RE: [geo] Estimating the portion of Marine Cloud Brightening sea-salt aerosols that activate when incorporated into low-lying marine clouds: preliminary results

[Stephen Salter]

Hi anyone
This looks extremely important. Please help me download the paper.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: 08 October 2023 13:15
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Estimating the portion of Marine Cloud Brightening sea-salt 
aerosols that activate when incorporated into low-lying marine clouds: 
preliminary results

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.
This item and others will be in the monthly “Solar Geoengineering Updates 
Substack” newsletter: https://solargeoengineeringupdates.substack.com/
-

https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemFullPage.jsp?itemId=item_5019225_2

Authors
Hernandez-Jaramillo, Diana C.
Medcraft, Chris
Braga, Ramon C.
Rosenfeld, Daniel
Harrison, Daniel


Citations: Hernandez-Jaramillo, D. C., Medcraft, C., Braga, R. C., Rosenfeld, 
D., Harrison, D. (2023): Estimating the portion of Marine Cloud Brightening 
sea-salt aerosols that activate when incorporated into low-lying marine clouds: 
preliminary results, XXVIII General Assembly of the International Union of 
Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) (Berlin 2023).
https://doi.org/10.57757/IUGG23-2669

August 2023

Abstract
Airborne measurements were carried out as part of the Australian Marine Cloud 
Brightening (MCB) campaign performed between mid-February and early April 2023 
in the Southern part of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). MCB may have the 
potential to mitigate episodic bleaching events exacerbated by climate change 
at the scale of the GBR by the aerosol direct effect and indirect effects on 
aerosol optical depth and net albedo of low-level maritime clouds respectively. 
During the campaign experiments were conducted by atomising seawater at the 
stern of a research vessel at a target production rate of approximately 10^14 
s^-1 sea salt aerosols (SSA). Sampling measurements were performed from a 
Cessna 337 aircraft equipped to measure aerosols, cloud properties and 
meteorological conditions. The sampling strategy included consecutive transects 
at cloud base at the intersection of the sea salt aerosol (SSA) plume and 
low-level maritime clouds, followed by in-cloud sampling of perturbed clouds. 
In this study I aim to determine the actual production rate of SSA achieved, 
and what portion are incorporated into cloud and subsequently activated to form 
cloud droplets as a function of boundary layer conditions and turbulence. This 
work was undertaken as part of the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, 
funded by the partnership between the Australian Governments Reef Trust and the 
Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

Source: GFZ
--
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/CAHJsh9-k8JOaXMBmy39RB%3D9hmhuA8QrQq_r3SMWnD5dEioW28Q%40mail.gmail.com.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB80482A4191056C605F1A8E77A7CFA%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

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

[Stephen Salter]

John
I think that it will depend on the rate of boiling. Sectiom18-83 of the Perry 
Chemical Engineers Hand Book has information about demister design.
There is also stuff at
https://marineengineeringonline.com/fresh-water-generator-or-evaporator-alfa-laval-type/
I worked on a desalination technique using energy from sea waves which required 
demisting. The design used a random packed bed of 10 mm diameter 10mm long 
stainless thin-wall stainless steel tubes but I was trying to stop all the salt.
Stephen

From: John Macdonald 
Sent: 18 August 2023 13:25
To: Stephen Salter 
Cc: Stephen Salter ; Chris Vivian 
; Ron Baiman ; 'Eelco 
Rohling' via NOAC Meetings ; Healthy Climate 
Alliance ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [prag] 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.

That’s interesting Stephen.
I has been my understanding that when saltwater is boiled, the steam that is 
produced is generally free of salt ie. that the distillation process of boiling 
water causes the water to evaporate, leaving behind impurities like salt and 
other minerals.
I agree that input from the atmospheric physics community re the right salt 
mass would be welcome.
John


On 18 Aug 2023, at 9:36 pm, Stephen Salter 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:

John
It would be a good idea to use free waste heat but boiling produces lots of 
salty bubbles which may contain more salt than we want.  We would have to fit 
demisters and do some size selection. The right salt mass matters. I think it 
is 10^-14 grams but would like this confirmed by the atmospheric physics 
community.
Stephen


From: 'John Macdonald' via Planetary Restoration 
mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: 18 August 2023 12:22
To: Stephen Salter mailto:s.sal...@oceancooling.org>>
Cc: Chris Vivian 
mailto:chris.vivi...@btinternet.com>>; Ron Baiman 
mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC 
Meetings 
mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>>; 
Planetary Restoration 
mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>;
 Healthy Climate Alliance 
mailto:healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>>;
 geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
Stephen Salter mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: [prag] 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.

Hi Stephen and all
Seawater could also be boiled from hot exhaust gases using heat exchangers. The 
pure steam plume could then be re entrained with sprayed seawater or fine dry 
salt powder to reintroduce particles necessary for CCN cloud formation.

John Macdonald

On 17 Aug 2023, at 9:32 pm, Stephen Salter 
mailto:s.sal...@oceancooling.org>> 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' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) 
mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: 16 August 2023 10:17
To: 'Ron Baiman' mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>>; 
'healthy-planet-action-coalition' 
mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>>;
 ''Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings' 
mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>>; 
'Planetary Restoration' 
mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>;
 'Healthy Climate Alliance' 
mailto:healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>>;
 'geoengineering' 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: 'SALTER Stephen' mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Subject: RE: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three 
Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations

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:



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

RE: [geo] SRM would likely prevent the only major atmospheric tipping point

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
The ‘some critical threshold’ for the failure of marine cloud brightening was a 
CO2 concentration four times pre-industrial values.
Stephen


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: 16 July 2023 12:47
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] SRM would likely prevent the only major atmospheric tipping point

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.
https://peteirvine.substack.com/p/srm-would-likely-prevent-the-only

By Pete Irvine (Plan A+)

14 July 2023

Marine stratocumulus clouds keep the Earth cool and may break-up at very high 
CO2 concentrations, SRM would likely push this tipping point far beyond reach.


Marine Stratocumulus Clouds (MSCs) are low-lying clouds that cover around 20% 
of the low-latitude ocean, or 6.5% of the world's surface (Figure 1). They are 
highly reflective and sit over the dark oceans, and so keep the Earth much 
cooler than it would otherwise be.

Worringly, Schneider et al. 
(2019) found that if CO2 
concentrations rose above some critical threshold there could be a sudden 
transition where these Marine Stratocumulus decks break up, leading to a jump 
in global temperatures of as much as 8 °C. They also found that after this 
warming, CO2 concentrations would need to be brought much below the original 
threshold to restore these cloud decks.

As Greenhouse Gas (GHG) forcing is a key driver of the collapse of the clouds 
in their simulations, Schneider and colleagues followed up this original paper 
with a study testing 
whether Solar Radiation Management (SRM) could prevent this. They conclude that 
SRM “is not a fail-safe option to prevent global warming because it does not 
mitigate risks to the climate system that arise from direct effects of 
greenhouse gases on cloud cover.”

As I pointed out in my last 
post they focus 
strongly on the fact that it fails to prevent this tipping point while 
neglecting to note that it substantially raises the threshold CO2 level where 
it occurs. Here, I want to dig a bit deeper and explain how their study also 
substantially under-estimates the potential of SRM to prevent this potentially 
catastrophic tipping point.

[Marine stratocumulus - 
Wikipedia]


Figure 1. Marine Stratocumulus clouds off the coast of Baja California. Source: 
Wiki

How Marine Stratocumulus Clouds work

Most clouds form when surface warming produces warm, moist, buoyant air parcels 
which rise high enough that the water vapour condenses to form water droplets. 
For Marine stratocumulus clouds this convection process is driven instead from 
the top-down, rather than the bottom-up.

Marine stratocumulus clouds are low clouds that form in the sub-tropics, i.e., 
desert-like regions where there are no high clouds and warm, dry air descends 
from above. Dry air isn’t good at absorbing thermal radiation and keeping the 
surface warm, which is why deserts can see temperatures drop from scorching in 
the day time to frigid at night.

This means that the top of marine stratocumulus clouds lose lots of energy by 
emitting thermal radiation to space (radiative cooling). This cloud-top 
radiative cooling leads to cool, dense air parcels dropping to the surface, 
driving up warm, moist air from the surface in return. Rather than the surface 
warming that drives convection in most other clouds, radiative cooling drives 
the convection that sustains marine stratocumulus clouds (See Figure 2, left).

Marine Stratocumulus Clouds break up when either the radiative cooling becomes 
too weak to drive air parcels all the way to the surface, breaking their 
connection with their moisture source (the ocean), or when too much warm, dry 
air is mixed in from above the cloud-top as this dries out the clouds making 
them less good at radiatively cooling themselves.

RE: [geo] “Cooling credits” are not a viable climate solution

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
However rather than measuring the mass of cooling material  it should be 
possible to use satellite observations to measure the change in sea surface 
temperatures in hurricane-breeding ocean regions and pay according to how close 
they get to values set by the Governments of surrounding countries.  Cooling 
would begin at the end of a hurricane season and the trajectory of temperature 
change observed to the following year.
Stephen

Stephen Salter
Ocean Cooling Technology Ltd.
27 Blackford Road
Edinburgh EH9 2DT
Scotland.



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: 09 July 2023 12:44
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] “Cooling credits” are not a viable climate solution

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.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03561-w

Authors
Michael S. Diamond, Kelly Wanser & Olivier Boucher

Climatic Change volume 176, Article number: 96 (2023)

04 July 2023

Abstract
As the world struggles to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 °C below pre-industrial 
temperatures, research into solar climate interventions that could temporarily 
offset some amount of greenhouse gas-driven global warming by reflecting more 
sunlight back out to space has gained prominence. These solar climate 
intervention techniques would aim to cool the Earth by injecting aerosols (tiny 
liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere) into the upper 
atmosphere or into low-altitude marine clouds. In a new development, “cooling 
credits” are now being marketed that claim to offset a certain amount of 
greenhouse gas warming with aerosol-based cooling. The science of solar climate 
intervention is currently too uncertain and the quantification of effects 
insufficient for any such claims to be credible in the near term. More 
fundamentally, however, the environmental impacts of greenhouse gases and 
aerosols are too different for such credits to be an appropriate instrument for 
reducing climate risk even if scientific uncertainties were narrowed and robust 
monitoring systems put in place. While some form of commercial mechanism for 
solar climate intervention implementation, in the event it is used, is likely, 
“cooling credits” are unlikely to be a viable climate solution, either now or 
in the future.

Source: SpringerLink
--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh998xwzojv4QeQJLx%3Dr7O-D5B71yKKEyHCmj0b3f0R%3DxOg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh998xwzojv4QeQJLx%3Dr7O-D5B71yKKEyHCmj0b3f0R%3DxOg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB8048047F633B85E2916ACDF2A733A%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] Phase question CESM2 ARISE-SAI-1.5 simulations

[Stephen Salter]

Dear Dr Diao

To engineers the word ‘oscillation’ means the alternating exchange between two 
forms of energy, for example between kinetic and potential energy in a swinging 
pendulum. Control engineers know that a very small amount of positive damping 
(a force opposing velocity) can have a large effect on the amplitude of 
oscillations and quite small amounts can kill oscillations completely.  But a 
small amount of negative damping, a force in phase with velocity, increases 
amplitudes without limit.

I have asked several eminent climate scientists if the El Niño/La Niña cycle is 
an oscillation in the engineering sense or if they are using the word for a 
repeating sequence of events with no energy recycling. I was not able to 
understand replies and not sure that they could understand my question.  If El 
Niño events are an engineering-type oscillation we might be able to moderate 
them with a very small amount of geoengineering but the phase of the correction 
is of vital importance.  A cooling treatment in phase with  the temperature 
change will act like a stiffer spring. This would  increase the frequency of 
the oscillation and might increase its amplitude depending on whether it is 
above or below the natural ‘resonant’ frequency. But if the cooling treatment 
depended on the rate of change of temperature then it would behave like a 
damping. Very small amounts of damping can kill resonance.  Sadly many people 
do not understand phase.

Stephen Salter
Ocean Cooling Technology Ltd.
27 Blackford Road
Edinburgh EH9 2DT
Scotland.
Jamie Taylor Power for change.







From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: 07 July 2023 12:49
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Influence of ENSO on stratospheric sulfur dioxide injection in 
the CESM2 ARISE-SAI-1.5 simulations

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.
https://www.authorea.com/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.168748397.70100642

· Authors
·
· Chenrui Diao,
· Elizabeth A. Barnes,
· James Wilson Hurrell


Peer review timeline
22 Jun 2023Submitted to ESS Open Archive
23 Jun 2023Published in ESS Open Archive

Abstract
Climate and Earth system models are important tools to assess the benefits and 
risks of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) relative to those associated 
with anthropogenic climate change. A “controller” algorithm has been used to 
specify injection amounts of sulfur dioxide in SAI experiments performed with 
the Community Earth System Model (CESM). The experiments are designed to 
maintain specific temperature targets, such as limiting global mean temperature 
to 1.5ºC above the pre-industrial level. However, the influence of natural 
climate variability on the injection amount has not been extensively 
documented. Our study reveals that more than 70% of the year-to-year variation 
in the total injection amount (excluding the long-term trend) in CESM SAI 
experiments is attributed to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). A 
simplified statistical model further suggests that the intrinsic, lagged 
response of the controller to the climate can increase the variance of global 
mean temperature in the model simulations.
Cite as: Chenrui Diao, Elizabeth A. Barnes, James Wilson Hurrell. Influence of 
ENSO on stratospheric sulfur dioxide injection in the CESM2 ARISE-SAI-1.5 
simulations. Authorea. June 23, 2023.
DOI: 
10.22541/essoar.168748397.70100642/v1<https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.168748397.70100642/v1>
Source: AUTHOREA
--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99FhpDKGHOWL32M8aai3BLSxyfRpBTR_e2_FFbpsvZr1Q%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99FhpDKGHOWL32M8aai3BLSxyfRpBTR_e2_FFbpsvZr1Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB80485C9DFF7C694B86F9CF45A72DA%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] Barrier reef

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02290-3
Stephen


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB8048A93A2408AAC132705EEFA72FA%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] RE: Clouds in the Arctic only provide cooling during a short period during the summer

[Stephen Salter]

Clive
It is true and also rather obvious that cloud brightening only works in summer 
and this is taken in the calculations about the number of spray vessels which I 
have circulated. Please let me know if you would like me to send them again.
I agree that warm water in winter would be bad and so we should do marine cloud 
brightening at lower latitudes through the year.  This is a strong argument for 
vessel mobility.  The cooling will still be done but with a time delay.
If the Alterskjaer and Kristjansson are correct about Aitken mode aerosol  
warming by clearing clouds because it removes lots of water without nucleation, 
then it might be possible to clear clouds in winter by spraying the very small 
aerosol.  The old design of spray vessels had 18 spray heads.  The present one 
has 32 so we could use smaller nozzles for part of the year.  We could also 
dilute salt water with some desalinated water or take water from what has 
melted from Iceland. It is only the mass of salt in the aerosol that matters.

