)
>> - Beth Chalecki, University of Nebraska Omaha
>> - Tyler Felgenhauer, Duke University
>> - Joshua Horton, Harvard Kennedy School
>> - Jessica Seddon, Yale University
>> - Erin Sikorsky, Center for Climate and Security
>>
>> Important Next Steps for Solar Geoengineering Policy and Research
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9dwzxI0Ho>
>> - Holly Buck, University at Buffalo
>> - David Keith, University of Chicago
>> - Andy Parker, The Degrees Initiative
>> - Ted Parson, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
>> - Billy Pizer, Resources for the Future
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pete
>>
> --
> 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.co

[geo] Re: Presentation by Alan Gadian on Marine Cloud Brightening at next 10/5 4:30 EST HPAC General Meeting

[Ron Baiman]

*10/5/2023*

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 4, 2023, at 9:32 AM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
> 
> Link to Alan Gadian 19/5/2023 4:30 pm EST HPAC MCB presentation: 
> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Oct 3, 2023, at 7:21 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Dear Colleagues, 
>> 
>> It is our pleasure to host a presentation by Alan Gadian of his Marine Cloud 
>> Brightening (MCB) research at the HPAC General Meeting on Thursday 10/5 at 
>> 4:30 pm EST.  Alan is a Visiting Professor of Dynamical Meteorology at the 
>> University of Leeds and Senior Scientist at the National Centre for 
>> Atmospheric Science (NCAS). As many of you may know, in addition to pursuing 
>> his own MCB research, Alan has been working closely with Stephen Salter, 
>> Robert Tulip, Rebecca Bishop, Brian Von Herzen, Herb Simmens, and others on 
>> trying to move this potentially important direct climate cooling method 
>> forward. 
>> 
>> A zoom link for the meeting will be posted by Robert Tulip and/or myself 
>> before the meeting commences. 
>> 
>> We hope that you will be able to attend!
>> 
>> Best,
>> Ron Baiman
>> For the HPAC SC  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

-- 
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/9310098A-64D0-466A-AD7E-D8F3AB3C78B0%40gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Presentation by Alan Gadian on Marine Cloud Brightening at next 10/5 4:30 EST HPAC General Meeting

[Ron Baiman]

Link to Alan Gadian 19/5/2023 4:30 pm EST HPAC MCB presentation: 
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 3, 2023, at 7:21 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues, 
> 
> It is our pleasure to host a presentation by Alan Gadian of his Marine Cloud 
> Brightening (MCB) research at the HPAC General Meeting on Thursday 10/5 at 
> 4:30 pm EST.  Alan is a Visiting Professor of Dynamical Meteorology at the 
> University of Leeds and Senior Scientist at the National Centre for 
> Atmospheric Science (NCAS). As many of you may know, in addition to pursuing 
> his own MCB research, Alan has been working closely with Stephen Salter, 
> Robert Tulip, Rebecca Bishop, Brian Von Herzen, Herb Simmens, and others on 
> trying to move this potentially important direct climate cooling method 
> forward. 
> 
> A zoom link for the meeting will be posted by Robert Tulip and/or myself 
> before the meeting commences. 
> 
> We hope that you will be able to attend!
> 
> Best,
> Ron Baiman
> For the HPAC SC  
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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/66D625A1-3C86-4CA1-90EE-4060DED512DC%40gmail.com.

[geo] Presentation by Alan Gadian on Marine Cloud Brightening at next 10/5 4:30 EST HPAC General Meeting

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

It is our pleasure to host a presentation by Alan Gadian of his Marine
Cloud Brightening (MCB) research at the HPAC General Meeting on Thursday
10/5 at 4:30 pm EST.  Alan is a Visiting Professor of Dynamical Meteorology
at the University of Leeds and Senior Scientist at the National Centre for
Atmospheric Science (NCAS). As many of you may know, in addition to
pursuing his own MCB research, Alan has been working closely with Stephen
Salter, Robert Tulip, Rebecca Bishop, Brian Von Herzen, Herb Simmens, and
others on trying to move this potentially important direct climate cooling
method forward.

A zoom link for the meeting will be posted by Robert Tulip and/or myself
before the meeting commences.

We hope that you will be able to attend!

Best,
Ron Baiman
For the HPAC SC

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DhpMJa3OQEx3tqO2VWsQjgqd9h2aqi7hBKkmSnGW7Btg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Recording of HPAC meeting with Anton Keskinen, Arctic Momentum Conference

[Ron Baiman]

accine was launched.  To wait in a situation of that magnitude
> was no longer an option.  Have we not reached the same point on planetary
> cooling?
> So given that there are three or four nature -based/biomimetic
> interventions that could be immediately deployed in field trials, should we
> not together identify and choose the ones that have the most potential
> right now? That will allow us to seek funding and priorities for both
> governance and the trials themselves.
> Looking forward to your advice, as many of you as possible.
> Best regards,
> Dale Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Op za 9 sep. 2023 01:15 schreef Ye Tao :
>
>> Dear Ron,
>>
>> First, I also applaud Anton for an excellent presentation and thank the
>> whole team at Operatioo Arktis for being excellent hosts. I thank you, Ron,
>> for your enthusiasm, which I sadly find problematic.
>>
>> A major learning, or rather realization, for many of us at Arctic
>> Momentum is how little we understand the science of SAI, MCB, and any of
>> the many proposed regional techniques presented at the conference.  Some
>> discussion groups also mentioned that we don't yet have a clear idea on how
>> to decide among various climatic outcomes, *even if assuming* the
>> science and engineering eventually advance to such a point that climate and
>> weather could be designed with high fidelity.  Our general state of
>> ignorance inspired my recent post about starting to develop  "figure of
>> merit function(s)" to evaluate climate outcomes based on globally agreed
>> upon targets ultimately stemming from a set of morally robust values.
>> Given ubiquitous chasms in knowledge gaps, we would be mistakenly putting
>> the horse before the cart try leveraging the moment for the specific end of
>> getting SAI implemented.
>>
>> There is no skipping steps to good science and engineering, and SAI and
>> MCB are a couple decades of research away from acceptable scientific
>> understanding and technical readiness.  There are so many known unknowns
>> and known problems with SAI, some of which I have mentioned before here on
>> this forum and which have yet to be addressed.
>>
>> In the interim, there are a variety of local geoengineering methods that
>> need to be given priority.  Global safety must be prioritized in our line
>> of work.   Promising local methods include mechanically slowing down ice
>> melting by raising kinetic barriers, MEER for adaptive mitigation to help
>> victims of our excesses here and now, ice thickening methods to preserve
>> annually average albedo, and targeted preservation of Arctic ice by new
>> methods I will hopefully soon share in a HPAC talk.
>>
>> While collaboration and support by Finland, Norway, Canada, the US,
>> *[RUSSIA*], and Arctic indigenous peoples would be critically important,
>> they are insufficient for ensuring that modifying global climate is done in
>> a factually democratic fashion, by the people and for the people.  While we
>> know very little about SAI, what we do know is that anything SAI with polar
>> impact would have a global impact elsewhere.   All sovereign states need to
>> be included in this conversation, at the very beginning.
>>
>> Since the science is simply not there.  Let's start here.   Experimental
>> science is where priority must be place, not computer simulations which not
>> event the coders trust.  It is insufficient to appear to be inclusive.  I
>> see a growing trend towards building a facade of inclusiveness.  It is
>> suspect to fund a selected few high profile and visible Global South
>> researchers to participate in research using computer codes developed by
>> academics from the Northern,  studying specific methods proposed by a
>> handful of individuals from the North.  If we were truly undertaking this
>> endeavor for justice and a future worth fighting for, we must do much more
>> and much better.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Ye
>> On 9/8/2023 6:08 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:
>>
>> Dear Anton et al.,
>>
>> Excellent meeting!  I'm really sorry that I missed it!  I got the time
>> wrong but just finished viewing the recording!
>>
>> I was going to ask a question related to a proposal to begin to test the
>> SAI polar approach (proposed by the "Cornell SAI group") - direct cooling
>> of the Arctic (and Antarctic - as they both need to tackled together for
>> symmetry - see Bala reference in the paper) based on the International
>> Space Station model.
>> This could be approached as a method to try to quickly slow down or
>> reverse Arctic and

Re: [geo] Recording of HPAC meeting with Anton Keskinen, Arctic Momentum Conference

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Anton et al.,

Excellent meeting!  I'm really sorry that I missed it!  I got the time
wrong but just finished viewing the recording!

I was going to ask a question related to a proposal to begin to test the
SAI polar approach (proposed by the "Cornell SAI group") - direct cooling
of the Arctic (and Antarctic - as they both need to tackled together for
symmetry - see Bala reference in the paper) based on the International
Space Station model.
This could be approached as a method to try to quickly slow down or reverse
Arctic and Antarctic melting and restore previous conditions as much as
possible - along with other possible Direct Climate Cooling and
intervention approaches.  My thinking is that collaboration and support by
Finland, Norway, Canada, the US and Arctic indigenous peoples would be
critically important. It could be framed as a "save the poles" effort but
could potentially be the platform to start a serious global climate cooling
effort.

Suggested comments to this proposal welcome!:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing

Thank you all!

Best,
Ron




On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 10:20 AM  wrote:

> The recording of this meeting is at https://youtu.be/unPOcBY3idU
>
>
>
> Thank you very much Anton for joining us.
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  *On
> Behalf Of *rob...@rtulip.net
> *Sent:* Monday, September 4, 2023 9:00 PM
> *To:* healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary
> Restoration' ; NOAC <
> noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 'Anton Keskinen' <
> keskinenan...@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [geo] HPAC this week: ARCTIC MOMENTUM Conference
>
>
>
> The Healthy Planet Action Coalition welcomes Mr Anton Keskinen, organiser
> of the just completed Arctic Momentum Conference in Finland, as our guest
> speaker this week.
>
>
>
> Date: Thursday 7 September
>
> Time: 10pm Finland (=3pm EST, 8pm UK, 5am Friday Australia AEST)
>
> Duration: 90 minutes
>
> Link:
> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
>
>
>
> Anton will explain key outcomes from the Conference followed by discussion
> with meeting participants.  All welcome.
>
> Operaatio Arktis (operaatioarktis.fi/en) organized the public event
> ARCTIC MOMENTUM on 31st August in Helsinki, Finland, about the state of the
> Arctic, and why we should conduct more research on climate interventions.
>
> Event page with more information on the high level goals, as well as the
> program: https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/arcticmomentum
>
> Description
>
> “We are a group of climate activists, turned from the street movement to
> advance and lobby for climate intervention research. Our goal is to
> preserve the Arctic Summer Sea Ice. For that we urge the Finnish government
> to take lead on the research needed. We are open for the possibility of
> finding several complementing methods to achieve this – perhaps some direct
> sea ice growth manipulation and SRM combined with the obvious emission
> reductions and GHG removal. Part of our mission is to bring different
> stakeholders and research teams together to enable visioning how climate
> intervention methods could complement each other, instead of focusing on
> debating which one is better or worse idea.
>
> The public session on 31st August is part of a larger three-day gathering,
> where we bring together indigenous leaders, activists, scientists,
> government officials and policy makers, to discuss who, if at all, should
> we move forward with preserving the Arctic.
>
> One of our main messages is that we must shift from the old climate
> paradigm (Climate Mitigation) to a new climate paradigm (Climate Repair).
> The old paradigm is about reducing emissions, accepting the damage that's
> unavoidable with emission cuts, and adapting when possible. The new
> paradigm states that we must reduce emissions, and try to prevent and
> repair the damage that's unavoidable even with sharp emission cuts, and
> adapt when possible. While the old paradigm presents what we call in our
> publication Arctic Endgame "politics of accepted victims", the new paradigm
> is antidote for this.
>
> We aim to change this climate paradigm first in Finland, and then in the
> whole World.
>
> You can read Arctic Endgame here:
> https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/en/arctic-endgame
> For those of you (I assume most) who cannot attend our public event on
> 31st in person, the event will be streamed on our Youtube page:
> https://www.youtube.com/@operaatioarktis2193
>
> Follow us on
>
> Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/operaatioarktis/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/OperaatioArktis
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OperaatioArktis
>
> Subscribe our newsletter on the bottom of our website:
> operaatioarktis.fi/en
>
> Regards
>
> Robert Tulip
>
> https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are 

[geo] Re: [prag] HPAC this week: ARCTIC MOMENTUM Conference

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,
Whether or not you're able to attend Anton's presentation and discussion, I
highly recommend viewing Anni Pokela's introduction in the first 30 minutes
of the Arctic Momentum conference here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-OwNu_8Uo=1333s

The Arctic Momentum movement and Anni's  statement (that in addition to
Anton's and the Momentum group's organizing efforts - inspired I believe by
the June 6, 2023, CCRC Workshop on Albedo Enhancement and Refreezing the
Arctic initiated by Robert Tulip - also benefited from the input of
Daleanne Bourjaily and others) is in IMO brilliant!

Best,

Ron











On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 6:00 AM  wrote:

> The Healthy Planet Action Coalition welcomes Mr Anton Keskinen, organiser
> of the just completed Arctic Momentum Conference in Finland, as our guest
> speaker this week.
>
>
>
> Date: Thursday 7 September
>
> Time: 10pm Finland (=3pm EST, 8pm UK, 5am Friday Australia AEST)
>
> Duration: 90 minutes
>
> Link:
> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
>
>
>
> Anton will explain key outcomes from the Conference followed by discussion
> with meeting participants.  All welcome.
>
> Operaatio Arktis (operaatioarktis.fi/en) organized the public event
> ARCTIC MOMENTUM on 31st August in Helsinki, Finland, about the state of the
> Arctic, and why we should conduct more research on climate interventions.
>
> Event page with more information on the high level goals, as well as the
> program: https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/arcticmomentum
>
> Description
>
> “We are a group of climate activists, turned from the street movement to
> advance and lobby for climate intervention research. Our goal is to
> preserve the Arctic Summer Sea Ice. For that we urge the Finnish government
> to take lead on the research needed. We are open for the possibility of
> finding several complementing methods to achieve this – perhaps some direct
> sea ice growth manipulation and SRM combined with the obvious emission
> reductions and GHG removal. Part of our mission is to bring different
> stakeholders and research teams together to enable visioning how climate
> intervention methods could complement each other, instead of focusing on
> debating which one is better or worse idea.
>
> The public session on 31st August is part of a larger three-day gathering,
> where we bring together indigenous leaders, activists, scientists,
> government officials and policy makers, to discuss who, if at all, should
> we move forward with preserving the Arctic.
>
> One of our main messages is that we must shift from the old climate
> paradigm (Climate Mitigation) to a new climate paradigm (Climate Repair).
> The old paradigm is about reducing emissions, accepting the damage that's
> unavoidable with emission cuts, and adapting when possible. The new
> paradigm states that we must reduce emissions, and try to prevent and
> repair the damage that's unavoidable even with sharp emission cuts, and
> adapt when possible. While the old paradigm presents what we call in our
> publication Arctic Endgame "politics of accepted victims", the new paradigm
> is antidote for this.
>
> We aim to change this climate paradigm first in Finland, and then in the
> whole World.
>
> You can read Arctic Endgame here:
> https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/en/arctic-endgame
> For those of you (I assume most) who cannot attend our public event on
> 31st in person, the event will be streamed on our Youtube page:
> https://www.youtube.com/@operaatioarktis2193
>
> Follow us on
>
> Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/operaatioarktis/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/OperaatioArktis
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OperaatioArktis
>
> Subscribe our newsletter on the bottom of our website:
> operaatioarktis.fi/en
>
> Regards
>
> Robert Tulip
>
> https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Planetary Restoration" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/024001d9df1e%24fb765730%24f2630590%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/CAPhUB9BXD3EP9w9K1OebKbgPThGAJ%3D33P2XBO%3DzFZygoZAee7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Comments on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework due tomorrow 8/15/2023!

[Ron Baiman]

-- Forwarded message -
From: Ron Baiman 
Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework due tomorrow
8/15/2023!
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>, 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC
Meetings , Planetary Restoration <
planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>, Healthy Climate Alliance <
healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>, geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>


Dear Colleagues,

This is a response to a private communication related to my AGU comment
regarding the problem with the term “climate intervention”.

“The term could include anything that humans do that impacts the climate
and implies that cooling techniques are aberrational emergency measures. I
see it as analogous to Neoclassical economists calling any form of planning
a “market intervention”, implying that markets are normal and “natural” and
all other forms of public policy are “market interventions”.  I don’t doubt
that they will not change terminology, but was hoping this terminology
point would help focus attention on the more important point of the need to
turn the table on the ethical question!”

Best,
Ron

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 14, 2023, at 10:01 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:


Dear Colleagues,

If you're so inclined, please comment (2000 characters or less) on AGU
Geoengineering Ethical Framework by tomorrow 8/15/2023

See "Comment on the Draft Principles" to the right side of this link:
https://www.agu.org/EthicalFramework

The principles are IMO overly defensive.  I submitted this comment (this
version slightly fixed up!):

"These principles are a welcome development that I fully support.  However,
I believe that they have an overly defensive frame: A) The term “climate
intervention” suggests an emergency application of measures on a system
that hitherto has somehow not been “intervened into”.  The truth of course
is that anything that affects the climate including GHG emissions, reducing
GHG emissions, and drawing down accumulated GHG, could all be termed
“climate interventions”.  I understand the usefulness of not using the more
common term “geoengineering” as this connotes even more all-encompassing
and hubristic human manipulation of nature, and tends to point to an
exclusive focus on SAI and other high-leverage SRM direct climate cooling
methods.  My own preference (and that of the Healthy Planet Action
Coalition of which I am a member) is for the more positive, well-defined,
but also general and inclusive term “direct climate cooling”. B) Rather
than seeking to explain and justify direct climate cooling, it appears to
me that it is long past time to put the ethical and moral question the
other way.  *The truth is that: 1) climate change is accelerating and will
continue to cause increasingly catastrophic harm to humans and other living
species, 2) there exist multiple direct climate cooling methods **that have
the potential to reduce this harm * *(*
https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023
*)**, and 3) current global policy that relies exclusively on greenhouse
gas emissions reductions and removal to address climate change is
incompatible with responsible stewardship of the planet. *C)* Is there any
feasible way forward other than a three-pronged strategy that includes
direct climate cooling along with emissions reduction and drawdown *(
https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023
)
*?"*

Thanks to the PRAG thread on this (with other examples of comments) for
bringing this to my attention!

Best,

Ron

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9CqA0mv4%2BMok0EK1FuUkgdKo4SGAi-tH7zD_PhZCF3KfA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9CqA0mv4%2BMok0EK1FuUkgdKo4SGAi-tH7zD_PhZCF3KfA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9BFZiAX%2B-oY%2BFR0DFWwTDcharmu7b0w-OUN%3DuZoVRjSow%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,
Thank you all for your comments and suggested edits!  Unfortunately, I've
been tied up with other time sensitive stuff but will get back to this as
soon as I can. In the meantime if you're able to input suggested your edits
and comments into the google this will hopefully expedite our drafting
process!:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
Best,
Ron

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 5:24 AM Stephen Salter  wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Most ships use big Diesel engines. If we can make submicron drops of
> filtered sea water we can inject them into the hot gas of the exhaust
> manifold.
>
> The corrosion rate will not be greater than the former sulphuric acid.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Vivian 
> *Sent:* 16 August 2023 10:17
> *To:* 'Ron Baiman' ;
> 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; ''Eelco Rohling' via
> NOAC Meetings' ; 'Planetary Restoration' <
> planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <
> healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Cc:* Stephen Salter 
> *Subject:* RE: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on
> Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
>
>
>
> *This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.*
>
> You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the
> email is genuine and the content is safe.
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> With regard to your second paragraph, you could include this graph from
> the Carbon Brief article by Hausfather and Forster (2023) in your reference
> list -
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/.
> It could also be referenced in the second paragraph of the open letter:
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image002.png@01D9D033.E933B5D0]
>
>
>
> In the second point about sponsoring research I suggest you should delete
> ‘sulfur’ at the end of the 4th line and just leave it to refer to
> aerosols. Otherwise you are restricting the research to just substances
> containing sulphur and there may be suitable non-sulphur containing
> materials that could produce useful aerosols.
>
>
>
> With regard to Ron’s suggested 4th point, I think you should run it past a
> shipping person before including it as I think it has some potential
> problems including:
>
>- I doubt that “… space now needed for bunker fuel is sufficient for
>the less energy dense biomass”.
>- Ron says “Space now used for bunker fuel might be enough, but the
>huge multi-ocean cargo ships now using bunker fuels seem large enough to
>open up new space for biomass fuel”.  I doubt that shipping companies would
>be willing to give up cargo space. Many have already had to accommodate
>Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
> *From:* noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com  *On
> Behalf Of *Ron Baiman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:20 PM
> *To:* healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via
> NOAC Meetings ; Planetary Restoration <
> planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <
> healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Cc:* SALTER Stephen 
> *Subject:* Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three
> Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I would greatly appreciate suggested edits and comments to this proposed
> open letter:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
>
>
>
> Most importantly, does the text and the three requests (one inspired by a
> comment from Stephen Salter) make sense, and is the overall descriptive
> language accurate?
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Ron Baiman
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "NOAC Meetings" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_

[geo] Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

I would greatly appreciate suggested edits and comments to this proposed
open letter:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true

Most importantly, does the text and the three requests (one inspired by a
comment from Stephen Salter) make sense, and is the overall descriptive
language accurate?

Thank you!

Best,
Ron Baiman

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Comments on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework due tomorrow 8/15/2023!