Below are graphs from Curry about radiation levels through the year. Please let 
me know if you have any more recent data.

[cid:image001.png@01D99541.40450BE0]
Stephen


From: noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com  On Behalf 
Of Achim Hoffmann
Sent: 01 June 2023 15:36
To: Clive Elsworth ; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Clouds in the Arctic only provide cooling during a short period 
during the summer

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.
Cooling the Oceans is a no-brainer, if it can be done.

There were a few recent publications talking about melting from “below”.

Here a recent WWF post including a Video explainer clearly targeted at the 
wider public (rather than experts).
https://www.arcticwwf.org/the-circle/stories/omg-greenlands-glaciers-are-melting-from-below/

From: 'Clive Elsworth' via NOAC Meetings 
mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 3:10 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Clouds in the Arctic only provide cooling during a short period during 
the summer

Hi Stephen – and cloud experts

I found this paper educational, by Shupe et al, 2004: Cloud Radiative Forcing 
of the Arctic Surface: The Influence of Cloud Properties, Surface Albedo, and 
Solar Zenith Angle:  
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/17/3/1520-0442_2004_017_0616_crfota_2.0.co_2.xml

It says low level clouds in the Arctic only provide cooling during a short 
period during the summer. The rest of the year they warm the Arctic. So 
presumably, as increasingly warmer seas flow into the Arctic these clouds will 
get thicker (i.e. greater Liquid Water Path – LWP) because the air will be more 
humid, making each cloud droplet bigger. So, it seems that to cool the Arctic 
the oceans need to be cooled.

Have I got that right?

Clive

From: noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 2:18 PM
To: 'geoengineering@googlegroups.com' 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
'noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com' 
mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Overshoot

Hi All
The Nature paper by Richard Lovett at
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01725-3?WT.ec_id=NATURE-202306=DD2C61054D98C5BDD2C13072933E43E6D8C8E8F2
will annoy advocates for stratospheric sulphur more than those for marine cloud 
brightening.
It is a surprise to see this in Nature.
Stephen

>Nature - Overshoot
Yes a surprise, especially as it’s so easy to avoid another glacial period.
Clive


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.
--
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<mailto:noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/PAXPR05MB8048B4B660B1A001F073EAB0A7499%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/PAXPR05MB8048B4B660B1A001F073EAB0A7499%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
--
You received this message bec

[geo] Overshoot

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
The Nature paper by Richard Lovett at
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01725-3?WT.ec_id=NATURE-202306=DD2C61054D98C5BDD2C13072933E43E6D8C8E8F2
will annoy advocates for stratospheric sulphur more than those for marine cloud 
brightening.
It is a surprise to see this in Nature.
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB8048B4B660B1A001F073EAB0A7499%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical changes and evidence for decreasing cloud brightness within a major shipping corridor after implementation of the International Maritime Organiza

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
What a useful paper!
 I am a bit surprised that the instantaneous change is only 1 watt per square 
metre. The 20 bar grey scale at the bottom of the image below shows that we 
need at least three bars, 15% change, to detect the direction of a contrast 
gradient.  Ship track images often show much more than this. Is it because 
somebody has tweaked the gamma range or that we do not see ship tracks that 
often?  Maybe I misunderstand instantaneous.

[cid:image003.jpg@01D98F1C.B0426DA0]


Stephen

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: 25 May 2023 13:37
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical changes and 
evidence for decreasing cloud brightness within a major shipping corridor after 
implementation of the International Maritime Organization 2020 fuel sulfur 
regulations (Preprint)

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.
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-971/

Author
Michael Steven Diamond
Received: 11 May 2023 – Discussion started: 22 May 2023

Abstract. New regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
limiting sulfur emissions from the shipping industry are expected to have large 
benefits in terms of public health but come with an undesired side effect: an 
acceleration of global warming as the climate-cooling effects of ship pollution 
on marine clouds is diminished. Previous work has found a substantial decrease 
in the detection of ship tracks in clouds after the IMO 2020 regulations went 
into effect but changes in large-scale cloud properties have been more 
equivocal. Using a statistical technique that estimates counterfactual fields 
of what large-scale cloud and radiative properties within an isolated shipping 
corridor in the southeastern Atlantic would have been in the absence of 
shipping, we confidently detect a reduction in the magnitude of cloud droplet 
effective radius decreases within the shipping corridor and find evidence for a 
reduction in the magnitude of cloud brightening as well. The instantaneous 
radiative forcing due to aerosol–cloud interactions from the IMO 2020 
regulations is estimated as O(1 W m-2) within the shipping corridor, lending 
credence to global estimates of O(0.1 W m-2). In addition to their geophysical 
significance, our results also provide independent evidence for general 
compliance with the IMO 2020 regulations.
How to cite. Diamond, M. S.: Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical 
changes and evidence for decreasing cloud brightness within a major shipping 
corridor after implementation of the International Maritime Organization 2020 
fuel sulfur regulations, EGUsphere [preprint], 
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-971, 2023.

Source: EGU Sphere
--
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/CAHJsh9-zkOcRCXOqTnNmHeXk06asVwg-K7C7p%2BDDr%2B%3D6xEhuRw%40mail.gmail.com.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB80482D613787E4B97CCE373CA7469%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
The 2023  update date of GeoMIP project given at the recent EGU at  
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023
gives a useful account of work so far. However I hope that the next one will 
take account of the now excellent accuracy and likely further improvements in 
short and medium term weather forecasting. While the GeoMIP use of the same 
salt injection patterns, usually between latitudes 30N and 30S for several 
different climate models all year round, is useful for understanding 
differences between models it does not make use of the mobility of spray 
vessels designed for marine cloud brightening allowing seasonal migration to 
benefit from the increase of solar input in polar summers. The latest hydrofoil 
vessels can move very fast when they are not spraying and the cost prediction 
is low enough to have lots of vessels prepositioned on standby.
The cooling effect from marine cloud brightening depends on solar input, 
initial nuclei concentration, depth of the turbulent boundary layer and time to 
the next rainfall. These give a very wide range of results, at least one order 
of magnitude. With real time input data from satellites and the increased power 
of quantum computing it will be possible to forecast these variables for 
increasingly long times ahead. This will allow us to rank possible spray 
patterns in merit order. The ideal result might be to choose spray regions 
where there has just been recent rain to clean the air followed by a lengthy 
period of clear skies to give a lower aerosol dose over a wider area  followed 
by movement of the treated air mass to a region of higher humidity needed for 
cloud production.
We will be able to compare results of various spray plans and cherry-pick those 
most likely to give beneficial results according to regional needs at that time.
Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change




From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: 06 May 2023 14:09
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the 
Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and 
future

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.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/5149/2023/


Authors
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier 
Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel 
Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri


Citation: Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Haywood, J., 
Boucher, O., Lawrence, M., Irvine, P., Niemeier, U., Xia, L., Chiodo, G., 
Lennard, C., Watanabe, S., Moore, J. C., and Muri, H.: Opinion: The scientific 
and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison 
Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 
5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023.

05 May 2023


Abstract

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating 
framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate 
model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected 
impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and 
numerous more have been proposed as “test-bed” experiments, spanning a variety 
of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: 
stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo 
modification, cirrus cloud thinning, and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than 
100 studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here 
we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments.

We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of 
which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and 
which did not, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the 
knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research 
and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of intermodel 
differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering 
methods, and future areas of model development that would be necessary in the 
future? We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were 
fundamental for international assessments of climate change.

Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future 
experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously 
deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering 
approaches and reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for 
assessing wider

[geo] IPCC March 2023

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

While reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to net zero is desirable it is 
completely inadequate without effective time travel. The oceans now contain 40 
times more CO2 than the atmosphere and this will come back out if atmospheric 
concentrations fall.

Releasing CO2 is like turning up a thermostat with a ratchet. There is a large 
thermal inertia so temperature rise is not immediate. There is an exponential 
rise towards some distant, higher value. James Hansen calculates the 
time-constant of this rise to two-thirds (strictly 1/e = 0.632) of its final 
value as about 40 years with the other third still to come. As well as this 
warming in the pipeline there are several quite powerful negative feedbacks, 
like the loss of arctic ice and methane release, which will accelerate the 
warming rate even with net-zero.
The political concentration on a safe limit of 1.5 C is in conflict with 
opinions of people in California, Pakistan and low-altitude islands who will 
argue that their present temperatures, droughts and rainfall are already too 
high. But simple mean values are a distraction.  More important are the highs 
and lows either side of the mean and their durations. We recently had 
temperature anomalies of +6 C in Siberia and -12C in Texas.

You can get a useful model of the stability of a complicated system by thinking 
of a ball in a tray with an uneven surface of peaks, hollows and trenches, 
being shaken side-to-side. A ball in a hollow will roll up and down the sloped 
walls. The natural frequency of rolling will depend on the slope of the hollow 
walls.

But if something reduces the vertical dimensions of the tray, the natural 
frequency of rolling will slow down.  This will increase the chance that the 
ball can move high enough up the slope to roll over a crest into an adjacent, 
different hollow and not return.  This means that slower changes can be an 
early warning of approach to a permanent change.

As well as reducing emissions we have also got to do direct cooling.  Several 
methods are possible.  I have been working on the engineering of one of them, 
due to John Latham, to use the Twomey effect to increase the reflectivity of 
clouds.  A reduction of the solar input of 0.5% would be sufficient to offset 
present CO2 levels. Hardware design is nearly complete.  Please let me know if 
you would like more information.

Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB8048794C43FB604E038867BAA7809%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] SATAN

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
I ask as an ignorant non-legal person, please could one of the many expert 
ethicists and political decision makers help me understand the difference 
between the release of very small quantities of medicinally benign material 
aimed at helping all species intended to advance knowledge which can easily be 
stopped as against the release of very much larger quantities of materials, 
already known to be dangerous, but profitable to a small number of very rich 
people.


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 03 March 2023 15:54
To: Jessica Gurevitch 
Cc: Oliver Morton ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] SATAN

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.
Jessica I've taken on board your point that the SATAN branding (while perhaps 
usefully provocational in the UK) is more literally believed elsewhere - and 
therefore probably isn't appropriately cross cultural. I remember a similar 
problem with mitigation being described as a "Manhatten project", which 
outraged the Japanese delegates at the conference where it was discussed. But 
it's too late to change this branding now, partly due to the leak.

However, I take issue with "rogue". I'm not a rogue. I WANT regulation. I am 
INVITING regulation (or provoking it, depending on how you consider my 
actions). I am saying here (as I have said before) that I'll submit to any 
appropriate vetting body - one that's knowledgeable, fair, and respects any 
pledges of confidentiality and due process it offers.

Without such a regulatory body, how am I supposed to know what constrains I 
should observe? I can't be expected to predict what might trigger individual 
list members to denounce me. Nor should I rely on government agencies lacking 
specialist expertise and jurisdiction. Nor on universities committees more 
eager to manage their institutional reputations than to govern science.

Andrew



On Fri, 3 Mar 2023, 15:38 Jessica Gurevitch, 
mailto:jessica.gurevi...@stonybrook.edu>> 
wrote:
Weighing in here on this very interesting issue. I agree with Oliver Morton 
that there is real value here, but I see the value as cautionary. In reality, 
Andrew Lockley's experiment is not going to change the climate, but it is a 
rogue implementation of a climate intervention. This makes an emphatic point, 
as does the Mexico 'sunset' experiment, that the people working on 
International Governance have no time to spare, because the ultra-billionaires 
who might be tempted to do something similar at a larger scale, and care not a 
whit what anyone says or thinks, could also initiate interventions. As Andrew 
said, this was not illegal...at this point. I think these two examples can add 
urgency to the argument that Governance must proceed now, quickly.
As for the name that Andrew used for his project...it is ill-informed, as is 
the snarky justification in this post. There are many people whose belief 
system considers Satan a real entity, and it is disrespectful to treat these 
widely held beliefs trivially. If you have any claim to value diversity, 
inclusion and belonging, one doesn't ridicule or trivialize deeply held 
cultural beliefs, in my opinion. Even if you yourself don't believe that Satan 
is a real entity or force, Satan is nevertheless a widely recognized symbol of 
evil, and evil is neither trivial nor a joke. Unfortunately, as we see in 
Ukraine and elsewhere, there is very real evil in the world, and trivializing 
it is arrogant and dangerously mistaken, in my view.
Jessica Gurevitch, Distinguished Professor and Head of Forestry and Natural 
Resources, Purdue University

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:07 AM Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm inclined to take what Oliver says as gospel. Instead of denouncing me for 
summoning SATAN, perhaps I can invite the congregation of the list to consider 
an alternative?

It may be possible for some of the high priests of geoengineering to convene an 
inquisition, for vetting proposed experiments for herecy. A sort of pearly 
stage-gate, if you will.

I would be happy to confess my impure experimental thoughts, if I could be 
assured that this would remain within the confessional.

If my experiment's soul was weighed in the balance and found wanting, I would 
be perfectly willing to see it cast into the abyss.

Approval from such a conclave would ensure that I could go ahead knowing I was 
doing only righteous deeds.

Jim, Simone, Doug, David M., Oliver, Alan, Wake, Pete - will you (and others) 
answer this higher calling? I would be happy to go through purgatory before 
accepting your eternal judgement.

A



On Fri, 3 Mar 2023, 11:09 'Oliver Morton' via geoengineering, 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
I am not condoning Andrew's action, but I am not convinced by Doug's argument 
that its results are necessarily 

RE: [geo] SATAN

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew
What about an upside down parachute deployed at the right time?
Stephen
From: Andrew Lockley 
Sent: 02 March 2023 09:50
To: Stephen Salter 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] SATAN

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.
One of the key research findings was that the volume of the gas in the balloon 
rises quicker than the vent or pump can dispose of the gas. It can't be 
stopped. You can't recover the canopies unless you slow the ascent to a unsafe 
speed.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 09:24 Stephen Salter, 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi All
You could delay  balloons bursting by fitting a pressure relief valve to vent 
gas when the outside pressure fell below some chosen value.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 02 March 2023 08:58
To: Daniele Visioni 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>>
Cc: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] SATAN

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.
Dan,

Thanks for raising your concerns, although an initial private discussion would 
have been preferred.

I believe you have had sight of the abstract a few weeks ago, via the GeoMIP 
conference submission. It's therefore surprising that you've chosen now to 
raise this issue. Did you have any concerns with the abstract specifically? If 
so, I would have welcomed your direct comments at the time. I can also make a 
preprint copy available to you personally, if you believe you may have comments 
that would help with revising the manuscript.

As you were one of perhaps a very small group access to the abstract, perhaps 
you could detail the steps you took to secure work that was of interest to the 
media? I am sure I'm not the only one who's mindful of leaks in the academic 
process. It would be nice to be able to submit abstracts and drafts without 
worrying they will be illicitly distributed.

I think you may be implying concerns about the experiment name. Could you 
perhaps describe why "stratospheric aerosol transport and nucleation" was an 
unsuitable name for an experiment designed to test craft for inducing, and 
later monitoring, stratospheric aerosol transport and nucleation? If your 
concerns are with some other aspect of the work, perhaps you could explain your 
views on what should or should not have been done? FWIW, I've never challenged 
your right to conduct research, nor anyone else's. If you choose to challenge 
mine, a proper discussion of your reasoning would be good to hear.

Finally, I'm sorry that you regard me as "unserious". The facts might cause 
others to reach a different conclusion. I've been active in the geoengineering 
community for over a decade (I think you would have been high school, when I 
started). Despite never being paid, I've built up an h-index of 7. 
Simultaneously, I've supported this list, the CDR group, the @geoengineering1 
twitter handle, and latterly the Reviewer 2 Does Geoengineering podcast - 
generally spending much more time supporting other's careers than in furthering 
my own.

You are of course free to set up better community resource, if you think mine 
are "unserious".

As a final note, you may wish to note that I've got a paper submitted after 
revisions about the legitimacy of private geoengineering. That may prompt a 
calmer discussion of views on the matter.

Andrew Lockley

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 08:18 Daniele Visioni, 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Glad you had fun, Andrew.

For me, this is clear proof of your unseriousness and childishness - not to 
mention the overall threat you pose to this research field as a whole towards 
any kind of legitimacy.

I personally don’t want to be associated even remotely with anything you do now 
or in the future, so this will be my last message on this group before I 
unsubscribe.


On 2 Mar 2023, at 09:07, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/01/1069283/researchers-launched-a-solar-geoengineering-test-flight-in-the-uk-last-fall/

Researchers launched a solar geoengineering test flight in the UK last fall
The experiment, largely designed to test equipment, took place despite deep 
concerns about the technology.

By James Temple archive page
March 1, 2023
sun shines through the clouds
GETTY IMAGES
Last September, researchers in the UK launched a high-altit

RE: [geo] SATAN

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
You could delay  balloons bursting by fitting a pressure relief valve to vent 
gas when the outside pressure fell below some chosen value.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 02 March 2023 08:58
To: Daniele Visioni 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] SATAN

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.
Dan,

Thanks for raising your concerns, although an initial private discussion would 
have been preferred.

I believe you have had sight of the abstract a few weeks ago, via the GeoMIP 
conference submission. It's therefore surprising that you've chosen now to 
raise this issue. Did you have any concerns with the abstract specifically? If 
so, I would have welcomed your direct comments at the time. I can also make a 
preprint copy available to you personally, if you believe you may have comments 
that would help with revising the manuscript.

As you were one of perhaps a very small group access to the abstract, perhaps 
you could detail the steps you took to secure work that was of interest to the 
media? I am sure I'm not the only one who's mindful of leaks in the academic 
process. It would be nice to be able to submit abstracts and drafts without 
worrying they will be illicitly distributed.

I think you may be implying concerns about the experiment name. Could you 
perhaps describe why "stratospheric aerosol transport and nucleation" was an 
unsuitable name for an experiment designed to test craft for inducing, and 
later monitoring, stratospheric aerosol transport and nucleation? If your 
concerns are with some other aspect of the work, perhaps you could explain your 
views on what should or should not have been done? FWIW, I've never challenged 
your right to conduct research, nor anyone else's. If you choose to challenge 
mine, a proper discussion of your reasoning would be good to hear.

Finally, I'm sorry that you regard me as "unserious". The facts might cause 
others to reach a different conclusion. I've been active in the geoengineering 
community for over a decade (I think you would have been high school, when I 
started). Despite never being paid, I've built up an h-index of 7. 
Simultaneously, I've supported this list, the CDR group, the @geoengineering1 
twitter handle, and latterly the Reviewer 2 Does Geoengineering podcast - 
generally spending much more time supporting other's careers than in furthering 
my own.

You are of course free to set up better community resource, if you think mine 
are "unserious".

As a final note, you may wish to note that I've got a paper submitted after 
revisions about the legitimacy of private geoengineering. That may prompt a 
calmer discussion of views on the matter.

Andrew Lockley

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 08:18 Daniele Visioni, 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Glad you had fun, Andrew.

For me, this is clear proof of your unseriousness and childishness - not to 
mention the overall threat you pose to this research field as a whole towards 
any kind of legitimacy.

I personally don’t want to be associated even remotely with anything you do now 
or in the future, so this will be my last message on this group before I 
unsubscribe.



On 2 Mar 2023, at 09:07, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/01/1069283/researchers-launched-a-solar-geoengineering-test-flight-in-the-uk-last-fall/

Researchers launched a solar geoengineering test flight in the UK last fall
The experiment, largely designed to test equipment, took place despite deep 
concerns about the technology.

By James Temple archive page
March 1, 2023
sun shines through the clouds
GETTY IMAGES
Last September, researchers in the UK launched a high-altitude weather balloon 
that released a few hundred grams of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, a 
potential scientific first in the solar geoengineering field, MIT Technology 
Review has learned.

Solar geoengineering is the theory that humans can ease global warming by 
deliberately reflecting more sunlight into space. One possible means is 
spraying sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, in an effort to mimic a cooling 
effect that occurs in the aftermath of major volcanic eruptions. It is highly 
controversial given concerns about potential unintended consequences, among 
other issues.

The UK effort was not a test of or experiment in geoengineering itself. Rather, 
the stated goal was to evaluate a low-cost, controllable, recoverable balloon 
system, according to details obtained by MIT Technology Review. Such a system 
could be used for small-scale geoengineering research efforts, or perhaps for 
an 

[geo] a thin end?

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/27/speculative-tech-to-reflect-sun-away-from-earth-needs-focus-un.html
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/PAXPR05MB804823BBA73D997F82E226AAA7AC9%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] An Optical Flow Approach to Tracking Ship Track Behavior Using GOES-R Satellite Imagery

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
A recent estimate of the climate problem is that a reduction of the solar input 
by 1.7 watts per square metre would give tolerable temperature conditions. This 
is 0.5% of the mean global 24 hour solar input. If marine cloud brightening was 
used for only 10% of the global surface an increase of reflectivity of 5% would 
be adequate.

The grey scale below has 20 bars ranging from black to white.  Most people need 
to see at least three bars to detect the direction of the gradient. This shows 
that ship tracks give a contrast change far higher than would be required for 
climate control and that we would need image processing of satellite images to 
detect that it been done.  There may be many tracks of which we are unaware.

[cid:image002.png@01D949D4.14C1A630]

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change







From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: 26 February 2023 09:59
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] An Optical Flow Approach to Tracking Ship Track Behavior Using 
GOES-R Satellite Imagery

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.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837429

Authors
Kelsie M. Larson, Lyndsay Shand , Andrea Staid, Skyler Gray, Erika L. Roesler, 
and Don Lyons

22 July 2022

Abstract:Ship emissions can form linear cloud structures, or ship tracks , when 
atmospheric water vapor condenses on aerosols in the ship exhaust. These 
structures are of interest because they are observable and traceable examples 
of MCB, a mechanism that has been studied as a potential approach for solar 
climate intervention. Ship tracks can be observed throughout the diurnal cycle 
via space-borne assets like the advanced baseline imagers on the national 
oceanic and atmospheric administration geostationary operational environmental 
satellites, the GOES-R series. Due to complex atmospheric dynamics, it can be 
difficult to track these aerosol perturbations over space and time to precisely 
characterize how long a single emission source can significantly contribute to 
indirect radiative forcing. We propose an optical flow approach to estimate the 
trajectories of ship-emitted aerosols after they begin mixing with low boundary 
layer clouds using GOES-17 satellite imagery. Most optical flow estimation 
methods have only been used to estimate large scale atmospheric motion. We 
demonstrate the ability of our approach to precisely isolate the movement of 
ship tracks in low-lying clouds from the movement of large swaths of high 
clouds that often dominate the scene. This efficient approach shows that ship 
tracks persist as visible, linear features beyond 9 h and sometimes longer than 
24 h.
[Fig. 1. - These figures show the result of the optical flow method applied to 
a manually-selected local cloud region, starting with an intersection of two 
ship tracks on June 17, 2019, at 07:02 UTC (a) and stepping forward in time, 
with snapshots shown at 6 (b), 12 (c), and 18 (d) hr later. The tracking 
algorithm is able to follow the movement of the cloud region well, and the 
tracks are still clearly visible 18 hr later. The center location of these 
images is $33^{\circ }$27’02.0”N $138^{\circ 
}$06’11.9”W.]

Fig. 1.

These figures show the result of the optical flow method applied to a 
manually-selected local cloud region, starting with an intersection of two ship 
tracks on June 17, 2019, at 07:02 UTC (a) and stepping forward in time, with 
snapshots shown at 6 (b), 12 (c), and 18 (d) hr later. The tracking algorithm 
is able to follow the movement of the cloud region well, and the tracks are 
still clearly visible 18 hr later.

Source: IEEE Xplore

--
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/CAHJsh98Y1RM_bKAxoryqsEkQFq-B9yy7K6k0dbvDqRKEHYrTSg%40mail.gmail.com.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

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

RE: [geo] climate emulator workshop

[Stephen Salter]

Hi all
The closing date for abstracts of  10 February will need reliable time travel. 
This would also be  would be extremely useful for any zero  carbon policy.
Stephen



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 25 February 2023 15:21
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] climate emulator workshop

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.

Workshop on the “Development and application of climate emulators”

Time: 20-22 April 2023, 1pm Thursday to 1pm Saturday
Venue: Talent Garden, Liechtensteinstrasse 111-115, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: +43 (0)1 2058183, Web: https://talentgarden.org/en/

Climate emulators hold the key to efficient and comprehensive impact 
assessment, scenario analysis and the design of climate policy. Despite their 
efficiency, they are possibly rather accurate emulators of state-of-the-art 
“Earth system models”, running at lightning speed on laptop computers, or, 
facilitating the generation of very large ensembles of simulations on 
supercomputers. Accuracy can be hampered – regionally at least – by 
bifurcations and other nonlinearities of the system. Coupling emulators with 
“Integrated impact assessment” models (IAM) or conceptual models of “tipping 
elements” of the climate system would facilitate impact and risk analysis in 
terms of economic development, the health of ecological systems, or worse. Due 
to their computational efficiency, they are well suited also to solve “inverse 
problems”, such as those for emission abatement or geo-manipulation required 
given (limited) commitments or technological abilities concerning one or the 
other. There are a number of approaches to emulator development; some require a 
specific experimental design and new climate model simulations, some aim at 
using existing, archived, e.g.. CMIP-X, simulation data.

We are seeking contributions to the workshop on the topics including but not 
exclusive of:

•  Practical and theoretical advances in response theory;

•  Development of climate emulators using response theory, AI, conceptual 
models (fitting), etc.;

•  Performance assessment of emulators;

•  Development and application of IAMs, ecological models;

•  Game theoretical approaches to “optimizing”/predicting climate policy;

•  Tipping point analysis via complex and conceptual models;

•  Developments in the light of the Paris2015 targets.

The workshop is aimed at mapping the landscape of the state-of-the-art and 
current research trends in impact assessment and climate policy development; a 
review of the Paris2015 targets and developments since; and a lively and 
constructive debate on key and sensitive questions like modelling uncertainty, 
research into and practice of geo-manipulation, a.k.a. geoengineering or 
climate intervention, communicating risk and public outreach, consultation. We 
foresee high quality contributions from experts of their fields of research, 
crosspollination of ideas whether it is about approaches or synergic effects 
thanks to interdisciplinary collaborations. The workshop will showcase the 
climate emulator and underlying data sets being the outcomes of the Young 
Scientist Fellowship project “The FORced RESponse of the climate system: 
Towards efficient impact assessment”, FORRES. We will seek feedback from the 
participants on the potentials and room for improvement of these outcomes, 
while they are being offered for use by any interested party.