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,This is a response to a private communication related to my AGU comment regarding the problem with the term “climate intervention”.“The term could include anything that humans do that impacts the climate and implies that cooling techniques are aberrational emergency measures. I see it as analogous to Neoclassical economists calling any form of planning a “market intervention”, implying that markets are normal and “natural” and all other forms of public policy are “market interventions”.  I don’t doubt that they will not change terminology, but was hoping this terminology point would help focus attention on the more important point of the need to turn the table on the ethical question!”Best,Ron Sent from my iPhoneOn Aug 14, 2023, at 10:01 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:Dear Colleagues, If you're so inclined, please comment (2000 characters or less) on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework by tomorrow 8/15/2023See "Comment on the Draft Principles" to the right side of this link: https://www.agu.org/EthicalFramework  The principles are IMO overly defensive.  I submitted this comment (this version slightly fixed up!):



















"These principles are a welcome development that I fully
support.  However, I believe that they
have an overly defensive frame: A) The term “climate intervention” suggests an
emergency application of measures on a system that hitherto has somehow not
been “intervened into”.  The truth of
course is that anything that affects the climate including GHG emissions,
reducing GHG emissions, and drawing down accumulated GHG, could all be termed
“climate interventions”.  I understand
the usefulness of not using the more common term “geoengineering” as this
connotes even more all-encompassing and hubristic human manipulation of nature,
and tends to point to an exclusive focus on SAI and other high-leverage SRM direct
climate cooling methods.  My own preference
(and that of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition of which I am a member) is for
the more positive, well-defined, but also general and inclusive term “direct
climate cooling”. B) Rather than seeking to explain and justify direct climate
cooling, it appears to me that it is long past time to put the ethical and
moral question the other way.  The truth is that: 1) climate change is
accelerating and will continue to cause increasingly catastrophic harm to
humans and other living species, 2) there exist multiple direct climate cooling
methods that have the potential to reduce this
harm 
(https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023), and 3) current global policy that relies exclusively on greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and removal to address climate change is incompatible with
responsible stewardship of the planet. C) Is there any feasible way forward other than a three-pronged strategy
that includes direct climate cooling along with emissions reduction and
drawdown (https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023)?"Thanks to the PRAG thread on this (with other examples of comments) for bringing this to my attention!Best,Ron









-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9CqA0mv4%2BMok0EK1FuUkgdKo4SGAi-tH7zD_PhZCF3KfA%40mail.gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/31095FB3-ADD7-4667-9674-8A4B97A7A41C%40gmail.com.

[geo] Comments on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework due tomorrow 8/15/2023!

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

If you're so inclined, please comment (2000 characters or less) on AGU
Geoengineering Ethical Framework by tomorrow 8/15/2023

See "Comment on the Draft Principles" to the right side of this link:
https://www.agu.org/EthicalFramework

The principles are IMO overly defensive.  I submitted this comment (this
version slightly fixed up!):

"These principles are a welcome development that I fully support.  However,
I believe that they have an overly defensive frame: A) The term “climate
intervention” suggests an emergency application of measures on a system
that hitherto has somehow not been “intervened into”.  The truth of course
is that anything that affects the climate including GHG emissions, reducing
GHG emissions, and drawing down accumulated GHG, could all be termed
“climate interventions”.  I understand the usefulness of not using the more
common term “geoengineering” as this connotes even more all-encompassing
and hubristic human manipulation of nature, and tends to point to an
exclusive focus on SAI and other high-leverage SRM direct climate cooling
methods.  My own preference (and that of the Healthy Planet Action
Coalition of which I am a member) is for the more positive, well-defined,
but also general and inclusive term “direct climate cooling”. B) Rather
than seeking to explain and justify direct climate cooling, it appears to
me that it is long past time to put the ethical and moral question the
other way.  *The truth is that: 1) climate change is accelerating and will
continue to cause increasingly catastrophic harm to humans and other living
species, 2) there exist multiple direct climate cooling methods **that have
the potential to reduce this harm * *(*
https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023
*)**, and 3) current global policy that relies exclusively on greenhouse
gas emissions reductions and removal to address climate change is
incompatible with responsible stewardship of the planet. *C)* Is there any
feasible way forward other than a three-pronged strategy that includes
direct climate cooling along with emissions reduction and drawdown *(
https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023
)
*?"*

Thanks to the PRAG thread on this (with other examples of comments) for
bringing this to my attention!

Best,

Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CqA0mv4%2BMok0EK1FuUkgdKo4SGAi-tH7zD_PhZCF3KfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Good news! Judge sides with youth in Montana climate change trial

[Ron Baiman]

eciding whether to approve permits
for energy and mining projects, violated Montanans’ rights under the 1972
state constitution.

The constitution says
<https://dailymontanan.com/2023/06/12/climate-expert-constitutional-convention-delegate-open-testimony-in-montana-climate-change-trial/>
that
they have a right to a clean and healthful environment and that each
Montanan “shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in
Montana for present and future generations.”

Seeley also wrote that the state constitution commands the legislature to
“provide for the administration and enforcement” to meet the state’s
obligation to maintain and improve the environment and provide remedies to
prevent its unreasonable depletion and degradation.

“Montana’s climate, environment, and natural resources are
unconstitutionally degraded and depleted due to the current atmospheric
concentration of GHGs and climate change,” Seeley wrote.

She said that MEPA makes clear the state should use “all practicable means”
to fulfill those constitutional responsibilities, and that the law’s
limitation, in place since 2011 and tweaked by lawmakers this session in
response to a Yellowstone County judge’s order regarding emissions at a
plant in Laurel, is failing to meet those constitutional duties.

Seeley wrote, rather, that the MEPA limitation “conflicts with the very
purpose of MEPA” in trying to meet those obligations.

“By prohibiting consideration of climate change, (green house gas)
emissions, and how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate
change or be consistent with the Montana Constitution, the MEPA Limitation
violates Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment and is
facially unconstitutional,” Seeley wrote in her order.

Further, she said, the state did not put forward any evidence there was a
compelling governmental interest in having the limitation in place, and
Seeley noted there was undisputed testimony that the state could evaluate
greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts, as well as consider switching
more energy sources to renewable energy.

She also found a section of law created by the legislature this year
through Senate Bill 557 to be unconstitutional. That new portion of law
said that a challenge to an agency’s permitting decision if it did not
involve a greenhouse gas emissions evaluation could not vacate, void or
delay a permit unless Congress added carbon dioxide as a regulated
pollutant.

Both that clause of Senate Bill 557
<http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20231_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB_BILL_NO=557_BILL_DFT_NO=_CHPT_NO=_ACTION=Find_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=_SBJT_SBJ_CD=_ENTY_ID_SEQ=>
 and House Bill 971
<http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20231_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB_BILL_NO=971_BILL_DFT_NO=_CHPT_NO=_ACTION=Find_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=_SBJT_SBJ_CD=_ENTY_ID_SEQ=>
were
created by the Republican supermajority in direct response to Judge Michael
Moses’ ruling that a NorthWestern Energy power generating station in Laurel
could not proceed because the Department of Environmental Quality had
failed to consider emissions impacts from the plant. He later vacated the
order
<https://dailymontanan.com/2023/06/12/construction-on-laurel-power-station-will-continue-while-appeals-head-to-supreme-court/>
after
the legislature’s moves.

Seeley wrote the new law is unconstitutional “because it eliminates MEPA
litigants’ remedies that prevent irreversible degradation of the
environment, and it fails to further a compelling state interest.”

The Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for
comment Monday morning. A spokesperson for the Governor’s Office said the
office was reviewing the decision and “evaluating next steps.”

The state has indicated previously it would appeal the decision if it did
not win the case. Last week
<https://dailymontanan.com/2023/08/10/montanas-expert-witnesses-in-climate-change-trial-billed-state-95k/>,
an attorney with Our Children’s Trust told the Daily Montanan it intended
to seek attorneys’ fees and costs should Seeley side with the plaintiffs.
[image: Creative Commons License]
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/>

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 1:42 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> This has been all over the US news today, but probably not so much
> globally:
>
> https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2023/08/14/judge-sides-with-youth-in-montana-climate-change-trial-finds-two-laws-unconstitutional/
>
> These kinds of youth climate lawsuits taking place all over the world
> appear to be gaining traction, which is a welcome development!
>
> Best,
> Ron
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DNBojoGg3HfnogqhSV7xOe7zT27SL3rkKOL6EaTBfpcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Good news! Judge sides with youth in Montana climate change trial

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

This has been all over the US news today, but probably not so much
globally:
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2023/08/14/judge-sides-with-youth-in-montana-climate-change-trial-finds-two-laws-unconstitutional/

These kinds of youth climate lawsuits taking place all over the world
appear to be gaining traction, which is a welcome development!

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CT9PJE%2B9-wZAdU9Sws_7gT25bC7x-Q9zJdO-rmrYU6kw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [HCA-list] Practical Immediate Ocean Cooling by Relaxing Bunker Fuel Sulfur Content Regulation for Inter-port "High Seas" Transit?

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Lester!  My understanding is that tropospheric aerosols generally
fall out pretty quickly, especially when it rains, so that if emitted far
from land not much would still be in the atmosphere even taking into
account windflow (though I defer to others who know more about this than I
do!). Regarding the crews on the ships, if this has been a significant
occupational health problem, perhaps there are other specific measures that
can be taken with regard to smokestacks, or masks when near the source
etc.? The question it seems to me (as is often the case in these risk- risk
comparisons) is what are the harms of returning to a "partial status quo
ante" versus significant additional global warming (per my initial post
modelers are working on getting better estimates of how much as we speak)?
Of course if the status quo ante posed a significant health risk to the
crews on the ships, this would have to be addressed as well.
Best,
Ron

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 5:06 PM Lester Wyborny  wrote:

> Since ships emit their pollutants, such as sulphate particles, in the
> lower atmosphere, it would create a greater breathing problem for people
> who would be exposed to the high sulfate and other particulate matter
> emissions from these ships.  Although you are suggesting that these
> particles would be emitted over the open ocean, they would still be
> transported to land areas via atmospheric weather patterns where it would
> create breathing and other associated health issues.  This is why the ships
> were forced to reduce their sulfur levels.
>
> A better idea would be to dose jet fuel with sulfur-containing chemicals
> when the jets are operating at high altitudes to emit the sulfate particles
> in the upper atmosphere which is less likely to expose the human population
> and also remain there for longer periods.  The concern with this idea is
> that changes in the fuels used by passenger airlines creates a concern
> about the potential impact on their safe operation, and agreeing to such a
> change would take many years to test out and implement.  It has been a
> while since I reviewed the data on this, but the jet fuel typically
> contains ~700 ppm sulfur.  Conversely ship bunker fuel, before the
> standards forced these vessels to use lower sulfur fuel, contained ~3%, or
> ~30,000 ppm sulfur, so a lot more sulfur/sulfate emissions.
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 1:07 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> A bunch of us (in forums and communications within the groups in the
>> lists above) have been discussing a potential immediate practical step
>> (that earlier has been raised by others) that may provide at least a
>> modicum of cooling especially over the oceans: *a relaxation of the
>> "bunker fuel" sulfur content regulations that just came into effect in 2020
>> (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force>
>> ) for inter-port "high seas" shipping. *The idea is that cargo ships and
>> tankers would be able to use the old dirty sulfur laden fuel in the open
>> ocean but switch to the cleaner fuel when they are near ports or human
>> habitation. Apparently many ships have multiple fuel tanks so that they may
>> be able to switch fuels in transit.
>>
>> *To be clear, we would stress that we fully support getting off of fossil
>> fuels, but if fossil fuels are going to be used anyway it makes no sense
>> not to at least benefit from fossil fuel burning maritime sulfur aerosol
>> generation that is known to have a significant cooling effect *(how much
>> is currently being re-estimated using the "termination shock" signal from
>> the 2020 abrupt change in sulfur emissions due to the regulation).  *Looking
>> forward this also points the way to including effective (and hopefully less
>> harmful to human health) tropospheric aerosol generators in future non GHG
>> emitting replacements for the bunker fuel* (see the HPAC direct climate
>> cooling petition for some possible options:
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view?usp=sharing
>> ).
>>
>> Any thoughts or data on this that might be helpful in working up (or not)
>> this proposal would be appreciated.
>>
>> For example, the last sentence in this excerpt from a quote in this
>> Guardian piece (
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/19/marine-heatwave-uk-irish-coasts-threat-oysters-fish-high-temperatures)
>> shared in recent ocean heat spike thread:
>> https://www.theguardian.com

[geo] Re: Practical Immediate Ocean Cooling by Relaxing Bunker Fuel Sulfur Content Regulation for Inter-port "High Seas" Transit?