Confirmed speakers are:


•  Michael Ghil, ENS, Paris

•  Marcin Czupryna, Cracow University of Economics

•  Nick Watkins, Univ. Warwick

•  Chris Smith, IIASA, Vienna / Univ. Leeds / Met Office, Exeter

•  Nico Wunderling, PIK, Potsdam

•  David Stainforth, LSE, London

•  Gábor Drótos, Atomki, Debrecen

•  Valerio Lucarini, Univ. Reading

•  Jonathan F Donges, PIK, Potsdam

•  Robbin Bastiaansen, Univ. Utrecht

•  Ben Sanderson, CICERO, Oslo

•  Guilherme Mendonca, MPI-M, Hamburg

•  Francesco Ragone, UCLouvian, Brussels

•  Leeya Pressburger, PNNL, Seattle

Abstracts (interest of attendance) are (is) to be submitted (indicted) to Tamás 
Bódai (bo...@pusan.ac.kr) by 10 Feb. Late submissions 
are potentially considered pending on the saturation of the venue capacity.

We look forward to welcoming you at Talent Garden, Vienna, Austria, and sharing 
knowledge and fun during our event.

The organizers:

Tamás Bódai, ICCP, Busan; MATE, Budapest; 
https://ibsclimate.org/people/tamas-bodai/
Valerio Lembo, CNR, Rome; https://www.isac.cnr.it/it/users/valerio-lembo
Sundaresan Aneesh, ICCP, Busan; https://ibsclimate.org/people/aneesh-sundaresan/

Note: The workshop receives funding form IBS, Korea, 
https://www.ibs.re.kr/eng.do
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

RE: [geo] Fwd: Dust as a solar shield

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
We might also need technology to remove lunar dust during some future ice age.
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of ayesha iqbal
Sent: 09 February 2023 10:11
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Fwd: Dust as a solar shield

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.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.133

Authors

Benjamin C. 
Bromley,
 Sameer H. 
Khan,
 Scott J. 
Kenyon

8 February 2023
Citation: Bromley BC, Khan SH, Kenyon SJ (2023) Dust as a solar shield. PLOS 
Clim 2(2): e133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.133

Abstract

We revisit dust placed near the Earth–Sun L1 Lagrange point as a possible 
climate-change mitigation measure. Our calculations include variations in grain 
properties and orbit solutions with lunar and planetary perturbations. To 
achieve sunlight attenuation of 1.8%, equivalent to about 6 days per year of an 
obscured Sun, the mass of dust in the scenarios we consider must exceed 1010 
kg. The more promising approaches include using high-porosity, fluffy grains to 
increase the extinction efficiency per unit mass, and launching this material 
in directed jets from a platform orbiting at L1. A simpler approach is to 
ballistically eject dust grains from the Moon’s surface on a free trajectory 
toward L1, providing sun shade for several days or more. Advantages compared to 
an Earth launch include a ready reservoir of dust on the lunar surface and less 
kinetic energy required to achieve a sun-shielding orbit.

Source: PLOS Climate
--
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/CAOyeF5t_XVCNcHvQvjhMMO6xPm-OFLY91eU%3D%2BX62mrq-70QsuQ%40mail.gmail.com.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/AM8PR05MB8035F0D3B6DFB3206158ABD9A7D99%40AM8PR05MB8035.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Microphysical, macrophysical, and radiative responses of subtropical marine clouds to aerosol injections

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

This paper is heavy going for engineers outside the climate physics community 
but if, my understanding is correct, the conclusions for marine cloud 
brightening are encouraging.

I would like to point out to the climate physics community that hydrofoil 
vessels have very low wave-making drag.  When are they not spraying they can 
travel at extremely high speed. Autonomous wind-driven vessels have no problems 
about fuel, food or water.  The wide range of effectiveness covered in the 
paper  does not matter if intelligent fleet controllers with continuous 
satellite information and ginormous quantum computers, can give instant 
forecasts of the results of any treatment pattern.  We can then cherry pick the 
optimum times and places for treatment to get results that our dear political 
leaders request.

With the exception of the  work by Stjern et al. ( 
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/621/2018/acp-18-621-2018-supplement.pdf 
) who increased the condensation nuclei concentration by 50% in ocean regions 
with low cloud, much of the marine cloud brightening has used a boring strategy 
of a steady injection, all the year round, rain or shine,  between low 
latitudes, usually 30 S to 30 N.

The short life of aerosol, seen as a disadvantage by ignorant objectors, is 
actually highly desirable.  At the very least we want to migrate with the 
seasons. For a short time at midsummer there is more solar heat going into the 
poles than the equator.  Accurate forecasts are now available to more than a 
week ahead.  I argue that we want to operate under clear blue skies in places 
where there has been recent rain to clean the air.  We want time for this to 
spread widely and later get to regions with higher humidity to give cloud 
formation.  We can target El Niño events and reduce warm sea surface areas to 
moderate typhoons and steer the Indian Ocean dipole.

The engineering design of spray vessels is well advanced. In mass production 
the annual cost of owning a  fleet will be cheap enough, below  one Cop 
conference,  to have them on standby as a rapid reaction force.  Please tell us 
the places where and when the force will be most effective and how fast you 
need us to get there.  Instead of being passive observers you can become active 
controllers.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of ayesha iqbal
Sent: 29 January 2023 12:04
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Microphysical, macrophysical, and radiative responses of 
subtropical marine clouds to aerosol injections

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.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367410630_Microphysical_macrophysical_and_radiative_responses_of_subtropical_marine_clouds_to_aerosol_injections

Authors
Je-Yun Chun, Robert Wood, Peter Blossey and Sarah J. Doherty

25 January 2023

Citation: Chun, J. Y., Wood, R., Blossey, P., & Doherty, S. J. (2022). 
Microphysical, macrophysical and radiative responses of subtropical marine 
clouds to aerosol injections. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 
1-38.

Abstract
Ship tracks in subtropical marine low clouds are simulated and investigated 
using large-eddy simulations. Five variants of a shallow subtropical 
stratocumulus-topped marine boundary layer (MBL) are chosen to span a range of 
background aerosol concentrations and variations in free-tropospheric moisture. 
Idealized time-invariant meteorological forcings and approximately steady-state 
aerosol concentrations constitute the background conditions. We investigate 
processes controlling cloud microphysical, macrophysical, and radiative 
responses to aerosol injections. For the analysis, we use novel methods to 
decompose the liquid water path (LWP) adjustment into changes in cloud and 
boundary-layer properties and to decompose the cloud radiative effect (CRE) 
into contributions from cloud macro- and microphysics. The key results are that 
(a) the cloud-top entrainment rate increases in all cases, with stronger 
increases for thicker than thinner clouds; (b) the drying and warming induced 
by increased entrainment is offset to differing degrees by corresponding 
responses in surface fluxes, precipitation, and radiation; (c) MBL turbulence 
responds to changes caused by the aerosol perturbation, and this significantly 
affects cloud macrophysics; (d) across 2 d of simulation, clouds were 
brightened in all cases. In a pristine MBL, significant drizzle suppression by 
aerosol injections results not only in greater water retention but also in 
turbulence intensification, leading to a significant increase in cloud amount. 
In this case, Twomey brightening 

RE: [geo] Geoengineering and solar radiation management

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
Can anyone tell me about how to get beyond the library label?
I am very impressed at the ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to 
write papers on non-atomic subjects without consulting people working in the 
field.
Stephen

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of ayesha iqbal
Sent: 12 January 2023 14:21
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Geoengineering and solar radiation management

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.
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:53123264

Author:
Maeaettaenen, Anni

2022

Citation: Maeaettaenen, Anni (2022). Geoengineering and solar radiation 
management. Responsabilite et Environnement, (105), 90-94.

Abstract
Solar geoengineering aims at cooling the climate by decreasing the solar 
radiation entering the climate system through changing the reflectivity 
(albedo) of the Earth. To achieve this, it has been suggested to increase the 
albedo of clouds, paint surfaces white or inject reflecting particles into the 
stratosphere. Research on these topics is active and is based mainly on 
numerical modelling studies. The possible deployment of these methods raises 
questions on their technological feasibility, side effects, uncertainties, 
governance and ethics. This article presents a review of the solar radiation 
management methods.

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency
--
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/CAOyeF5vsybzwdizudUxSgFkoKCn3auDH%3Dp1XDyTHPmWk%2BuMbYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/AM8PR05MB8035E37058DA08B9615F3D17A7FD9%40AM8PR05MB8035.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Make Sunsets: Clarifications!

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew
The survival rate for the Hindenburg was much higher than for aircraft fuelled 
with kerosene because its lightness means it leaks upwards. Heavy vapours like 
propane or butane are very much more dangerous if they sink into cellars or 
bilges. The hydrogen flame has a very low emissivity. No pump is needed. I can 
give you a valve design weighing less than one gram. Think open prairie for 
launching.
Stephen

From: Andrew Lockley 
Sent: 29 December 2022 11:05
To: Stephen Salter 
Cc: Luke Iseman ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Make Sunsets: Clarifications!

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.
Large weather balloons don't have much over pressure relative to volume, so 
venting is a challenge. Valves and pumps add weight. Hydrogen has ground 
handling risks, due to flammability (Hindenberg), and any leaks risk buoyancy 
loss and the canopy descending loaded. The most extreme scenario is that an out 
of control failed balloon descends into an enclosed building through an open 
door, skylight, or Courtyard. In windy conditions, drift into a small 
industrial unit is perfectly possible, through the roller shutter doors - which 
could be automatically or accidentally closed behind, trapping the balloon and 
its flammable payload. This could allow a loaded canopy to leak out into a 
fully enclosed space, with ignition risks.

While such scenarios appear outlandish, with thousands or millions of launches, 
they become real risks.

Andrew

On Thu, 29 Dec 2022, 10:19 Stephen Salter, 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi
I do not understand the bit about bursting. Control of a venting valve protects 
the balloon and allows release at the chosen altitude.
Helium is irreplaceable and needed for super cooling. Is there a reason not to 
use hydrogen?
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Daniele Visioni
Sent: 28 December 2022 23:51
To: l...@lukeiseman.com<mailto:l...@lukeiseman.com>
Cc: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Make Sunsets: Clarifications!

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.
Luke,
I will keep finding this rather murky as long as you keep being so hand-wavy 
about your numbers and then claiming you can offset a “substantial amount of 
warming” in your homepage.

Weather balloons have different bursting altitudes depending on 1) payload 2) 
amount of helium used to inflate 3) material.
You can find an example here with a calculator down below that lets you 
calculate max bursting height based on inflation
 https://www.highaltitudescience.com/products/near-space-balloon-1200-g
Which balloons did you use?
How much did you inflate them?
Did you check with the producer if the mix of SO₂ and He in the balloon would 
affect their calculations, and if so how?
The forcing we’re talking about changes depending on altitude of release as 
well: at 19 it’s different than at 25 (and depending on your definition, 
sometimes the tropopause is above 18km..), and above 29km sulfate aerosols 
evaporate because temperatures are too high to form liquid aerosols. If the 
balloon doesn’t burst at the right altitude, what would happen to the oxidized 
S is not so simple - frankly I don’t know the answer off the top of my head, 
there are a few factors that could influence this. Do you have studies showing 
what would happen there based on lack of water vapor and different temperature 
and OH levels?
If you don’t - and you don’t have any tools to measure it yet - maybe you 
should at least tone down the claims already present on your website?

For some ranges of stratospheric releases of sulfate we have some numbers for 
SAI we can be somewhat confident about - not just in term of the forcing but in 
terms of downstream effects on the stratospheric composition - but this may not 
be true for what you are proposing or claiming you are doing.

Lastly, in your Twitter account you claimed in a post 2 days ago that there are 
“supporters and scientists who believe in you”.  I would avoid claiming you 
have the support of scientists if you don’t - or show proofs if you do.  As far 
as any scientist I know is concerned they don’t seem particularly impressed - 
and your lack of clarity goes against any of the calls for open and transparent 
research (not to mention inclusive decision making) this community has asked in 
previous public statements.

Daniele


On 28 Dec 2022, a

RE: [geo] Make Sunsets: Clarifications!

[Stephen Salter]

Hi
I do not understand the bit about bursting. Control of a venting valve protects 
the balloon and allows release at the chosen altitude.
Helium is irreplaceable and needed for super cooling. Is there a reason not to 
use hydrogen?
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Daniele Visioni
Sent: 28 December 2022 23:51
To: l...@lukeiseman.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Make Sunsets: Clarifications!

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.
Luke,
I will keep finding this rather murky as long as you keep being so hand-wavy 
about your numbers and then claiming you can offset a “substantial amount of 
warming” in your homepage.

Weather balloons have different bursting altitudes depending on 1) payload 2) 
amount of helium used to inflate 3) material.
You can find an example here with a calculator down below that lets you 
calculate max bursting height based on inflation
 https://www.highaltitudescience.com/products/near-space-balloon-1200-g
Which balloons did you use?
How much did you inflate them?
Did you check with the producer if the mix of SO₂ and He in the balloon would 
affect their calculations, and if so how?
The forcing we’re talking about changes depending on altitude of release as 
well: at 19 it’s different than at 25 (and depending on your definition, 
sometimes the tropopause is above 18km..), and above 29km sulfate aerosols 
evaporate because temperatures are too high to form liquid aerosols. If the 
balloon doesn’t burst at the right altitude, what would happen to the oxidized 
S is not so simple - frankly I don’t know the answer off the top of my head, 
there are a few factors that could influence this. Do you have studies showing 
what would happen there based on lack of water vapor and different temperature 
and OH levels?
If you don’t - and you don’t have any tools to measure it yet - maybe you 
should at least tone down the claims already present on your website?

For some ranges of stratospheric releases of sulfate we have some numbers for 
SAI we can be somewhat confident about - not just in term of the forcing but in 
terms of downstream effects on the stratospheric composition - but this may not 
be true for what you are proposing or claiming you are doing.

Lastly, in your Twitter account you claimed in a post 2 days ago that there are 
“supporters and scientists who believe in you”.  I would avoid claiming you 
have the support of scientists if you don’t - or show proofs if you do.  As far 
as any scientist I know is concerned they don’t seem particularly impressed - 
and your lack of clarity goes against any of the calls for open and transparent 
research (not to mention inclusive decision making) this community has asked in 
previous public statements.

Daniele



On 28 Dec 2022, at 18:09, Luke Iseman 
mailto:l...@lukeiseman.com>> wrote:

Thanks Andrew, Olivier, Bala, and everyone else for diving in with critiques 
here. I'm a cofounder of Make Sunsets and want to clarify a few things:

Honesty:
We have no desire to mislead anyone. If we make a mistake (which we will), 
we'll correct it.
Radiative Forcing:
I didn't make this "gram offsets a ton" number up. It comes from David Keith's 
research:
"a gram of aerosol in the stratosphere, delivered perhaps by high-flying jets, 
could offset the warming effect of a ton of carbon dioxide, a factor of 1 
million to 
1."
and, again: "Geoengineering’s leverage is very high—one gram of particles in 
the stratosphere prevents the warming caused by a ton of carbon 
dioxide."
By stating "offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon for 1 year," I was 
trying to be more conservative than Professor Keith. I am correcting "carbon" 
to read "carbon dioxide" on the cooling credit description right now, and I'm 
adding a paragraph at the start of the post stating that estimates vary, but a 
leading researcher cites a gram offsetting a ton.
For the several hundred dollars of cooling credits we've already sold, I'll be 
providing evidence to each purchaser that I've delivered at least 2 grams per 
cooling credit.
Olivier, or anyone else: I'd be happy to post something by you to our blog 
explaining what you estimate the radiative forcing of 1g so2 released at 20km 
altitude from in or near the tropics will be and why. I will include language 
of your choosing explaining that you in no way endorse what we are doing.
I very much hope to get suggestions from this community on instrumentation we 
should fly to improve the state of the science here. Again, 

RE: [geo] A Parameterization of Interstitial Aerosol Extinction and Its Application to Marine Cloud Brightening

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
The Hoffmann paper seems to be a convincing argument to treat regions where 
there has just been rain to clean the air and to use a mono-disperse spray to 
get a high nucleation fraction. We do not want the bigger nuclei to grab water 
vapour and starve the smaller ones.
Advice on the optimum size would be welcome. Is 0.8 micron sensible? How narrow 
should the spread be? Has there been any climate modelling of spread width?
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of ayesha iqbal
Sent: 24 December 2022 18:55
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] A Parameterization of Interstitial Aerosol Extinction and Its 
Application to Marine Cloud Brightening

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.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fatsc$002f79$002f11$002fJAS-D-22-0047.1.xml

Authors
Fabian Hoffmann, Bernhard Mayer and Graham Feingold

Online Publication: 18 Oct 2022
Print Publication: 01 Nov 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-22-0047.1

Abstract
Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is a geoengineering approach to counteract 
climate change by the deliberate seeding of sea salt aerosol particles that, 
once they activated to cloud droplets, directly increase cloud reflectance and 
hence global albedo. However, a large fraction of the seeded aerosol may remain 
interstitial, i.e., unactivated particles among cloud droplets. Because the 
consideration of interstitial aerosol optical properties usually requires 
computationally expensive simulations of the entire particle spectrum and 
direct Mie calculations, we develop a simple parameterization to be used with 
computationally efficient bulk and even bin cloud microphysical schemes that do 
not treat the unactivated aerosol explicitly. Using parcel and large-eddy 
simulations with highly detailed Lagrangian cloud microphysics and direct Mie 
calculations as a reference, we show that the parameterization captures the 
variability in the interstitial aerosol extinction successfully. By applying 
the parameterization to typical MCB cases, we find that the consideration of 
interstitial aerosol extinction is important for the assessment of MCB in 
shallow clouds with weak updrafts, in which only a small fraction of aerosol 
particles is activated to cloud droplets.

Source: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
--
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/CAOyeF5s-jSW693wefs0VX18%2BhRSKZkGJO5Q80oT6fk8WsN_ueA%40mail.gmail.com.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/AM8PR05MB80351FB1806D58EAD58E4382A7EF9%40AM8PR05MB8035.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] COP 27

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
The site
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24112022/for-many-the-global-warming-confab-that-rose-in-the-egyptian-desert-was-a-mirage/?utm_source=InsideClimate+News_campaign=51b08004fa-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_11_26_02_00_medium=email_term=0_29c928ffb5-51b08004fa-329082293
has a well written account of COP 27.  I am glad that I did not go.
Stephen Salter

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB569219A28BB20BA235BD83CBA7119%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] FW: Hear from John Kerry, US special presidential envoy for climate, in person at Sustainability Week: Countdown to COP27 - Abu Dhabi day

[Stephen Salter]

From: nore...@swapcard.com 
Sent: 04 October 2022 10:02
To: Stephen Salter 
Subject: Hear from John Kerry, US special presidential envoy for climate, in 
person at Sustainability Week: Countdown to COP27 - Abu Dhabi day

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.


[https://cdn-api.swapcard.com/public/images/e3c879b82afb43d79fcc4b823dcc848a.png]<https://economist.app.swapcard.com/auth/magic?key=ZW1haWwjNWY3YjAyYzkyNWI4M2U2YWJhMWQ0MDRiOitPK3FkZWJDUXBPWjl1NUpJNU83a0E9PQ%3D%3D=Kw96E9gOSnmTwJ%2FTYioF2g%3D%3D=https%3A%2F%2Feconomist.app.swapcard.com%2Fevent%2Fcountdown-to-cop27=VXNlcl8yNDE5NzIz=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.swapcard.com%2Ftrack%2Fclick%2F-GMN0-07GcEpQjq9Jtvy5Q%3D%7E5-n2SO5wqENCkSbjMN5absuKMaLwsHk3m17K701iVwfCZtCcDJw3EYf01RZ4qTcZ>

2nd annual Sustainability Week: Countdown to COP27


Hello Stephen,

Breaking news: John Kerry, US. special presidential envoy for climate, US 
Department of State will be speaking in person at Sustainability Week: 
Countdown to COP27 - Abu Dhabi day this Thursday, October 6th 2022 at 09.50am 
GST.

#Netzero2050

bookmark 
session<https://economist.app.swapcard.com/auth/magic?key=ZW1haWwjNWY3YjAyYzkyNWI4M2U2YWJhMWQ0MDRiOitPK3FkZWJDUXBPWjl1NUpJNU83a0E9PQ%3D%3D=Kw96E9gOSnmTwJ%2FTYioF2g%3D%3D=https%3A%2F%2Feconomist.app.swapcard.com%2Fevent%2Fcountdown-to-cop27=VXNlcl8yNDE5NzIz=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.swapcard.com%2Ftrack%2Fclick%2F-GMN0-07GcEpQjq9Jtvy5Q%3D%7E5-n2SO5wqENCkSbjMN5absuKMaLwsHk3m17K701iVwfCZtCcDJw3EYf01RZ4qTcZ>






Economist Impact, engagement & networking platform sent you this email

Please contact us<https://www.swapcard.com/contact/> if you need any help 
regarding the app


Click 
here<https://economist.app.swapcard.com/auth/magic?key=ZW1haWwjNWY3YjAyYzkyNWI4M2U2YWJhMWQ0MDRiOitPK3FkZWJDUXBPWjl1NUpJNU83a0E9PQ%3D%3D=Kw96E9gOSnmTwJ%2FTYioF2g%3D%3D=https%3A%2F%2Feconomist.app.swapcard.com%2Fsettings%3FeventSlug%3Dcountdown-to-cop27=VXNlcl8yNDE5NzIz=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.swapcard.com%2Ftrack%2Fclick%2FLsfyEq0m1ppfMPEFJfYyTA%3D%7Ebblw_Lz89SujZOUfa5gacNcyh6-UcH-zvpeo9GBZ6cW4XOkmvN73LhK-V6bgBtYX>
 to manage your email subscriptions


[https://api.swapcard.com/track/see/I5-FxS-bUk6JDH8FLqNJow=~27DawGbT8cAFv-jcliV78P01Z7a9AWS9yEmjyO8IHA0piMBzckgClv4tSv0vE1gp]
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB569295A413AFCD17268CA1D3A75A9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Ian

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew
Sorry I jumped the gun.

Your article in Nature of 19 August  
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00519-1  says that attempts to 
weaken tropical cyclones by ocean cooling would be futile.
I attach a note about the use of autonomous, wind-driven spray vessels to do 
this and would be grateful if you could check my calculations.   The vessel 
design follows the proposal by Latham to exploit the Twomey effect to increase 
global reflectivity.
If you want to act when a hurricane is forecast you will be too late.  You 
should have started last November. I would want vessels to cruise between 
Africa and the Gulf of Mexico, an area 50 times more than your figure. I want 
to do this over 200 days, 100 times longer than you suggest. We therefore 
disagree by a factor of 5000!
I want to adjust vessel position and spray rate using satellite temperature 
measurements to get the pattern of sea surface temperatures to approach those 
given  by the Governments of surrounding countries.  They will adjust payments 
to spraying contractors according to how close they can get.
I attach calculations on the vessel number required. The answer depends on a 
number of assumptions for solar input, cloud fraction, boundary layer depth, 
initial nuclei concentration and subsequent life of spray. These vary widely. 
The ones I have used have been circulated for comment to the climate community 
and I can easily change them to ones you suggest. If you accept them, the 
number of vessels for moderating Atlantic hurricanes by a 2K reduction in sea 
surface temperature is about 300.
Vessel design is nearly complete.  The displacement is 90 tonnes and the power 
requirement 300 kW.  Flower class Corvettes were built in similar numbers but 
with higher power and displacement.  If we index link Corvette cost and use the 
present cost per tonne of heavy earth moving machinery we can hope that vessel 
cost in full production will be about  $5million each.
I would be grateful if you could check my figures and suggest desirable 
temperature patterns.   Is cooling of 2K enough?
Would you like to see calculations about sea level rise and Arctic ice and a 
way to increase sea evaporation?

Stephen
From: Stephen Salter
Sent: 28 September 2022 20:40
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: RE: [geo] Ian

Andrew
And here is the counter counterpoint.
The futility authors have not replied to the 5000 to 1 ratio.
Stephen

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 28 September 2022 19:18
To: Stephen Salter mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Cc: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Ian

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.
Counterpoint here 
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-artificial-ocean-cooling-weaken-hurricanes.html

On Wed, 28 Sept 2022, 17:26 Stephen Salter, 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi All
Some of you may not have seen the attached. Apologies to those who have.
If you would like other input assumptions please let me know. The annual 
benefit-to-cost ratio would survive quite large changes
If you cannot see any mistakes please pass it on.
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 662 1180

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.
--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB5692E2F0F6E9650BAB345356A7549%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB5692E2F0F6E9650BAB345356A7549%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06bsCkZA2sH6iDgO%3DEkbKYZyupzctZ_zXqGmdMo%2BsVYNg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06bsCkZA2sH6iDgO%3DEkbKYZyupzctZ_zXqG

RE: [geo] Ian

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew
And here is the counter counterpoint.
The futility authors have not replied to the 5000 to 1 ratio.
Stephen

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 28 September 2022 19:18
To: Stephen Salter 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Ian

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.
Counterpoint here 
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-artificial-ocean-cooling-weaken-hurricanes.html

On Wed, 28 Sept 2022, 17:26 Stephen Salter, 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi All
Some of you may not have seen the attached. Apologies to those who have.
If you would like other input assumptions please let me know. The annual 
benefit-to-cost ratio would survive quite large changes
If you cannot see any mistakes please pass it on.
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 662 1180

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.
--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB5692E2F0F6E9650BAB345356A7549%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB5692E2F0F6E9650BAB345356A7549%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06bsCkZA2sH6iDgO%3DEkbKYZyupzctZ_zXqGmdMo%2BsVYNg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06bsCkZA2sH6iDgO%3DEkbKYZyupzctZ_zXqGmdMo%2BsVYNg%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/DB7PR05MB5692261284E9C7D6BA2FC06FA7549%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Climate model bias

[Stephen Salter]

Dear Bala
That helps a bit.  But even if we do not know the starting point accurately, 
can we deduce the size of the change we have to make by doing some 
geoengineering?
I thought from Julia Slingo that the problem was 1.7 watts per square metre out 
of a mean solar input of 340 so we only had to do 0.5%.
Stephen

From: Govindasamy Bala 
Sent: 22 September 2022 16:26
To: Stephen Salter 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate model bias

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.
I am not at all surprised by the regional bias of this magnitude in the 
previous generation of models. The paper says this bias is reduced in CMIP6 
models to about 10 Wm-2. These biases are related to how global models 
"represent" cloud properties such as cloud liquid water, liquid cloud fraction, 
and total cloud fraction which have biases of about 10-20%. I would never 
expect global models with a resolution of about 100 km to reproduce accurately 
these subgrid-scale variables.  GCMs were not designed to "simulate" clouds 
which are "represented" through parameterizations using various "assumptions". 
GCMs are designed to only simulate large-scale (~ 1000 km) features well. 
Models are only our attempt to explain the real world and no model exists today 
in any branch of science that can explain everything in that branch of science.

There is nothing here to admire or find fault with modellers.  It is just that 
the problem is too complex with too many degrees of freedom. In fact, I am 
happy we have made unbelievable progress in the last 3-4 decades. It is a work 
in progress (like modelling in any branch of science) and I do not expect an 
end game anytime soon.
Cheers,
Bala

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:11 PM Stephen Salter 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi All
A paper at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-022-2036-z.pdf
says that there are significant biases in simulated cloud physical properties 
over the Southern Ocean.
Section 5 mentions a mean bias of “more than 30 Watts per square metre” lots 
more than I thought was the problem.
However it is not clear, at least to an engineer, whether it means plus or 
minus 30 watts per square metre.
This does not increase my admiration for climate modellers. Please help.
Stephen
Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 662 1180

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.
--
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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB56927D3815DCF39B23757FA8A74E9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB56927D3815DCF39B23757FA8A74E9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.