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

I have just been informed by Barbara that an IMO meeting on this very topic *is
being conducted now*:


Meeting Summaries and Schedule


https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/Default.aspx

Is anyone in these groups participating (or know someone who is) who would
be willing to raise the question of " increasing sulfur emissions from
ships when traversing the high seas away from human settlements" (per
Barbara's succinct summary) to the meeting?

Best,
Ron

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:06 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A bunch of us (in forums and communications within the groups in the lists
> above) have been discussing a potential immediate practical step (that
> earlier has been raised by others) that may provide at least a modicum of
> cooling especially over the oceans: *a relaxation of the "bunker fuel"
> sulfur content regulations that just came into effect in 2020
> (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force>
> ) for inter-port "high seas" shipping. *The idea is that cargo ships and
> tankers would be able to use the old dirty sulfur laden fuel in the open
> ocean but switch to the cleaner fuel when they are near ports or human
> habitation. Apparently many ships have multiple fuel tanks so that they may
> be able to switch fuels in transit.
>
> *To be clear, we would stress that we fully support getting off of fossil
> fuels, but if fossil fuels are going to be used anyway it makes no sense
> not to at least benefit from fossil fuel burning maritime sulfur aerosol
> generation that is known to have a significant cooling effect *(how much
> is currently being re-estimated using the "termination shock" signal from
> the 2020 abrupt change in sulfur emissions due to the regulation).  *Looking
> forward this also points the way to including effective (and hopefully less
> harmful to human health) tropospheric aerosol generators in future non GHG
> emitting replacements for the bunker fuel* (see the HPAC direct climate
> cooling petition for some possible options:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view?usp=sharing
> ).
>
> Any thoughts or data on this that might be helpful in working up (or not)
> this proposal would be appreciated.
>
> For example, the last sentence in this excerpt from a quote in this
> Guardian piece (
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/19/marine-heatwave-uk-irish-coasts-threat-oysters-fish-high-temperatures)
> shared in recent ocean heat spike thread:
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/19/marine-heatwave-uk-irish-coasts-threat-oysters-fish-high-temperature
> suggests that this may be a factor causing the recent unprededented spike
> in ocean heating:
>
> "Piers Forster, a professor of climate physics at the University of Leeds,
> said: “Both Met Office and NOAA analyses of sea-surface temperature show
> temperatures are at their highest ever level – and the average sea-surface
> temperature breached 21C for the first time in April. These high
> temperatures are mainly driven by unprecedented high rates of human-induced
> warming. Cleaning up sulphur from marine shipping fuels is probably adding
> to the greenhouse gas driven warming...""
>
> Best,
> Ron
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9Cw%2B2duJn4L_7GorVrJGmGP-Erc2AfTGktJ3d8YFpiQjg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Practical Immediate Ocean Cooling by Relaxing Bunker Fuel Sulfur Content Regulation for Inter-port "High Seas" Transit?

[Ron Baiman]

 Dear Colleagues,

A bunch of us (in forums and communications within the groups in the lists
above) have been discussing a potential immediate practical step (that
earlier has been raised by others) that may provide at least a modicum of
cooling especially over the oceans: *a relaxation of the "bunker fuel"
sulfur content regulations that just came into effect in 2020
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force

) for inter-port "high seas" shipping. *The idea is that cargo ships and
tankers would be able to use the old dirty sulfur laden fuel in the open
ocean but switch to the cleaner fuel when they are near ports or human
habitation. Apparently many ships have multiple fuel tanks so that they may
be able to switch fuels in transit.

*To be clear, we would stress that we fully support getting off of fossil
fuels, but if fossil fuels are going to be used anyway it makes no sense
not to at least benefit from fossil fuel burning maritime sulfur aerosol
generation that is known to have a significant cooling effect *(how much is
currently being re-estimated using the "termination shock" signal from the
2020 abrupt change in sulfur emissions due to the regulation).  *Looking
forward this also points the way to including effective (and hopefully less
harmful to human health) tropospheric aerosol generators in future non GHG
emitting replacements for the bunker fuel* (see the HPAC direct climate
cooling petition for some possible options:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHe2Fe6fU11odfcH-4GwdYDNTCk7uB-J/view?usp=sharing
).

Any thoughts or data on this that might be helpful in working up (or not)
this proposal would be appreciated.

For example, the last sentence in this excerpt from a quote in this
Guardian piece (
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/19/marine-heatwave-uk-irish-coasts-threat-oysters-fish-high-temperatures)
shared in recent ocean heat spike thread:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/19/marine-heatwave-uk-irish-coasts-threat-oysters-fish-high-temperature
suggests that this may be a factor causing the recent unprededented spike
in ocean heating:

"Piers Forster, a professor of climate physics at the University of Leeds,
said: “Both Met Office and NOAA analyses of sea-surface temperature show
temperatures are at their highest ever level – and the average sea-surface
temperature breached 21C for the first time in April. These high
temperatures are mainly driven by unprecedented high rates of human-induced
warming. Cleaning up sulphur from marine shipping fuels is probably adding
to the greenhouse gas driven warming...""

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9B0%2BSovib9pcGn1_a4_3abjXs0DfWkec7VM%2BhFQJEuvBw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Ocean heat is off the charts—here's what that means for humans and ecosystems around the world

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Renaud!  I hope you don't mind my distributing this more broadly
as I think it's quite important!
Best,
Ron

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:27 AM Renaud de RICHTER <
renaud.derich...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://phys.org/news/2023-06-ocean-chartshere-humans-ecosystems-world.html
>
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9A5MD%2BPO_pnRPAkuN7UvB2J2hyZxrnD8ZFhgEn%3DqoQv%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Three posts on SAI risks and possible implementation strategy

[Ron Baiman]

*Methane accumulation*Sent from my iPhoneOn May 31, 2023, at 11:53 AM, Ron Baiman  wrote:Dear Colleagues, Three posts are copied below from a thread from the recent NOAC meeting (that includes many more posts) that I've been asked to share to other "community" lists. Best,Ron 
Dear Colleagues, My mistake in chat: 
Doug MacMartin was not a co-author, but did reply to John N on this 
issue.  As this came up in today's NOAC meeting as well I'm taking the 
liberty of copying Doug's response below (and cc'ing him in the event 
that he is not on the NOAC list).Best,Ron
Daniele Visioni wrote a paper on methane under SAI in 2017;
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11209/2017/

 
Conclusions are a little hard to interpret from that paper, but yes, it’s understood that methane
 lifetime would go up relative to not injecting (not just from
 UV photolysis); that would then require more injection to compensate 
for the increased RF from CH4, Dan’s estimate when I’ve asked him is 
that that increase is of order 10% (so not negligible, but certainly not
 a “major” problem).  I’d put this in the category
 of things that need more research to better quantify.
 
Re
 UV, don’t forget that Sasha’s study was with GLENS, so with 4C of 
cooling from SAI (i.e., in a world in which we’d probably all be extinct
 if we didn’t have
 SAI).  So a 1C cooling (which would still be a pretty big program) 
would be roughly ¼ of the UV impact.  Also, given that strat ozone has a
 “super-recovery” under climate change, reductions in UV relative to 
that future world are still potentially increases
 relative to today (see, e.g., fig 3 in 
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202230119, which doesn’t
 have the UV plotted, but does have high latitude SH ozone (the SH being
 where the effect is larger than the NH); the scenarios that cool by ~1C
 have ozone levels in 2070 that are still higher
 than today.
 
doug


Dear Michael et al., I agree that no government 
yet has (to my knowledge) authorized the piloting and testing of initial
 SAI or any other form of direct climate cooling with potential global 
impact.  The conventional wisdom appears to be that the risks are too 
great right now and that further research is necessary.  However, I've 
yet to see a study that these "great risks" of initial piloting of 
deployment more than offset the clear and evident risks of not 
implementing global cooling as soon as possible, that rapid global 
cooling could mitigate.  As far as i can tell current (mostly modeling) 
assessments of potential SAI risks of Ozone depletion, Monsoon 
interference, and increased Methane are all mixed and relatively 
moderate compared to the continued run toward the cliff that pathway 
that we are now on with a mitigation and draw down only approach. I think Doug MacMartin's post (that I copied earlier in this thread) covers some of the most recent research on potential Methane depletion. On Monsoon interference, as I recall (based on the podcast discussion of it here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/single-hemisphere-srm-monsoons-bala/id1529459393?i=1000613339787) that this 2023 paper by Bala et al.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370468285_Quantification_of_tropical_monsoon_precipitation_changes_in_terms_of_interhemispheric_differences_in_stratospheric_sulfate_aerosol_optical_depth
 , concludes that unless SAI is applied at a high level and in a grossly
 asymmetric (relative to North and South Hemispheres) radical Monsoon 
interference is unlikely. On Ozone depletion here's some of the details on the decidedly mixed Montreal Protocol report on SAI  (sent 5/17  to the usual lists):Below are key points the 2022 Montreal Protocol report's ( https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022-Executive-Summary.pdf ) mixed assessment of SAI impact on ozone 
layer. 


The report focused on a spring injection of SAI in Antarctica 
(where the Ozone hole is 
largest) and found in model simulations, after 20 years of SAI 
sufficient to reduce global cooling by 0.5 C, loss of ozone in
 Antarctica in October similar to losses in the 1990s that if continued 
would delay ozone hole recovery by 25 to 50 years, but less loss if SAI 
is 
started later, and for larger applications enhancement of Ozone in the 
winter in NH 
mid-latitudes. Details from the ES Chap. 5, p. 21-22 report below:

"Additional ozone depletion due to SAI is simulated in

spring over Antarctica, with magnitudes dependent onthe injection rate and timing. Simulations of strong SAIshow an increase in total column ozone (TCO) in mid-lat-itudes (40–60°N) in the winter Northern Hemisphere.º For October over Antarctica, SAI simulations that achievea global mean surface cooling of 0.5 °C in the first 20years, show a reduction of TCO of around 58 ± 20 DU,assuming 2020–2040 halogen conditions. This reduc-tion brings TCO values close to the observed minimum inthe 1990s. Less ozo

[geo] Three posts on SAI risks and possible implementation strategy

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Three posts are copied below from a thread from the recent NOAC meeting
(that includes many more posts) that I've been asked to share to other
"community" lists.

Best,
Ron

Dear Colleagues,

My mistake in chat: Doug MacMartin was not a co-author, but did reply to
John N on this issue.  As this came up in today's NOAC meeting as well I'm
taking the liberty of copying Doug's response below (and cc'ing him in the
event that he is not on the NOAC list).

Best,
Ron

Daniele Visioni wrote a paper on methane under SAI in 2017;
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11209/2017/



Conclusions are a little hard to interpret from that paper, but yes, it’s
understood that methane lifetime would go up relative to not injecting (not
just from UV photolysis); that would then require more injection to
compensate for the increased RF from CH4, Dan’s estimate when I’ve asked
him is that that increase is of order 10% (so not negligible, but certainly
not a “major” problem).  I’d put this in the category of things that need
more research to better quantify.