--
With Best Wishes,

---
G. Bala
Professor
Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore - 560 012
India

Tel: +91 80 2293 3428; +91 80 2293 2505
Fax: +91 80 2360 0865; +91 80 2293 3425
Email: gb...@iisc.ac.in<mailto:gb...@iisc.ac.in>; 
bala.gov<http://bala.gov>@gmail.com<http://gmail.com>
Google Scholar<https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eurjQPwJ>
---

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB56921275E3F6E8B51335E7BBA74E9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] Climate model bias

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
A paper at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-022-2036-z.pdf
says that there are significant biases in simulated cloud physical properties 
over the Southern Ocean.
Section 5 mentions a mean bias of "more than 30 Watts per square metre" lots 
more than I thought was the problem.
However it is not clear, at least to an engineer, whether it means plus or 
minus 30 watts per square metre.
This does not increase my admiration for climate modellers. Please help.
Stephen
Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 662 1180

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB56927D3815DCF39B23757FA8A74E9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] Next winter

[Stephen Salter]

Alan Robinson sent me an interesting link about long range temperature.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/long-range-2/winter-forecast-2022-2023-season-first-look-united-states-europe-fa/
Stephen

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB5692AAB54C248CBEE8972F55A7499%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] RE: HPAC comment on White House Office of Science and Technology Policy climate intervention program

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
My submission below about marine cloud brightening will be familiar to most of 
you.  I expect that they would prefer spending money in America.

A recent estimate from the Hadley Centre is that greenhouse gases are retaining 
1.7 watts per square metre more than we would like. The mean 24-hour solar 
input is 340 watts per square metre so increasing world reflectivity by only 
0.5% would solve the present problem.
Cloud reflectivity ranges from 25% to 75%.  Low-level clouds cover about 18% of 
the oceans. Twomey studied cloud reflectivity with aircraft instrument 
observations. He found that reflectivity depends on the size distribution of 
cloud drops. For the same liquid water content, lots of small drops reflect 
more than a smaller number of bigger ones.  Doubling the drop number increases 
reflectivity by a bit over 5%.   The optics can be demonstrated with jars of 
glass balls of different sizes.  His results have been replicated by Ackerman 
with good agreement and so carry more weight than computer models.
Cloud drop formation needs a high relative humidity and also some form of seed 
called a condensation nucleus. These are plentiful, 1000 to 5000 cm3, over land 
but scarce, often around 40 per cm3 in clean mid-ocean air.  John Latham 
suggested that salt residues from the evaporation of a submicron spray of 
filtered sea water would provide extra condensation nuclei and so brighter 
clouds. Nuclei would be spread by turbulence through the marine boundary layer. 
Work by Köhler shows that the best drop size for 3.5% salinity is 0.8 micron.  
Latham was surprised at how little spray would be needed to return to 
pre-industrial temperatures.  The solar energy reflected by a cloud drop is 
many millions of times more than the surface tension energy needed to make the 
nucleus on which it grew.
Much of the computer modelling for marine cloud brightening has been done for 
spray released at a constant rate, all the year round, rain or shine between 
latitudes 30 N and 30 S.  It would be much better to migrate with the seasons. 
For two months there is more solar energy going into the poles than into the 
equator.  Work by Stjern et al. at the Norwegian Cicero Laboratory restricted 
spray to ocean regions with low cloud. The mean of nine leading climate models 
showed that a 50% increase in the concentration of condensation nuclei gave a 
4K cooling in Arctic regions and 10% increases of precipitation in most of the 
drought-stricken regions.  Reduction of precipitation was mainly over the sea.  
With satellite data feeding information to quantum computers running parallel 
‘what if’ climate models I am sure that the Cicero lab can develop an even more 
intelligent spray strategy.  Work by Alterskjaer and Kristjansson showed that 
the choice of drop size and a narrow dispersion of diameter are important 
because spray in either the smaller Aitken mode or the larger coarse mode can 
warm. A narrow dispersion of spray diameters will prevent large drops 
nucleating before the smaller ones and grabbing all the available vapour to 
leave smaller ones in the dry.
Design of wind-driven spray vessels is nearly complete to the point where 
drawings and specifications could be given to potential contractors.  
Propulsion is by Flettner rotors, first used in 1926, and which now are 
increasingly being used for fuel-saving in large ships.  Energy generation, up 
to 300 kW, is by the flapping motion of variable-pitch hydrofoils driving 
high-pressure oil hydraulics. Drop generation is by Rayleigh jet breakup of a 
flow through submicron nozzles etched in silicon wafers driven by a pressure of 
80 bar. There can be 200 million nozzles in each 200 mm diameter wafer. 
Coagulation will be reduced with an electrostatic charge.  The most difficult 
problem is that sea water often contains vast numbers of marine organisms many 
of which will block the nozzles. The same problem is faced by the even smaller 
pores in the membranes used for desalination by reverse osmosis. The solution 
is sequential back-flushing of each member of a ring of filters with part of 
the flow from the others. The filter manufacturer, Pentair, is confident of 
successful operation. The design of the spray heads allows back-flushing and 
ultrasonic cleaning of the wafers at sea.
Spray will be washed out by the next rainfall giving a control system with a 
high frequency response and low phase lag. Hydrofoil vessels can go faster than 
the wind. Depending on how well we can forecast wind speed and direction for a 
few days ahead we can develop a tactical control system to control hurricanes, 
El Niño events and the ocean temperature gradients across the Indian Ocean 
which affect monsoons.  Restoring polar ice would reverse sea level rise.

Stephen
From: 'Doug Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition 

Sent: 09 September 2022 21:29
To: Ron Baiman ; John Nissen 
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; Planetary Restoration 
; 

[geo] Climate Book review

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
Physics World has a review of a book on climate change by Wake Smith and one 
possible solution.
https://physicsworld.com/a/climate-intervention-a-possible-hope-in-the-face-of-humanitys-biggest-problem/?utm_medium=email_source=iop_term=_campaign=14290-53634_content=Title%3A%20Climate%20intervention%3A%20a%20possible%20hope%20in%20the%20face%20of%20humanity%E2%80%99s%20biggest%20problem%20-%20explore%20more+Owner=
Stephen



The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB5692BD1D3E46441C949DE266A77A9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] CCS news

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
The site
The Energy Mix/Climate News Network  site

https://www.theenergymix.com/2022/09/01/10-of-13-flagship-ccs-projects-missed-their-targets-ieefa-analysis-concludes/?utm_source=The+Energy+Mix_campaign=2e7cf8611f-TEM_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_medium=email_term=0_dc146fb5ca-2e7cf8611f-510009530

has some sad news  about carbon capture and storage.  Its still early days.
The two best ones were both in Norway.   When the Vikings took gold, wine and 
all the best-looking girls they also took all the most intelligent civil 
servants.
It would be nice to have some of the last two returned.
Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland
0131 650 5704 or 662 1180

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th' ann an Oilthigh 
Dh?n ?ideann, cl?raichte an Alba, ?ireamh cl?raidh SC005336.

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB569297CC35EB7FB7B1DC9097A77B9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] Greenland

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All
The site
https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/greenland-ice-sheet-will-contribute-one-foot-to-sea-level-rise
has interesting stuff about Greenland.
Stephen


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with 
registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh 
Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

-- 
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/DB7PR05MB569260F99B8633B15AAA2EB7A7799%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

Re: [geo] The Panglossian politics of the geoclique: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy: Vol 23, No 5

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The computer climate models predict a fairly steady return to the 
trajectory of what would otherwise have happened over a period of ten years.


Would people who are worried about the 'termination shock' prefer 
irreversible solutions?  Several irreversibilities are the likely result 
of tipping points following a 'Do nothing, not even research' policy.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 01/08/2020 18:30, Andrew Lockley wrote:


Poster's note: missed previously

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698230.2020.1694216?journalCode=fcri20 




  The Panglossian politics of the geoclique

Catriona McKinnon 
ORCID Icon 


Pages 584-599 | Published online: 20 Nov 2019

  * Download citation


  * https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1694216
  * CrossMark LogoCrossMark



Select Language​▼
Translator disclaimer 



  *  Full Article


  *  Figures & data


  *  References


  *  Citations


 *

  *  Metrics


  *  Reprints & Permissions


  * Get access



 *

More
Share Options



ABSTRACT

Solar radiation management (SRM) – a form of geoengineering – creates 
a risk of ‘termination shock’. If SRM was to be stopped abruptly then 
temperatures could rise very rapidly with catastrophic impacts. Two 
prominent geoengineering researchers have recently argued that the 
risk of termination shock could be minimised through the adoption of 
‘relatively simple’ policies. This paper shows their arguments to be 
premised on heroically optimistic assumptions about the prospects for 
global cooperation and sustained trust in an SRM deployment scenario. 
The paper argues that worst-case scenarios are the right place to 
start in thinking about the governance of SRM.


KEYWORDS: Solar radiation management 
, 
termination shock 
, worst-case 
scenarios , 
geoengineering governance 
, 
precautionary 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/CAJ3C-06hbm0oJRitLLgqZccC0eHKvtyvwhqkfNWTz_Ds1C_NRQ%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/c2ba34ee-e7c6-438d-98ec-06ea324bccb8%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are 

Re: [geo] Contesting the climate Bas/Mahajan

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

If only there was similar concern about people who revived 100 million 
year old microbes see


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/scientists-pull-living-microbes-100-million-years-beneath-sea

Anyone for small-pox?

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 31/07/2020 19:59, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Contesting the climate Bas/Mahajan https://t.co/Z6zRIHjUFQ

Scientists predict higher global temperatures over this century. While 
this may benefit some countries, most will face varying degrees of 
damage. This has motivated research on solar geoengineering, a 
technology that allows countries to unilaterally and temporarily lower 
global temperatures. To better understand the security implications of 
this technology, we develop a simple theory that incorporates solar 
geoengineering, countergeoengineering to reverse its effects, and the 
use of military force to prevent others from modifying temperatures. 
We find that when countries’ temperature preferences diverge, 
applications of geoengineering and countergeoengineering can be highly 
wasteful due to deployment in opposite directions. Under certain 
conditions, countries may prefer military interventions over peaceful 
ones. Cooperation that avoids costs or waste of resources can emerge 
in repeated settings, but difficulties in monitoring or attributing 
interventions make such arrangements less attractive.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04kq0yWiT9qQ9Y%2BvUCnpqqooiSNK7FNR4Ka4ngwiqHorQ%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/21fc8202-ac52-18e6-a49c-60833b80bdfb%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/21fc8202-ac52-18e6-a49c-60833b80bdfb%40ed.ac.uk.

[geo] Arctic deja prevoir?

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Check out

https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/record-temperatures-and-record-low-sea-ice-in-siberian-arctic

Stephen

--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


--
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/f39b27a1-8346-f233-7afe-6ca0fb174a86%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/f39b27a1-8346-f233-7afe-6ca0fb174a86%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] TEN YEARS OF GEOMIP

[Stephen Salter]

Ben

You will find that time speeds up as you get older.

I have been looking for GeoMip papers about marine cloud brightening 
with mono-disperse spray sized to suit Kohler but have not be able to 
find any.  Have I overlooked one?


Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 30/06/2020 16:09, Andrew Lockley wrote:


https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/ten-years-geomip

TEN YEARS OF GEOMIP
June 30, 2020

By Ben Kravitz


I’m writing this blog from my couch, where I’ve effectively been for 
the past 3 ½ months in self-quarantine due to COVID-19. Putting myself 
in the shoes I was wearing ten years ago, if you asked me in 2010 
where I see myself in 2020, I guarantee you that I would have gotten 
the answer wrong.



Speaking of looking back over the past decade, 2020 marks the ten-year 
anniversary of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project 
(GeoMIP). The original publication establishing the project and the 
first round of climate modeling experiments was submitted in 2010 to a 
special issue of Atmospheric Science Letters. Since then, GeoMIP has 
involved hundreds of researchers from around the world and is to date 
the single largest source of scientific information about solar 
geoengineering.



On this tenth anniversary, I thought it would be interesting to look 
back at that original GeoMIP paper and see how my thinking has evolved 
over the past decade. This excerpt1 stuck out:



[The experiment] assumes an RCP4.5 scenario...but with additional 
stratospheric aerosol added starting in the year 2020, which is a 
reasonable estimate of when the delivery systems needed to inject the 
aerosols might be ready.



Well, I sure am terrible at predicting the future. The world has 
(thankfully) not yet decided to deploy climate-altering solar 
geoengineering. Nevertheless, publishing this statement did have 
consequences for the future. Numerous climate modeling studies have 
since begun their simulations in 2020 thanks to GeoMIP’s precedent. 
Many of these geoengineering studies that show a start date of 2020 
are highlighted in reports at national and international scales.



We picked 2020 because it was a nice, round number in which we could 
begin our simulations. Thankfully that decision has not been widely 
used outside of scientific research. But what if governments had been 
more ready to deploy and perhaps looking for some kind of 
justification? If the largest geoengineering research group on the 
planet says that this is the year to begin



Let’s take another example2:


The sudden start of the aerosol injection in 2020 is meant to 
approximate the kind of action that might result from society’s sudden 
perception of a climate warming ‘emergency’ (e.g., an immediate 
imperative to stop ice sheet melting).



This assertion was a somewhat casual justification for suddenly 
starting stratospheric aerosol injection in our simulations, as 
opposed to ramping up the level of injection, as has been suggested by 
others. Much has been written about climate emergencies in 
geoengineering in subsequent years, far more eloquently than I can 
replicate here. But two especially salient points come to mind:



An emergency is a political declaration, usually to justify some 
“extraordinary” action in response to a perceived threat. Declaring an 
emergency can allow the state to circumvent normal political processes 
to allow, for example, rapid allocation of resources or exercise of 
executive power (such as financial relief during a natural disaster or 
martial law during civil unrest). Each of these decisions has enormous 
sociopolitical ramifications that, quite frankly, I am totally 
unqualified to comment on.
There is an inherent assumption in this passage: if geoengineering 
were used to combat a declared climate emergency, then the way it 
would be done is suddenly switching on a large amount of 
geoengineering. That assumption not only has no basis in fact, but 
based on research that has been conducted over the past decade, I 
personally believe that suddenly deploying a large amount of 
geoengineering is a terrible idea.