Re UV, don’t forget that Sasha’s study was with GLENS, so with 4C of
cooling from SAI (i.e., in a world in which we’d probably all be extinct if
we didn’t have SAI).  So a 1C cooling (which would still be a pretty big
program) would be roughly ¼ of the UV impact.  Also, given that strat ozone
has a “super-recovery” under climate change, reductions in UV relative to
that future world are still potentially increases relative to today (see,
e.g., fig 3 in https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202230119, which
doesn’t have the UV plotted, but does have high latitude SH ozone (the SH
being where the effect is larger than the NH); the scenarios that cool by
~1C have ozone levels in 2070 that are still higher than today.



doug

Dear Michael et al.,

I agree that no government yet has (to my knowledge) authorized the
piloting and testing of initial SAI or any other form of direct climate
cooling with potential global impact.  The conventional wisdom appears to
be that the risks are too great right now and that further research is
necessary.  However, I've yet to see a study that these "great risks" of
initial piloting of deployment more than offset the clear and evident risks
of not implementing global cooling as soon as possible, that rapid global
cooling could mitigate.  As far as i can tell current (mostly modeling)
assessments of potential SAI risks of Ozone depletion, Monsoon
interference, and increased Methane are all mixed and relatively moderate
compared to the continued run toward the cliff that pathway that we are now
on with a mitigation and draw down only approach.

I think Doug MacMartin's post (that I copied earlier in this thread) covers
some of the most recent research on potential *Methane depletion*.

On *Monsoon interference*, as I recall (based on the podcast discussion of
it here:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/single-hemisphere-srm-monsoons-bala/id1529459393?i=1000613339787)
that this 2023 paper by Bala et al.:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370468285_Quantification_of_tropical_monsoon_precipitation_changes_in_terms_of_interhemispheric_differences_in_stratospheric_sulfate_aerosol_optical_depth
, concludes that unless SAI is applied at a high level and in a grossly
asymmetric (relative to North and South Hemispheres) radical Monsoon
interference is unlikely.

On *Ozone depletion* here's some of the details on the decidedly mixed
Montreal Protocol report on SAI  (sent 5/17  to the usual lists):

Below are key points the 2022 Montreal Protocol report's (
https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022-Executive-Summary.pdf
) mixed assessment of SAI impact on ozone layer.

The report focused on a spring injection of SAI in Antarctica (where the
Ozone hole is largest) and found in model simulations, after 20 years of
SAI sufficient to reduce global cooling by 0.5 C, loss of ozone in
Antarctica in October similar to losses in the 1990s that if continued
would delay ozone hole recovery by 25 to 50 years, but less loss if SAI is
started later, and for larger applications enhancement of Ozone in the
winter in NH mid-latitudes.

Details from the ES Chap. 5, p. 21-22 report below:

"Additional ozone depletion due to SAI is simulated in
spring over Antarctica, with magnitudes dependent on
the injection rate and timing. Simulations of strong SAI
show an increase in total column ozone (TCO) in mid-lat-
itudes (40–60°N) in the winter Northern Hemisphere.
º For October over Antarctica, SAI simulations that achieve
a global mean surface cooling of 0.5 °C in the first 20
years, show a reduction of TCO of around 58 ± 20 DU,
assuming 2020–2040 halogen conditions. This reduc-
tion brings TCO values close to the observed minimum in
the 1990s. Less ozone loss would be expected for a later
SAI start date, when halogen concentrations are project-
ed to be lower.
º Beyond the first 20 years, the 

[geo] Fwd: FW: Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Again, I'm forwarding my post to the broader community.  There are many
more posts on this topic in the NOAC thread.

Best,
Ron

-- Forwarded message -
From: Ron Baiman 
Date: Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?
To: Clive Elsworth 
Cc: James Hansen , 


Thank you Jim (and Clive, et al.),

I think this is confusing to non-climate scientists (like myself) because:

a) "Long-term equilibrium" in this case is a hypothetical (per your post: "
the present atmospheric composition, assuming that the composition will
stay as it is today") that is misinterpreted as a "net zero today"
condition (I initially  misinterpreted this way). The problem is that the
broad public does not realize that maintaining such a condition would
require continued emissions of GHG's after (human, human-induced, and
natural) "net zero" at a level that would precisely offset "post-net zero"
natural GHG fall-out and ocean uptake, to maintain "the present atmospheric
condition".

b)  Which means that this "long-term equilibrium"  cannot exist in the real
world as GHG atmospheric composition will not stay constant but either: a)
*increase* as the forcing and warming tends  (in the absence of direct
climate cooling) in your figures 28 and 25  suggest, or b) *decrease* if
IPPC fantasies of " Projected global warmings continually rachet down as
countries agree to more ambitious goals for future emission reductions."
In this sense "committed warming" for those who believe that a) is mch more
realistic (as you and I think everyone on this list does) would mean that
we are now "committed" to "more than" 7-10 C in the long-run if we do not
directly cool
, and for those who believe (or pretend to) believe b) whatever estimated
warming the "committed" targeted GHG emissions reduction and draw down
would produce as I think you're saying (see c) below).

c) Related to this, another source of pubic confusion is thinking that "net
zero" would mean that global warming will either: a) stay *constant* as
atmospheric GHG stock will then be constant (as I initially thought), or b)
*decline* if global warming is mistakenly viewed as being correlated with
GHG emission flow rather than atmospheric GHG stock.  Whereas, per Zeke
Hausfather's reporting (
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/
), current modeling suggests that: c) warming will remain *constant* even
though GHG in the atmosphere would *decline* from natural fall out and
ocean uptake due to increasing release of accumulated ocean surface heat
into the atmosphere.

This latter point suggests to me that not only must we urgently *deploy
direct climate* cooling to reduce radiative forcing from the sun but also
try to cool ocean surface temperatures, as (even it were possible) it would
be a mistake to try to use GHG drawdown to offset transient (though for at
least 50 years after net-zero as I recall from the modeling) continued
warming from ocean surface heat, as there would then be a risk of excessive
cooling when ocean-atmosphere temperature equilibrium was reached. This I
think is a reason to look at a wide array of potential direct climate
cooling techniques including but not exclusively SRM (
https://pdfhost.io/v/pR4xEbZzO_The_Case_for_Urgent_Direct_Climate_Cooling040223
).

Jim et al, your thoughts on any of this would, of course, be greatly
appreciated!

Best,
Ron


>
>
>
>
> View this email in your browser
> <https://mailchi.mp/caa/equilibrium-warming-committed-warming?e=94785a09ba>
>
>
>
> A PDF of this Communication is available on my* webpage
> <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1=b267674634=94785a09ba>*,
> along with prior Communications and other resources.
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. Tweet to your followers]
> <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1=07e86ee145=94785a09ba>
>
> Tweet to your followers
> <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1=4972d0f33e=94785a09ba>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. Share on your Facebook]
> <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1=0f641bc6d4=94785a09ba>
>
> Share on your Facebook
> <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1=993d5d40a7=94785a09ba>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. Forward to your friends]
> <https://us1.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1=3cd4f7a4ac=94785a09ba>
>
> Forward to your friends
> <https://us1.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1=3cd4f7a4ac=94785a09ba>
>
> [image:

[geo] Fwd: Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

This post from Jim Hansen was shared  on the NOAC list with a comment  (thank 
you Clive!) and as I think it is of great importance, I’m forwarding it along 
to rest of our broader community.  

One key take away:

> However, it’s not the new equilibrium at +200 feet that’s of most concern, 
> it’s the chaos that ensues once ice sheet collapse begins in earnest.
> 
> That chaos was the topic of our paper[1] “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and 
> Superstorms,” which was blackballed by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on 
> Climate Change). In that paper, we conclude that continuation of GHG 
> emissions along the path that the world is on will lead to shutdown of the 
> overturning (North Atlantic and Southern Ocean) circulations this century and 
> sea level rise of several meters on a time scale of 50-150 years. As yet, 
> little has changed to get us off that path. You would not know that from the 
> communications of the United Nations COPs (Conferences of the Parties) and 
> their scientific advisory body, the IPCC. Projected global warmings 
> continually rachet down as countries agree to more ambitious goals for future 
> emission reductions. If you take those plans plus $2.75 you can get a ride on 
> New York City’s subway (which, BTW, is safe and efficient, albeit ancient – 
> New York City is again a good place to visit).

Best,
Ron 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

>  
> From: James Hansen  
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 3:01 PM
> To: Clive Elsworth 
> Subject: Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?
>  
> View this email in your browser
>  
> A PDF of this Communication is available on my webpage, along with prior 
> Communications and other resources.
>  
> 
> Tweet to your followers
> 
> Share on your Facebook
> 
> Forward to your friends
> 
>  
> Fig. 28. Annual growth of climate forcing by GHGs including the part of O3 
> forcing not included in the CH4 forcing. MPTG and OTG are Montreal Protocol 
> and Other Trace Gases.
>  
> 
> Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?
>  
> 25 May 2023
> James Hansen
>  
> Some people on Twitter interpreted the statement:  “Equilibrium global 
> warming including slow feedbacks for today’s human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) 
> climate forcing (4.1 W/m2) is 10°C, reduced to 8°C by today’s aerosols” in 
> our draft paper “Global Warming in the Pipeline” as indicating that the world 
> is committed to warming of 10°C. The word “committed” or “commit” does not 
> appear in our paper. If it had, it would have been in a statement such as 
> “the world needs to commit to global cooling of about 1°C for the sake of 
> young people and future generations.”
> 
> Equilibrium warming is a useful concept employed for more than a century, 
> e.g., in the studies by Arrhenius in the 1890s and Charney in the 1970s. 
> Equilibrium response is the global temperature change after the climate 
> system restores energy balance following imposition of a climate forcing. One 
> merit of our analysis of Cenozoic (past 66 million years) climate is that it 
> reveals that the present human-made GHG (greenhouse gas) forcing is already 
> greater than the GHG forcing at the transition from a nearly unglaciated 
> Antarctica to a glaciated continent. Yes, if we leave atmospheric composition 
> as it is today, sea level will eventually rise about 60 m (200 feet). Of 
> course, none of us would be there to see it. However, it’s not the new 
> equilibrium at +200 feet that’s of most concern, it’s the chaos that ensues 
> once ice sheet collapse begins in earnest.
> 
> That chaos was the topic of our paper[1] “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and 
> Superstorms,” which was blackballed by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on 
> Climate Change). In that paper, we conclude that continuation of GHG 
> emissions along the path that the world is on will lead to shutdown of the 
> overturning (North Atlantic and Southern Ocean) circulations this century and 
> sea level rise of several meters on a time scale of 50-150 years. As yet, 
> little has changed to get us off that path. You would not know that from the 
> communications of the United Nations COPs (Conferences of the Parties) and 
> their scientific advisory body, the IPCC. Projected global warmings 
> continually rachet down as countries agree to more ambitious goals for future 
> emission reductions. If you take those plans plus $2.75 you can get a ride on 
> New York City’s subway (which, BTW, is safe and efficient, albeit ancient – 
> New York City is again a good place to visit).
> 
> Physics is a description of the real world. So, climate science should be 
> focused on data. That’s the way science is supposed to work. However, IPCC is 
> focused on models. Not just global climate models (GCMs), but models that 
> feed the models, e.g., Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that provide 
> scenarios for future GHG levels. These models are useful and even necessary 
> for analysis of the complex climate system, but 

[geo] Re: Reminder! May 18 3:30 CDT Community Reading Group Discussion: Greta Thunberg's The Climate Book

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Hopefully you have all received an invite from Suzanne Reed to this
community discussion of Greta Thunberg's "The Climate Book" organized by
Brian, Suzanne, and Julia.   I have just finished the book that is a
collection of short essays by numerous people (including of course Greta)
and highly recommend it!  The breadth, scope, and detailed factual analysis
(backed up by references that are accessible on-line) of these essays  is,
I believe, unparalleled in any book or paper on climate - certainly any
recent and up to date book. Of course, though, unfortunately I don't think
the "what we must do" proposals offered in the last section of the book
will work for the short-term emergency climate-driven cooling crisis (as
opposed to the long-term GHG draw down and natural regeneration more
fundamental problem) that we now find our selves in, I cannot help but
admiring Greta's, and many of other author's in the book, passionate pleas
and willingness to speak the truth about where we are.