Why is this passage problematic? Again, statements from the world’s 
largest geoengineering research effort influence how ideas are shaped 
and discussed, not just among the scientific community, but also in 
society and politics. As I recall, this sentence was not debated at 
length, which in retrospect seems like an enormous oversight. I cringe 
at the possibility that this sentence might be used as part of a 
justification for any potential deployment.



I don’t mean to turn this blog into a guilt party. I’m proud of all 
that GeoMIP has accomplished for the science of solar geoengineering, 
and the credit for that rests entirely 

[geo] Southern ocean clouds and bad modesl

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The sites

https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/study-southern-ocean-is-one-of-the-most-pristine-places-on-earth

and

https://theconversation.com/we-caught-bacteria-from-the-most-pristine-air-on-earth-to-help-solve-a-climate-modeling-mystery-140041

have interesting information about Southern Ocean clouds.

Stephen

--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


--
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/2ca187f0-15f8-56fc-af59-accf9736e640%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/2ca187f0-15f8-56fc-af59-accf9736e640%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] Ocean geoengineering tests violate UN convention: green groups

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I think that the UN rule is that you are not to introduce any new 
chemicals into the biosphere.  Marine cloud brightening uses material 
that is already there.  We would just rearrange the size distribution of 
a very small fraction of it so as to put temperatures closer to where 
they used to be.  Whales spouting and children splashing one another do 
the same.


Serious reductions in CO2 emissions, which Louise Sales of Friends of 
the Earth Australia and I both want, will still leave the present amount 
of CO2 in the atmosphere plus all the extra which we will release 
between now and getting to the zero point.  This means that the 
droughts, floods, bushfires, typhoons and loss of Arctic ice will be 
worse than they are now by an amount which will depend on how fast we 
can get to zero.  Zero is too high.


Marine cloud brightening could correct the temperature difference across 
the Indian Ocean which drives Australian bushfires.  Do Friends of the 
Earth Australia really want more bush fires?


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 09/06/2020 08:55, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Poster's note: Jesse Reynolds posted a thread on twitter pointing out 
that the moratorium claim is disputed by a range of scholars, with 
widely differing views on geoengineering


https://phys.org/news/2020-06-ocean-geoengineering-violate-convention-green.amp 




  Ocean geoengineering tests violate UN convention: green groups


  14 hours ago
  by Patrick Galey

Would you like to receive trending story notifications on your 
smartphone? 
Coral reefs—which cover less than one percent of the ocean's surface 
but support a quarter of marine species—are especially vulnerable to 
warming waters


Experimental geoengineering schemes to protect areas such as 
Australia's Great Barrier Reef are "distracting technofixes" that 
violate an international moratorium on the largely untested tech 
projects, a coalition of nearly 200 environmental groups said Monday.


On the occasion of World Oceans Day, the Hands Off Mother Earth (HOME) 
Campaign urged communities and governments to "vigorously oppose" 
marine geoengineering projects that it said could imperil Earth's 
already vulnerable sea ecosystems.


Up to 90 percent of the excess heat produced by mankind's burning of 
fossil fuels is absorbed by the world's oceans.


And as atmospheric greenhouse gas levels continue to rise despite the 
2015 Paris climate deal, scientists and industry are coming up with 
ways to try to mitigate the damage caused by rising temperatures using 
technology.


One such plan, which began preliminary experiments last month, 
involves spraying trillions of microscopic salt crystals into the air 
above the Great Barrier Reef.


Its proponents hope that the salt will mix with low-altitude clouds, 
making them brighter and able to reflect more sunlight away from the 
reef .


But HOME said the project contravenes a 2010 United Nations moratorium 
on ocean  geoengineering.


"Geoengineers are flying in the face of global moratoria agreed at the 
UN," said Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group that monitors the projects.


"The potential for large-scale versions of these project—driven by the 
fossil fuel industry's motivation to keep extracting, selling and 
burning—poses a clear and present danger to our oceans."


Coral reefs—which cover less than one percent of the ocean's surface 
but support a quarter of marine species—are especially vulnerable to 
warming waters.


Recent spikes in tropical and sub-tropical sea surface temperatures, 
magnified by an especially potent El Nino, have triggered an 
unprecedented mass bleaching of corals, affecting 75 percent of global 
reefs.


*'Dangerous precedent'*

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018 issued its 
landmark report on the Paris deal temperature goals—"well below" two 
degrees Celsius (3.6 Farenheit) above pre-industrial levels and a cap 
of 1.5C if at all possible.


It found that at 1.5C hotter, more than 70 percent of Earth's coral 
reefs will likely die off; at 2C, that increases to 99 percent.


HOME said that the Great Barrier Reef testing sets a "dangerous new 
precedent" and fails to take into account the underlying cause of 
rising ocean temperatures and coral bleaching: fossil fuel emissions.


"To really address climate change 
, we need serious cuts to CO2 
emissions, not distracting technofixes," said Louise Sales from 
Friends of the Earth Australia's Emerging Tech Project.


Other marine geoengineering projects currently undergoing testing 
include injecting glass micro-bubbles into sea ice in Alaska and 

Re: [geo] A Model‐Based Investigation of Terrestrial Plant Carbon Uptake Response to Four Radiation Modification Approaches - Duan - 2020 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online

[Stephen Salter]

Dear Bala

 . . . .  However countries facing expensive damage from hurricanes and 
typhoons could measure surface temperatures  in surrounding seas and pay 
to have them reduced to more acceptable values.  I understand the 26.5 C 
is nice. Rough calculations appear to give extremely attractive returns 
on investment at least according to my assumptions.  I can send the 
equations to you and anyone else who  would like them and would be 
grateful for any more accurate than my own.


Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 03/05/2020 16:02, Govindasamy Bala wrote:

Andrew,

In the case of CDR like DAC, one can immediately know much carbon is 
extracted and pricing is easy.  In the case of carbon stocks increase 
due to SRM, attribution of the stock increase to SRM would be almost 
an impossible task in the real world.


Bala

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:07 PM Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I would recommend that you consider the numbers on this, before
forming a firm view. To order of magnitude, 1t S delivered is
$1000 (mileage may vary). If 1Mt a year is roughly enough to
offset the RF of global warming, then about 10pc of that is a CO2
effect. That's about 0.1 millionth of global warming per t of S,
on an annual basis - according to your figures. Assuming we
sustain the intervention for a century, that's $100k for
maintenance of that 1t, for a century - again offsetting 0.1
millionth.

Offsets go for about $3/t

https://www.energysage.com/other-clean-options/carbon-offsets/costs-and-benefits-carbon-offsets/

There's about 1Tt of CO2 to offset - ie $3T, using the offset
price. 0.1 millionths of that is $300k

So your $100k costs gives you a $300k return.

Not bad, unless (as usual) I've fluffed my 4th grade math.

Andrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, 15:44 Govindasamy Bala, mailto:bala@gmail.com>> wrote:

With so much uncertainty surrounding this small indirect
carbon cycle effects of SRM, I would not bother about
monetizing calculations at this time.
Bala

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:49 PM Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

That is indeed correct, but there is no accepted approach
to financialise temporary radiative forcing. The effect on
the carbon cycle would give a way to create a business
model for SRM operations - as described in the papers I've
sent.

Andrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, 12:32 Govindasamy Bala,
mailto:bala@gmail.com>> wrote:

Andrew,
Technically, carbon and radiative forcing are
equivalent to each other. There are standard
formulas to go from carbon to radiative forcing.
Bala

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:45 PM Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The reason that the CDR aspect is significant is
that there is already a way to monetise this,
through voluntary carbon offsets. This was first
suggested by Sargoni and I

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284534197_Environment_Policy_Solar_Radiation_Management_and_the_voluntary_carbon_market


There's no such scheme available to monetise
radiative forcing

Andrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, 11:43 Govindasamy Bala,
mailto:bala@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Andrew,

"Are you saying that SRM effect on the carbon
cycle still appears to be the net removal of
Atmospheric CO2?"

Yes, that is what the models say since this
first 2008 PNAS paper by Matthews and Ken on
this topic which showed that CO2 levels would
be lower in SRM scenarios. This work finds
that CO2 is reduced from 900 ppm to about 800
ppm in the atmosphere by 2100 in the A2
scenario. Not a lot as CO2 forcing goes up
only  logarithmically with CO2 concentration
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/9949

There would be of course large uncertainties
but I think the qualitative result would not
change across models. I would not go that far
to say it is a CDR technique. I would 

Re: [geo] First African SRM research paper

[Stephen Salter]

Andy

Will they be doing anything about marine cloud brightening?

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 30/04/2020 11:35, Andy Parker wrote:

Hi Andrew,
SRMGI's overarching goal is to build the capacity of developing 
countries so that they can play a central role in the evaluation, 
discussion and development of governance of SRM. There are many strong 
reasons for this and for an overview I recommend the Comment published 
in Nature a couple of years ago: 
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03917-8. It was co-authored 
by a group of scholars who were the local partners for SRMGI’s 
workshops around the Global South and it sets out the political and 
moral arguments for developing-country leadership on SRM.
I see capacity building as an essential precondition for good 
governance, and one that's often overlooked. There is a tendency for 
people working on governance either to focus on the design of 
governance mechanisms or to try to bring SRM to the attention of 
governance bodies. These are useful and important activities, but 
without capacity building they are not sufficient. We need to think 
more about the environment in which governance proposals will be 
designed, shaped and debated. If the countries that would be most 
affected by SRM are to have a meaningful say in its governance, they 
will need their own confident experts to provide locally relevant 
advice, otherwise they will be restricted to approving or opposing 
governance proposals developed in the Global North. And there is no 
substitute for sustained critical engagement when it comes to capacity 
building – the kind of engagement that comes from research. There are 
no short cuts and in general you do not build expertise just by 
running workshops, delivering briefings or writing reports.
The DECIMALS grants are therefore a first small step rather than end 
in themselves. The eight teams and ~45 scientists are spending two 
years wrestling with the challenges of SRM and thinking about what it 
might mean for their regions. When their projects are concluded we 
will not only have more information on how SRM could affect local 
climates – which is useful – but more importantly we’ll have created a 
platform for much more sustained engagement in regions that are 
under-represented in the debate. We hope that the DECIMALS research 
project will provide platforms for wider conversations and more 
comprehensive research programmes in future – including social 
science, stakeholder engagement, and so on.


Andy


On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 8:44:35 PM UTC+1, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Andy, It would be great to hear from you as to the unique value
you see from devolving this work to a local level. Is it in the
selection of locally-impactful research projects, or is it in the
utilization of local knowledge in the execution? Alternatively, do
you see this mainly as representation and capacity building?

Andrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, 19:40 Andy Parker, > wrote:

Hi Renaud,

I'd hoped to nudge people into reading the interview on their
way to the paper, but for anyone wants to dash straight for
the science - and it is worth the dash - you can read Pinto et
al, 2020, here:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL086047?af=R

.

Here also is the plain language summary:

/We investigate the potential impact of artificially reducing
the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface on the
climate over sub‐Saharan Africa. Human induced warming is
projected to increase the magnitude and frequency of extreme
events, whose impacts are already being felt in vulnerable
regions in sub‐Saharan Africa. Large volcanic eruptions can
reduce the global mean temperature. Similarly, the continuous
injection of microscopic particles in the upper atmosphere to
artificially reduce some of the amount of sunlight reaching
the Earth's surface has been proposed as a measure to reduce
global temperature while emissions are reduced. The impact of
such actions on regional climate extremes is still unclear
especially in sub‐Saharan Africa. We analyzed climate model
simulations from the Geoengineering Large Ensemble to explore
the projected impact of artificial sunlight reduction on
climate extremes sub‐Saharan Africa with continued emissions
of greenhouse gases. We found that artificially altering the
sunlight reduces mean and extreme temperatures, while the
effect on rainfall is not as linear and remains 

Re: [geo] A Model‐Based Investigation of Terrestrial Plant Carbon Uptake Response to Four Radiation Modification Approaches - Duan - 2020 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I have not yet found my way round the paywall but wondered if the paper 
takes account of a reduction of solar input over the sea affecting 
conditions for crops over land.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 29/04/2020 09:03, Govindasamy Bala wrote:

Andrew,

You are absolutely right that "In situations where plants don't remain 
to decomposition (agro forestry), there will be a loss of NPP"


Stock changes between two time periods are basically the integral of 
the net fluxes between the two time periods. In a warming scenario, 
there is net outward flux (and stocks decline) because the integrated 
respiratory fluxes more than the integrated in flux of NPP. In SRM 
scenario, integrated net flux is positive because the integrated 
respiratory fluxes are smaller than integrated in flux.


Best,
Bala

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:30 PM Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:


If the incoming flux decreases, the stock will reduce. To counter
this, the outgoing flux must decrease by as much, or more. What is
this corresponding decrease in the outward flux?

Is it that decomposition of leaf litter, etc. is slowed by cooler
and drier conditions?

In situations where plants don't remain to decomposition (agro
forestry), what will be the effect? Your results imply a loss of NPP.

Andrew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, 07:11 Govindasamy Bala, mailto:bala@gmail.com>> wrote:

Andrew,

This is no contradiction between the Keith et al's commentary
and this paper. Keith et al.'s paper is about stocks and this
JGR paper is about the rate of flow of carbon between the
atmosphere and the land biosphere (flux). The stocks and
fluxes can behave very differently. The cooling caused by SRM
reduces the rate of fluxing of carbon between the atmosphere
and plants but overall it helps to build the carbon stocks in
biomass and soils and hence reduce the atmospheric CO2.