Some of the Essays that I found particularly enlightening (or like 4.8 -
very unenlightened and begging for a response from us) are:

All of Part One.
2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.11, 2.16, 2.20, 2.23
4.3, 4.8, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.21, 4.22
5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.19

And many more - there are very few essays that I did not learn something
from even if I disagreed with some of their major themes!

Best,
Ron





On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 5:31 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A reminder!  I've recently started listening to the book and (the first
> few chapters anyway) are very well written and fascinating natural (and
> human) history and process overviews.  Also Suzanne and Julia are working
> with Brian on framing this discussion which should be  a good one!
>
> Best,
> Ron
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BtYjhMNYMOMr6e6n6FW5FdLMoqnptaX2Vu_5utLWm5EA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Reminder! May 18 3:30 CDT Community Reading Group Discussion: Greta Thunberg's The Climate Book

[Ron Baiman]

 Dear Colleagues,

A reminder!  I've recently started listening to the book and (the first few
chapters anyway) are very well written and fascinating natural (and human)
history and process overviews.  Also Suzanne and Julia are working with
Brian on framing this discussion which should be  a good one!

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9AYTQdDJB-sCM6HO04nCVb%2BR8kKcQqYWJJxLmy9endtKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Updated Calcs for staying "well below 2.0 C" with GHG reduction alone

[Ron Baiman]

 Updated data calcs.  The 2019 estimate has been reduced, so going forward
requires 4.7% yearly reduction rather than 6.1%,  but as most of the
decline in global GHG from 2019 to 2021 was due to the pandemic, the big
question is whether global GHG emissions will plateau in 2023?  In other
words any sustained decline in GHG is still not clearly visible in the
data.  Latest calcs and links to data summarized below:

Global GHG emissions would have needed to decline by 4.65%/year from an
estimated 54.82 GT CO2e in 2019 (
https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions#annual-greenhouse-gas-emissions-how-much-do-we-emit-each-year)
to achieve a 35 GT CO2e level in 2030 and a 66% chance of limiting average
global temperature increase to below 1.8 C
(file:///C:/Users/rbaiman/Downloads/EGR2022-3.pdf , Table ES.2). However,
global GHG emissions declined by an average of only 0.3% a year from 2019
to an estimated 54.49 GT CO2e in 2021 (
https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions#annual-greenhouse-gas-emissions-how-much-do-we-emit-each-year
). As  a consequence , we must now reduce global GHG emission by 4.7% per
year to reach 35 GT by 2030.

There is no  real-world scenario under a system  of voluntary NDCs that
will produce a 4.7%/year reduction in CO2e.  Indeed, the 0.3% yearly GHG
reduction from 2019 to 2021 is less than 1/15th of the 4.7%  yearly
reduction needed, and that reduction was largely attributed to the Covid-10
Pandemic.  In 2022, global GHG emissions increased and, depending on the
state of the economy, could potentially plateau in 2023 or increase, not
decline (
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-global-emissions-plateau-in-2023-four-trends-to-watch/
)

Best,

Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9D4nGsbMs0ijnxGqyi%3DkEW0o86RUuQp_aA0NLbJ_gzwCA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

Updated data calcs.  The 2019 estimate had been reduced so going forward
requires 4.7% yearly reduction rather than 6/.1%,  but as all of the
decline in global GHG from 2019 to 2021 was due to Covid, the big question
is whether global GHG emissions will plateau in 2023?  In other words any
sustained decline in GHG is still not clearly visible in the data.  Latest
calcs and links to data summarized below:

Global GHG emissions would have needed to decline by 4.65%/year from an
estimated 54.82 GT CO2e in 2019 (
https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions#annual-greenhouse-gas-emissions-how-much-do-we-emit-each-year)
to achieve a 35 GT CO2e level in 2030 and a 66% chance of limiting average
global temperature increase to below 1.8 C
(file:///C:/Users/rbaiman/Downloads/EGR2022-3.pdf , Table ES.2). However,
global GHG emissions declined by an average of only 0.3% a year from 2019
to an estimated 54.49 GT CO2e in 2021 (
https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions#annual-greenhouse-gas-emissions-how-much-do-we-emit-each-year
). As  a consequence , we must now reduce global GHG emission by 4.7% per
year to reach 35 GT by 2030.

There is no  real-world scenario under a system  of voluntary NDCs that
will produce a 4.7%/year reduction in CO2e.  Indeed, the 0.3% yearly GHG
reduction from 2019 to 2021 is less than 1/15th of the 4.7%  yearly
reduction needed, and that reduction was largely attributed to the Covid-10
Pandemic.  In 2022, global GHG emissions increased and, depending on the
state of the economy, could potentially plateau in 2023 or increase, not
decline (
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-global-emissions-plateau-in-2023-four-trends-to-watch/
)

Best,

Ron

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:56 AM Robert Chris  wrote:

> Doug
>
> This more nuanced response covers the bases.  Thanks.  I particularly
> relate to your comment that the policy relevance of models is not a binary
> 'they are/they aren't'.  Unfortunately that isn't how they're regarded by
> many influential people who should know better.  The real value of models
> is their ability to interrogate the relationships between baskets of
> climate relevant variables and not in their ability accurately to predict
> future climate states of the planet.  The models may well have their own
> internal consistency but it is a challenge, even for the better informed,
> to grasp the extent to which they are truly predictive.  This isn't helped
> by the use of global aggregates and averages that mask wide spatial and
> temporal variability.
>
> BTW, I wasn't suggesting that 'if we don’t correctly capture what the
> temperature would be in the year 3000, then it follows that our models are
> utterly useless for making near-term policy choices'.  The point I was
> trying to make is that we need to abandon the idea that any short term
> policy goal, e.g. net zero by 2050, is job done, global warming solved,
> let's move on.  Whether net zero by 2050 is even sufficient to avoid a
> climate catastrophe in the relatively near future is an open question.  But
> crucially, so long as we've got 8 billion or so people all wanting the
> latest gizmo and longer vacations in far away places, global warming is a
> situation that will have to be continuously managed into the distant future
> and therefore our short term policy choices should always be open to
> adaptation as the future unfolds.  That requires more of a change in
> policymakers' and the public's attitude towards the science, than it does
> in the processes of science itself.
>
> Of course if in a century or so we're back down to 1 billion or so, where
> we were not so long ago, then most of the global warming problem gets
> sorted by natural ecosystems.  Maybe that's the most cost effective way of
> addressing global warming - sit back, do next to nothing to make the
> unsustainable sustainable and just let nature take it course.
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 12/04/2023 01:50, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
>
> I did not state that the models are not policy-relevant… both because I
> don’t agree with that being a binary statement of either they are or they
> aren’t (rather, they are useful for answering some questions and less
> useful for answering others), and because the specific issue I was
> responding to is not the most relevant factor in thinking through that
> question.
>
>
>
> I disagree completely with your assertion that if we don’t correctly
> capture what the temperature would be in the year 3000, then it follows
> that our models are utterly useless for making near-term policy choices.
> Rather, I think that what happens in the next century or two actually do
> matter.  I agree with you that what happens beyond then **also** matters,
> but I don’t think it is essential that a climate model correctly capture
> that.  You don’t need to run a climate model to say that we’re in trouble
> if we maintain elevated CO2 concentrations for the next 1000 years, as this
> thread points 

Re: [prag] [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Herbert. As a heterodox economist I generally agree with you with 
regard to the standard Neoclassical economics school of thought.  But by 
“economically” in this case I was referring to the realism of thinking that 
near-term human civilization will collectively be able to cut and drawdown GHG 
sufficient to stay below these very real (based on the work of
Rockstrom, Lenton, McKay etc.- see links in my previous post) earth system 
thresholds.
Best,
Ron 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 9, 2023, at 9:06 AM, Herbert Huppert  wrote:
>   So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the 
> likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
> 
>>> Regards
>>> Robert
>>> 
> Totally correct, in my opinion.  And also much more widely correct, 
> especially if slightly altered (and generalized) to:
> 
> (Almost) anything mediated solely through an economic lens is unlikely to 
> have a successful and happy ending.
> 
> (Of course, special counter examples can be dreamed up;  but in general the 
> statement is totally apposite in my opinion, even if not understood by many 
> economists)
> 
>  2
> H
> 
> Professor Herbert E. Huppert FRS,
> Institute of Theoretical Geophysics
> King’s College
> Cambridge   CB2 1ST
> Mobile +44 7814 582 707
> www.itg.cam.ac.uk/people/heh

-- 
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/D9C4084A-DC9C-4DA2-86C4-866CBD43006E%40gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Doug.  Agreed. The problem
Is that (without a mandatory global regime in place) elected leaders can’t just 
shut down fossil fuel production and exports (that nations with over 1.1 
billion people 14.2 percent of global population depend on for over 10% for 
critical foreign exchange exports, see: 
https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge ) and,
if short-run  alternatives are not immediately available, drive up energy 
prices for their already (mostly) desperately poor countries without losing 
their jobs and more importantly causing massive suffering in their countries.  

I repeat over 6% global  annual GHG emission reduction per year (and I believe 
this just takes Into account anthropogenic emissions - not recently 
accelerating positive feedback driven net increases
In natural GHG emissions like methane release from  permafrost etc ) is just 
not going to happen without a global regime change revolution that is also not 
at all likely as social evolution (especially pro-democratic evolution) 
generally takes much longer than the climate clock allows. 

As Herb notes. urgent immediate direct climate cooling (DCC) is realistically 
(without an unprecedented and from our current vantage point impossible to 
conceive revolution in global civilization) the only option to avoid crossing 
the 1.5 and 2.0 C thresholds and (see my prior post) put us at high likelihood 
of crossing at least 4 major planetary tipping points. 

This is fundamentally not a technological or narrow economic financing or 
investment or real production problem, but a human civilization speed of change 
problem. Sounding like Robert C, but there is hope if DCC, that does not need a 
complete transformation of industrial hunter-gatherer civilization, can be 
quickly ramped up to give us time to make this essential transformation over 
the coming decades or longer.

Best,
Ron 





Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2023, at 12:29 PM, Douglas Grandt  wrote:
> 
> 
> RobertC, Herb and David,
> 
> This conversation seems to have taken a tangent from what I believe Ron 
> intended to covey:
> 
>> I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario 
> 
> My reply to Ron was an attempt to affirm that view with a realistic metric 
> that demonstrates failure in the decade since Hansen’s 2013 paper proposing 
> 6% annual decline in fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
> 
> Politics and economics certainly have played a roll in past performance 
> failure, but what needs to change to jump-start weekly shuttering refineries 
> and oil fields?
> 
> Ron’s message:
> 
>> we now have to reduce global GHG emissions from an estimated 58 GT CO2e in 
>> 2022 by 6.12% per year to reach 35 GT by 2030 (just redid the calc).  
>> 
>> I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario that I am aware of. 
>> Certainly not without a global cap and trade system like the Kyoto accord 
>> that has been dismantled in favor of voluntary NDCs.  In the last 4 years 
>> (from 2019 59.1 GT to 2022 58 GT) we've been able to achieve a 0.6% (just 
>> did the calc) year over year reduction that is about 1/10th the level of 
>> reduction that we would need from now on to get to 35 GT by 2030.
> 
> My reply was 10:07am ET yesterday
>> 
>> From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Climate Alliance
>> Date: April 7, 2023 at 10:07:11 AM EDT
>> To: Ron Baiman
>> Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, 'Eelco Rohling' 
>> via NOAC Meetings, Healthy Climate Alliance, geoengineering, Brian von 
>> Herzen 
>> Subject: [HCA-list] Re: [prag] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
>> realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
>> 
>> Thanks, Ron,
> … 
> 
> Best regards,
> Doug 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Herb, thanks for the further explanation. 
>> 
>> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
>> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
>> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and 
>> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
>> 
>> Regards
>> Robert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>>> 
>>> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>>> 
>>> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a 
>>> goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically 
>>> mediated. 
>>> 
>>> It seems that there are at le

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

* radically changes*

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
>  I’m a “radical”, or “heterodox”, economist so I think of economics (like 
> other social sciences) as inherently based on values. But disregarding 
> semantics perhaps we can all agree that unless the current global political 
> economic regime  hanged radically, over 6% GHG reduction per year is 
> “realistically unrealistic”? 
> 
> Ron 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Herb, thanks for the further explanation. 
>> 
>> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
>> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
>> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and 
>> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
>> 
>> Regards
>> Robert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>>> 
>>> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>>> 
>>> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a 
>>> goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically 
>>> mediated. 
>>> 
>>> It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the 
>>> climate crisis:
>>> 
>>> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature 
>>> increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that 
>>> goal- 
>>> 
>>> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to 
>>> well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
>>> 
>>> Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 
>>> 1° C
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Herb
>>> 
>>> Herb Simmens
>>> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
>>> @herbsimmens
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris  wrote:
>>>>> David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically 
>>>>> realistic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the 
>>>>> likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
>>>>> 
>>>> I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%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/849C694F-ABD5-4653-8CDD-C0399B5880A3%40gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

 I’m a “radical”, or “heterodox”, economist so I think of economics (like other 
social sciences) as inherently based on values. But disregarding semantics 
perhaps we can all agree that unless the current global political economic 
regime  hanged radically, over 6% GHG reduction per year is “realistically 
unrealistic”? 

Ron 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
> 
> 
> Herb, thanks for the further explanation. 
> 
> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and 
> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
> 
> Regards
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
>> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>> 
>>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>> 
>> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>> 
>> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a 
>> goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically 
>> mediated. 
>> 
>> It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the 
>> climate crisis:
>> 
>> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature increases 
>> to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that goal- 
>> 
>> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to 
>> well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
>> 
>> Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 
>> 1° C
>> 
>> 
>> Herb
>> 
>> Herb Simmens
>> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
>> @herbsimmens
>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris  wrote:
 David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically realistic.
 
 So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the 
 likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
 
>>> I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? 
>>> -- 
>>> 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/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%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/A80B912B-A83E-455C-B7F2-A8DEB11A8B14%40gmail.com.

[geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

 Dear Colleagues,

Follow up to previous 1.5 C or 2.0 C post:

c) Some quick calculation regarding the unrealistic economics of trying to
stay below 15 c, or 1.8 C (per the "well below" 2 C of the Paris Accord)
based on a purely voluntary NDC regime:

As global GHG emissions have not declined by 4.65% from 2019 which would
have necessary for gradual year over year achievement of the 35 GT CO2e
level in 2030 necessary for a 66% chance of staying below 1.8 C estimated
by the UNEP/IPCC per the the citations in my paper (
https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge ), we now
have to reduce global GHG emissions from an estimated 58 GT CO2e in 2022 by
6.12% per year to reach 35 GT by 2030 (just redid the calc).

I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario that I am aware of.
Certainly not without a global cap and trade system like the Kyoto accord
that has been dismantled in favor of voluntary NDCs.  In the last 4 years
(from 2019 59.1 GT to 2022 58 GT) we've been able to achieve a 0.6% (just
did the calc) year over year reduction that is about 1/10th the level of
reduction that we would need from now on to get to 35 GT by 2030.

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BBmacNDRYim1hvM%2BjtPQOr%3DrFd9yUbP-ufYA2GkqUtAA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Are the 1.5 C and 2.0 C purely political thresholds and how important is Arctic Summer Sea Ice to the Climate?

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Segments 19:59 to 24:45 or so and perhaps a bit more in this excellent
presentation (until it gets to the "fantasy economics" of postulating huge
cuts and drawdowns in GHGs sufficient to stay below 1.5 c in the second
part of the presentation - see c) in follow-up post) by Johan Rockstrom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmtk-tD_B-g  (thank you Brian!) appear
to directly address points made by David K in this segment (26:05 - 43:45)
of the HPAC Q: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwvlPQWl8Q

Specifically:

 a) At 19:45:  the 1.5 C threshold is scientifically based as crossing it
puts us at great risk of crossing four tipping points: (Greenland and West
Antarctic ice sheets - (roughly 10 meters sea level rise), die-off of
low-latitude coral reefs, and widespread abrupt permafrost thaw.

This is the "results" summary of the paper cited:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950

We identify nine global “core” tipping elements which contribute
substantially to Earth system functioning and seven regional “impact”
tipping elements which contribute substantially to human welfare or have
great value as unique features of the Earth system (see figure). Their
estimated CTP thresholds have significant implications for climate policy:
Current global warming of ~1.1°C above pre-industrial already lies within
the lower end of five CTP uncertainty ranges. Six CTPs become likely (with
a further four possible) within the Paris Agreement range of 1.5 to <2°C
warming, including collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets,
die-off of low-latitude coral reefs, and widespread abrupt permafrost thaw.
An additional CTP becomes likely and another three possible at the ~2.6°C
of warming expected under current policies.

b) At 24:45 or thereabouts:  Arctic summer sea ice is a critical part of
the global climate system.

Below is the relevant summary from the paper cited:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705414105
Arctic Sea-Ice.
As sea-ice melts, it exposes a much darker ocean surface, which absorbs
more radiation–amplifying the warming. Energy-balance models suggest that
this ice-albedo positive feedback can give rise to multiple stable states
of sea-ice (and land snow) cover, including finite ice cap and ice-free
states, with ice caps smaller than a certain size being unstable (13
). This small
ice-cap instability is also found in some atmospheric general circulation
models (AGCMs), but it can be largely eliminated by noise due to natural
variability (14 ).
The instability is not expected to be relevant to Southern Ocean sea-ice
because the Antarctic continent covers the region over which it would be
expected to arise (15
). Different
stable states for the flow rate through the narrow outlets that drain parts
of the Arctic basin have also been found in a recent model (16
). For both
summer and winter Arctic sea-ice, the area coverage is declining at present
(with summer sea-ice declining more markedly; ref. 17
), and the ice
has thinned significantly over a large area. Positive ice-albedo feedback
dominates external forcing in causing the thinning and shrinkage since
1988, indicating strong nonlinearity and leading some to suggest that this
system may already have passed a tipping point (18
), although
others disagree (19
). In IPCC
projections with ocean-atmosphere general circulation models (OAGCMs) (12
), half of the
models become ice-free in September during this century (19
), at a polar
temperature of −9°C (9°C above present) (20
). The
transition has nonlinear steps in many of the models, but a common critical
threshold has yet to be identified (19
). Thinning of
the winter sea-ice increases the efficiency of formation of open water in
summer, and abrupt retreat occurs when ocean heat transport to the Arctic
increases rapidly (19
). Only two IPCC
models (12 )
exhibit a complete loss of annual sea-ice cover under extreme forcing (20
). One shows a
nonlinear transition to a new stable state in <10 years when polar
temperature rises above −5°C (13°C above present), whereas the other shows
a more linear transition. We conclude that a critical threshold for summer

[geo] Re: XPRIZE Call for Future-Positive Ideas for Future XPRIZE Competitions: Deadline 17th April

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

As Barbara notes (thank you!) this seems like an opportunity that we should
take advantage of.

Best,
Ron

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 6:18 PM Barbara Sneath  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> FYI. Please share this with the climate community.
>
> There's an  XPRIZE Call for Future-Positive Ideas for Future XPRIZE
> Competitions with a deadline of April 17th.  One area is Climate and
> Energy.  There are nine short questions to answer.
>
> I thought it might be worth submitting “Direct Climate Cooling" or
> “Refreezing the Arctic “ ideas.  What do you think?  At the very least,
> suggestions for these ideas would be a chance to bring the concept to the
> notice of the XPRIZE organization.
>
> More information below.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Barbara Sneath
> MEER.org
>
> Information:
> https://www.xprize.org/futurepositiveideas-faq
>
> Application:
> https://www.xprize.org/futurepositiveideas
>
> Area:  Climate and Energy
>
> 1st question:
>
> *(1 of 9) Describe the revolutionary change that you want to bring about
> with the proposed prize competition.*
>
> *Here are some characteristics of prize-driven revolutionary changes:*
>
>- *Accelerates positive change [decade or greater than presently
>expected]*
>
>
>- *Uses fundamentally different solutions or approaches*
>
>
>- *Leverages novel technologies and/or operational systems*
>
>
>- *Engages stakeholders across multiple/previously untapped sectors
>(private, industry, government, NGO)*
>
>
>- *Considers different markets/customers*
>
> *(2 of 9) Describe the conditions (political, economic, social,
> technological, legal, environmental) that are preventing this change from
> taking place now. Why is this area stuck?*
> *(3 of 9) What specific assumptions or misconceptions are holding back
> progress in this area?*
> *(4 of 9) Describe a practical demonstration that could create the change
> that you wish to achieve.*
> *(5 of 9) Describe what the winning team must accomplish to win the
> competition. Provide a summary description of competition rules.*
> *(6 of 9) Propose a name for your prize competition that clearly
> communicates your prize concept.*
> *(7 of 9) Suggest a one sentence description of the prize that clearly
> communicates your prize concept and why you are doing it or what it is
> solving for.*
> *(8 of 9) Upload an image that graphically communicates your prize
> concept.*
> *(9 of 9) Do you know of a company, organization, and/or an individual who
> would be willing to fund your competition idea?**
>
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DcUxhiCpq5qOx7M9171tM%3DNPWD9cVsKPyZX9WM0TVnRg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Dave Sprat_IPCC: a gamble on earth system failure

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Dave Spratt_IPCC: a gamble on earth system failure:

https://johnmenadue.com/ipcc-a-gamble-on-earth-system-and-human-civilisation-failure/

This was shared on the NOAC list (thank you!) and I think is worth broader
dissemination. Among other things I think it very much supports the point
that Mike M and others have been making about the need to focus on risks
and not averages or central tendencies.

Incidentally, Dave Sprat is scheduled for an HPAC presentation 4/20/2023
Thursday 4:30 CDT (an hour later than usual).

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9DgpibOfSOpM%2BGjQLmU7NzBqjSarEjYxk7XbJxxzWuTrw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: [prag] Important paper out concluding that SRM would need to be deployed in excess of 100 years to stabilize temp increases at 1.5 C.

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks for sharing, Herb!  I haven't read the paper, but from a skim, it
looks like maybe some sanity is emerging among climate modelers on this
issue. Enough with "shaving the peak", it seems to me that we're going to
need cooling (including probably OTEC type generating energy from and
cooling ocean heat) for a very long time, even with robust GHG emissions
and drawdown, and nature regeneration programs!
Ron

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 2:37 PM H simmens  wrote:

> “We generate a large dataset of 355 emission scenarios in which SRM is
> deployed to keep warming levels at 1.5 ∘C global mean temperature.
> Probabilistic climate projections from this ensemble result in a large
> range of plausible future warming and cooling rates that lead to various
> SRM deployment timescales. In all pathways consistent with extrapolated
> current ambition, SRM deployment would exceed 100 years even under the most
> optimistic assumptions regarding climate response.“
>
> [image: esd-14-367-2023-avatar-web.png]
>
> The deployment length of solar radiation modification: an interplay of
> mitigation, net-negative emissions and climate uncertainty
> 
> esd.copernicus.org 
> 
>
>
> Herb Simmens
> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
> @herbsimmens
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Planetary Restoration" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/79EB47A3-B9B0-4715-B129-4F5C37FF1638%40gmail.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/CAPhUB9C7RMz8BsmP4Gg9tw_SbMSUw0TEqfmCfBgGKVCh-vP14g%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] "Extrapolations" TV Show seems like a must watch!

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

I haven't seen it yet, but based on this article:
https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-16/extrapolations-is-the-climate-change-tv-show-we-desperately-need-boiling-point
It appears to be a must watch!

Thanks to Mike MacCracken for flagging this!

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9Bc1zA7UhWjv2sY_rmHCb4kQeRVGkWNrjG%2BmBxUfBX5pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] 2022 Montreal Protocol report's mixed assessment of SAI Impacts on Ozone Layer

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Below are key points the 2022 Montreal Protocol report's (
https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022-Executive-Summary.pdf
) mixed assessment of SAI impact on ozone layer.

The report focused on a spring injection of SAI in Antarctica (where the
Ozone hole is largest) and found in model simulations, after 20 years of
SAI sufficient to reduce global cooling by 0.5 C, loss of ozone in
Antarctica in October similar to losses in the 1990s that if continued
would delay ozone hole recovery by 25 to 50 years, but less loss if SAI is
started later, and for larger applications enhancement of Ozone in the
winter in NH mid-latitudes.

Details from the ES Chap. 5, p. 21-22 report below:

"Additional ozone depletion due to SAI is simulated in
spring over Antarctica, with magnitudes dependent on
the injection rate and timing. Simulations of strong SAI
show an increase in total column ozone (TCO) in mid-lat-
itudes (40–60°N) in the winter Northern Hemisphere.
º For October over Antarctica, SAI simulations that achieve
a global mean surface cooling of 0.5 °C in the first 20
years, show a reduction of TCO of around 58 ± 20 DU,
assuming 2020–2040 halogen conditions. This reduc-
tion brings TCO values close to the observed minimum in
the 1990s. Less ozone loss would be expected for a later
SAI start date, when halogen concentrations are project-
ed to be lower.
º Beyond the first 20 years, the continued application of
strong SAI, to offset almost 5 °C of warming by 2100, re-
duces Antarctic ozone in October by similar amounts (55
± 20 DU) throughout the 21st century despite declining
abundances of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). In
this case, ozone hole recovery from ODSs is delayed by
between 25 and 50 years. A peakshaving scenario po-
tentially leads to less ozone depletion.
º Under stronger SAI scenarios, ozone is significantly
enhanced in NH mid-latitudes in winter owing to strato-
spheric heating from injected sulfur, which leads to in-
creased equator to poleward transport of ozone.
º Ozone loss within the Arctic polar vortex has not yet
been robustly quantified for SAI."

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CzEdicyPZROiZU0aXKmM02Quo1Y3QSRVfxieC9o0A3ew%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: UNEP 2/28/2023 Report on SRM

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you Rebecca et al.  I agree. Not surprisingly, the UNEP is not going
to break ranks with conventional wisdom on this issue. From a quick skim, a
couple of "glimmers of progress" might be their support for a "risk risk"
evaluation, and for small scale research.
Interestingly the Montreal Protocol report is cited as a supportive backup
source in the interview but that report focused on a spring injection of
SAI in Antarctica (where the Ozone hole is largest) and found mixed
results. After 20 years of SAI loss of ozone in Antarctica in October close
to 1990's loss, but less loss if SAI is started later, and for larger
applications enhancement of Ozone in NH midlatitudes:


*Additional ozone depletion due to SAI is simulated in*













*spring over Antarctica, with magnitudes dependent onthe injection rate and
timing. Simulations of strong SAIshow an increase in total column ozone
(TCO) in mid-lat-itudes (40–60°N) in the winter Northern Hemisphere.º For
October over Antarctica, SAI simulations that achievea global mean surface
cooling of 0.5 °C in the first 20years, show a reduction of TCO of around
58 ± 20 DU,assuming 2020–2040 halogen conditions. This reduc-tion brings
TCO values close to the observed minimum inthe 1990s. Less ozone loss would
be expected for a laterSAI start date, when halogen concentrations are
project-ed to be lower.º Beyond the first 20 years, the continued
application ofstrong SAI, to offset almost 5 °C of warming by 2100,
re-duces Antarctic ozone in October *






*by similar amounts (55± 20 DU) throughout the 21st century despite
decliningabundances of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Inthis case, ozone
hole recovery from ODSs is delayed bybetween 25 and 50 years. A peakshaving
scenario po-tentially leads to less ozone depletion.º Under stronger SAI
scenarios, ozone is significantlyenhanced in NH mid-latitudes in winter
owing to strato-*
*spheric heating from injected sulfur, which leads to in*


*-creased equator to poleward transport of ozone.º Ozone loss within the
Arctic polar vortex has not yetbeen robustly quantified for SAI.*

Best,
Ron

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Rebecca personal em 
wrote:

> Good afternoon to you in Chicago Ron,
>
> Thank you for sending, it’s hard to keep up with all the reports and
> actions people are taking.
>
> Herb did send a link for this report, but it’s worth drawing it to
> everyone’s attention again.
>
> Unfortunately, it buys right into the net zero story, at least from the
> executive summary, excerpt below. Perhaps it is part of a strategic
> picture/plan that we’re not seeing, and also any news is good news?
>
> https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41903
> Quote from Ms Inger Andersen, ED UNEP
> [image: image.png]
>
> Best regards to all ,
> Rebecca
>
> On 16 Mar 2023, at 7:25 am, Ron Baiman  wrote:
>
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Apologies if this has already been posted:
>
>
> https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/new-report-explores-issues-around-solar-radiation-modification
>
> I did a quick search and didn't find anything in my inbox.  In any case,
> it seems important enough to resend just in case!
>
> Best,
> Ron
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "NOAC Meetings" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9CVY7Y_%2BdYAbH5SEqSqoRWbJsTUvcJ3fTHivvkp6%2BZxkQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9CVY7Y_%2BdYAbH5SEqSqoRWbJsTUvcJ3fTHivvkp6%2BZxkQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9DbvoMUpq4vXXYawayVO7VPN441MbwMZ02813Ja5stmqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] UNEP 2/28/2023 Report on SRM

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Apologies if this has already been posted:

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/new-report-explores-issues-around-solar-radiation-modification

I did a quick search and didn't find anything in my inbox.  In any case, it
seems important enough to resend just in case!

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CVY7Y_%2BdYAbH5SEqSqoRWbJsTUvcJ3fTHivvkp6%2BZxkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Marine heatwaves are sweeping the floor around North America

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Marine heatwaves are sweeping the seafloor around North America | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/marine-heatwaves-are-sweeping-seafloor-around-north-america-2023-03-13/

Another reason to urgently move forward on "bottom up" direct climate
cooling!

Thanks again for flagging Phil.  Please find something more hopeful! 

Best,
Ron

-- 
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/CAPhUB9ABxpM50hwbAxg9my2n89OCT9kNhzuBAGDV22gnJTy_sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Fwd: Arctic climate modeling too conservative, says new research

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Another reason to urgently move on "bottom up" direct climate cooling!

Thanks again for flagging Phil. Please find something hopeful !

Best,
Ron
-- Forwarded message -
From: Philip Bogdonoff 
Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Arctic climate modeling too conservative, says new research
To: Michael MacCracken 
Cc: Ron Baiman , H simmens 


Another not so good sign:

Marine heatwaves are sweeping the seafloor around North America | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/marine-heatwaves-are-sweeping-seafloor-around-north-america-2023-03-13/

-- Philip

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:51 AM Michael MacCracken 
wrote:

> Hi Ron--Everything is  coupled together--and again, the models have
> possibly been in a time lag due to the atmospheric effects. I understand
> that these are the present differences, but what is their cause is the
> question?
>
> Another quite possible underlying explanations is inadequate model
> resolution, a problem forced by limitations in computer speed, etc. And
> there may well be other causes.
>
> What I did not like about the article was the sort of implication that one
> would tune the model to the results? Doing that gives no confidence that
> any future result will be right or that changes will occur as would play
> out. What one has to to do is figure out what aspect(s) of the physics
> (chemistry, biology, etc.) is not being properly represented and get that
> fixed if one is going to be able to justify having at least some confidence
> in projections into the future.
>
> Best, Mike
> On 3/13/23 10:00 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> The lead of author of the paper seems to blame it on more voluminous
> incoming warm ocean currents and uncertain levels of Arctic Ocean
> stratification:
>
> "In reality, the relatively warm waters in the Arctic regions are even
> warmer, and closer to the sea ice. Consequently, we believe that the Arctic
> sea ice will melt away faster than projected," explains Céline Heuzé,
> climatologist at the University of Gothenburg and lead author of one of the
> studies.
>
> Warm water flows into the Arctic Ocean via Fram Strait between Greenland
> and Svalbard. However, the volume of water in these ocean currents
> <https://phys.org/tags/ocean+currents/> and its temperature in the
> climate models are too low, which is one of the reasons why the climate
> models' projections will not be accurate. Even the stratification of the
> Arctic Ocean is incorrect. The researchers argue that since roughly half of
> the models project an increase and the other half a decrease in
> stratification, the consequences of global warming cannot be estimated
> accurately"
>
> And applying a generic model to the Arctic rather than one specific
> tailored to the unique conditions there:
>
> " We need a climate model that is tailored to the Arctic. In general, you
> can't use the same model for the entire planet, as conditions vary
> considerably. A better idea would be to create a specific model for the
> Arctic that correctly factors in the processes occurring in the Arctic
> Ocean and surrounding land areas <https://phys.org/tags/land+areas/>,"
> Céline Heuzé explains."
>
> So they seem to believe that the problem lies more with Ocean modeling
> than with atmospheric effects, though of course these should be linked in
> the models which it seems is what you're thinking?
> Ron
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:26 PM H simmens  wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. Leon Simons was on Andrew’s  podcast last
>> year if anyone is interested.
>>
>> [image: ab676563ba8a3812b18dd54f93439320af2d.jpeg]
>>
>> Ship tracks & termination shock - Simons
>> <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fIWIATW8uSMR6cYUXuoh4>
>> open.spotify.com
>> <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fIWIATW8uSMR6cYUXuoh4>
>> <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fIWIATW8uSMR6cYUXuoh4>
>>
>>
>> Herb Simmens
>> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
>> @herbsimmens
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2023, at 5:01 PM, Michael MacCracken 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hi Herb--I'm not in touch with Leon. Actually, I was referring to
>> powerplant SO2 emissions from the US and Europe that surely put sulfate
>> into the Arctic into the 1980s, etc. Indeed, it would be interesting for
>> someone to look at the time around the years when they opened and later
>> closed the smelter in Canada that was putting out 5% or so of North
>> American emissions as lofting emissions extended the S lifetime in the
>> atmosphere from a day o