Another good example for stocks and fluxes behaving very
differently is the change in precipitation (flux) and
atmospheric water vapor (stock) under global warming. It is
well established now that precipitation increases at the rate
of 2-3% per deg warming while water vapor increases at the
rate of about 7% per deg warming.

Best,
Bala

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:18 AM Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Poster's note: this has the opposite sign to other work on
the subject eg

https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/publications/solar-geoengineering-reduces-atmospheric-carbon-burden

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019JD031883


Journal of Geophysical Research: AtmospheresVolume 125,
Issue 9
Research Article
A Model‐Based Investigation of Terrestrial Plant Carbon
Uptake Response to Four Radiation Modification Approaches
Lei Duan Long Cao Govindasamy Bala Ken Caldeira
First published:04 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031883

Abstract
A number of radiation modification approaches have been
proposed to counteract anthropogenic warming by
intentionally altering Earth's shortwave or longwave
fluxes. While several previous studies have examined the
climate effect of different radiation modification
approaches, only a few have investigated the carbon cycle
response. Our study examines the response of plant carbon
uptake to four radiation modification approaches that are
used to offset the global mean warming caused by a
doubling of atmospheric CO2. Using the National Center for
Atmospheric Research Community Earth System Model, we
performed simulations that represent four idealized
radiation modification options: solar constant reduction,
sulfate aerosol increase (SAI), marine cloud brightening,
and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). Relative to the high CO2
state, all these approaches reduce gross primary
production (GPP) and net primary production (NPP). In high
latitudes, decrease in GPP is mainly due to the reduced
plant growing season length, and in low latitudes,
decrease in GPP is mainly caused by the enhanced nitrogen
limitation due to surface cooling. The simulated GPP for
sunlit leaves decreases for all approaches. Decrease in
sunlit GPP is the largest for SAI 

[geo] Hot blob

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site

   
https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/the-blob-could-raise-climate-change-s-impact-on-ne-pacific-fisheries

has stuff about a hot blob messing up fish.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


--
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/be0d7f8f-52dd-a24f-b04a-cea78d66b457%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/be0d7f8f-52dd-a24f-b04a-cea78d66b457%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Given the present funding level for climate research could we all agree 
not to publish papers in any journal which does not allow free circulation?


Failing that could we circulate everything to colleagues as a near final 
draft.  It could be very near with just one comma missing!


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 11/04/2020 15:59, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


No… see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2019.1648169

*From:*geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley

*Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:28 AM
*To:* Aaron Franklin 
*Cc:* geoengineering ; Arctic Methane 
Google Group 

*Subject:* Re: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget

Aaron,

As far as I know, you are the first person to propose solar balloons 
for lofting climate-active gases. I would encourage you to publish 
this. I'm happy to assist.


Andrew Lockley

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 23:28 Aaron Franklin, > wrote:


"Dear Andrew,

I'm not sure I understand.  How do you propose to put the sulfate
into the stratosphere?  And will you be personally responsible for
your share of the risks associated with the impacts?

Alan"

Sounds like a good thing to set the kids on.

Lots of utube videos of youngsters making and sending balloons to 
apropriate altitudes. If you tame away all the electronics, then a budget under 
ten bucks should be suitable for a child friendly design, say solar hot air, to 
lift about a kilo.

If the kids want to shoulder the "responsibility for the share of the 
risk,". Who are we to deny them the chance. Good modelling and weather alerts to 
maximise the effects of each launch for the kids would be great if we can give it to them.

Perhaps they could earn bitcoins based on the modeled effects their launch 
has had.

Given that the 10kg per year figure is anything like ballpark, it could 
work out great pocket money!

Aaron Franklin

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020, 7:51 AM Andrew Lockley,
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

People have made some really valid points on this, but I'm
also very keen to know if I've done the maths right (first
post). If anyone has any comments please let me know.

A

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 20:43 Kevin Lister,
mailto:kevin.lister2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Alan,

No one disputes that it is prudent to mitigate as much as
we can. The question is how to quantify the upwards
pressure on CO2 emissions, both now and in the future, and
given an understanding of the upwards pressure then how
much mitigation do we realistically think we will achieve
in the best possible circumstance? So, if the expected
emissions are above a certain threshold, then SRM must be
considered, and that threshold is likely to be extremely
low, given the damage we are seeing to the ecosystem at
today’s levels of CO2.

It seems to me that upwards pressure on emissions is
likely to intensify despite progress in renewable energy.
This is driven by a global population heading towards 10
billion; by adaptation burdens from climate change such as
cities that have to be relocated in the face of sea level
rises; and with military arms races now being
unconstrained.  No body wants it to be this way, but that
is the way that it is. A simple game theoretical analysis
show the chance of a global agreement on getting the CO2
emission cuts to address climate change is in the in the
order of 6E-64 with the current approach.

So the only prudent way forward now is to start thinking
in detail about what an SRM programme would be and how we
would manage it.

Kevin

Sent from Mail
 for
Windows 10

*From: *Alan Robock ☮ 
*Sent: *10 April 2020 17:47
*To: *mmacc...@comcast.net ;
geoengineering 
*Subject: *Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget

Dear Mike,

That's what many of us are spending years trying to
assess.  Each potential benefit and risk has to be
evaluated, and the answers depend on the specific
scenarios of global warming and SRM implementation, as
well as many assumptions that are made. Since the answer
to your question is 

Re: [geo] 'Cloud brightening' won't have effect many are hoping for, scientists say | AccuWeather

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The ignorance of the journalist is shown by the headline.  Cloud 
brightening, by definition, has to produce cooling except in the polar 
winter. Maybe what they meant was that sea salt particles will not 
always brighten clouds.  We knew that already from Alterskjaer and 
Kristjansson (doi:10.1029/2012GL0524286) who showed that the wrong size 
of spray could warm.


Provided that we understand enough about the climate system to know when 
and where to spray and not spray it could be very useful to have a 
bi-directional control with a high frequency response and low phase 
lag.  Climate control engineers with instant satellite data will be able 
to change steering direction at the click of a mouse.


Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 11/04/2020 11:07, Andrew Lockley wrote:

For clarity, the relevant paper is here
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-0116-2

It has already been shared to the list, and was linked in the article.

Andrew

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020, 11:05 Peter Wadhams, > wrote:


This looks to me to be complete rubbish. Firstly, how does it put
a nail in the coffin of MCB when they are talking about sulphate
production?

"Science is clearly pointing to the fact that carbon-based human
activity is hurting our environment and there's only one pathway
to solve this -- less fossil fuel and no interference with nature."
What an arrogant statement based on his own personal prejudice and
ignorance (and the results of a single cruise). How do we "solve"
climate change by using less fossil fuel ? All we do is slow the
rate of warming - we still roast to death in the end. And notice
how he evokes "science" when what he means is "one cruise by a
promotion seeking scientist from a less than illustrious
university". He shows massive ignorance both of geoengineering and
of carbon dioxide removal.

Sometimes I wonder if scientists are worse than climate change
deniers as far as saving the planet is concerned
Prof Peter Wadhams





On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:26 AM Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Poster's note: I rarely post media reports on papers, but this
deserves wide attention. It may be the end of MCB


https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/cloud-brightening-wont-have-effect-many-are-hoping-for-scientists-say/718847



  'Cloud brightening' won't have effect many are hoping for,
  scientists say

By Brooks Hays, UPI,

Updated Apr. 10, 2020 9:09 PM

Copied

Partner Content

UPI





April 8 (UPI) -- Clouds form when water vapor condenses around
particles in the atmosphere. Some scientists have speculated
that fossil fuel emissions and other types of air pollution
will help seed bigger, brighter clouds -- clouds that will
reflect sunlight and slow global warming.

However, new research suggests the phenomenon known as "cloud
brightening" is likely to be counteracted by sea salt.

By studying cloud formation in the pollution-free skies above
the Southern Ocean, scientists were able to identify an
inverse relationship between sea salt availability and sulfate
aerosols.

"Greater sea-spray nuclei availability mostly suppresses
sulfate aerosol activation leading to an overall decrease in
cloud droplet concentrations," researchers wrote in their
paper on the topic, newly published in the journal Climate and
Atmospheric Science
.

In other words, the presence of sea salt is likely to diminish
the ability of pollution particles to seed and brighten clouds.

"This means that recent theories that increased sulphate
production can decrease the impact of climate change need to
be reconsidered," researcher Colin O'Dowd, professor of
atmospheric physics at the National University of Ireland
Galway, said in a news release. "Science is clearly pointing
to the fact that carbon-based human activity is hurting our
environment and there's only one pathway to solve this -- less
fossil fuel and no interference with nature."

In addition to smothering the hopes of supporters of climate
engineering efforts

,
the latest research could help climate 

Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget

[Stephen Salter]

 . . . . and how would you get it back down if things got too cold 
because of another Tambora?


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 10/04/2020 17:31, Alan Robock ☮ wrote:

Dear Andrew,

I'm not sure I understand.  How do you propose to put the sulfate into 
the stratosphere?  And will you be personally responsible for your 
share of the risks associated with the impacts?

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers UniversityE-mail:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  ☮http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
On 4/10/2020 12:13 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
I've just run some numbers on what my 'personal sulfate budget' might 
be. By the calculations below, if a typical person put 10kg sulphate 
in the stratosphere for every year of their life, they'd net out 
their entire RF carbon footprint for a century.


Obviously, this has a whole pile of caveats and flaws, but is it 
vaguely right? Is it a useful concept?


Here's the obvious caveats:
Need temporally and spatially even distribution
Doesn't work once CO2 forcing very high
Assumes full offset of future emissions, nil of historic
Termination shock, ocean acidification, Etc.

Andrew


-0.25 (W m-2)/ (Tg-S yr-1) from Wake
1.5 trillion tonnes CO2 historic 2017 
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#cumulative-co2-emissions

1.6 w/m2 Current RF 2010 (bit out of date)
Approx 1 Tt/W (calculated)
10t/capita/Yr CO2 only (UK), nearly 14 Co2e 
https://www.carbonindependent.org/23.html

To Offset everything all historic CO2 6Tg/yr
1 persons annual emissions is 1.5 x 100 billionths of the total ever 
emitted


Personal sulfate injection is therefore 6Tg x 1.5   / 100bn = about 
100g per year for 1y emissions only
If each person wants to offset a year's emissions for a century 
(negating 100y GWP), it's 100x More — ie 10kg per year

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05HKVDJ8aYPr3dxk_N2Zecnd9kwz3%3DUo8MECqKxe1mt6g%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/c04f414e-4da2-7a30-3890-2401ecc95727%40envsci.rutgers.edu 
.


--
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/11c5be05-5630-0b32-a74a-2873bf5cd952%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/11c5be05-5630-0b32-a74a-2873bf5cd952%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] From ENMOD to geoengineering: the environment as a weapon of war

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I write on behalf of vegetables which would be gravely affected by large 
reductions of CO2 concentration and have not even been consulted. Our 
contribution to human and animal welfare is totally ignored.  We 
understand why you might want to reduce ocean acidity but would like to 
see several solutions working in parallel harmony.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 09/04/2020 12:13, Renaud de RICHTER wrote:
I'm astonished about the legend under the 3rd figure: " S/olar 
radiation management techniques have greater potential for creating 
environmental security risks and transboundary effects than carbon 
dioxide removal./ "
I fully agree, but just by curiosity, as the title of the article is 
"*... the environment as a weapon of war*", has somebody already found 
that for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) there are " /environmental 
security risks and transboundary effects/" ???


I agree with the author statement: "/*One thing is certain*: the 
regulation of carbon dioxide removal techniques versus solar radiation 
management are approached very differently, the latter being perceived 
as a riskier, more contested form of geoengineering, and with wider 
implications.
*It therefore seems counterproductive to consider these two very 
different categories of GTs in proposals that merge them together *–/ 
/as the resolution did/."


Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 12:30, Stephen Salter <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> a écrit :


Hi All

If a technique which was very likely to be harmless or even
beneficial was being withheld, would that be a weapon of war?

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering,
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW,
Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>, Tel +44
(0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs
<http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power
for Change

On 09/04/2020 08:30, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Poster's note: a potentially relevant paper, not cited by the
author, is
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42524-019-0008-5



https://ceobs.org/from-enmod-to-geoengineering-the-environment-as-a-weapon-of-war/



  From ENMOD to geoengineering: the environment as a weapon of war

Category: Blog <https://ceobs.org/category/blog/>, Law and policy
<https://ceobs.org/category/blog/topic-blog/law-and-policy-topic-blog/>,
Slider <https://ceobs.org/category/slider/>, Topic
<https://ceobs.org/category/blog/topic-blog/>April 7, 2020
<https://ceobs.org/2020/04/07/>


  Without governance mechanisms, some geoengineering
  technologies could pose a threat to international peace and
  security.

The more our climate changes, the greater the pressure will be
for the development and deployment of geoengineering technologies
- we need to talk about the implications of this for peace and
security. Credit: NASA.

With climate change accelerating, there is increasing
pressure to develop new technologies that could suck CO2 from
the atmosphere or block the sun’s heat. Some of the
technologies under discussion could have unpredictable
effects that do not respect national boundaries. We also know
that critical civilian infrastructure is commonly targeted in
conflicts and that state and non-state actors have a long
history of manipulating the environment for tactical
advantage. With this in mind, Gabriela Kolpak examines
whether the deployment of geoengineering technologies could
create new threats to peace and to environmental security.


Introduction

Collateral environmental damage has long been regarded as an
inevitable consequence of armed conflicts. But there have also
been many examples of the intentional manipulation of the
environment by warring parties, in which the environment becomes
a weapon of war. This blog considers examples of environmental
warfare such as scorched earth policies and the weaponisation of
infrastructure, before examining how new technologies capable of
modifying the environment could contribute to future security
risks, or be instrumentalised in conflicts.

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

Re: [geo] From ENMOD to geoengineering: the environment as a weapon of war

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

If a technique which was very likely to be harmless or even beneficial 
was being withheld, would that be a weapon of war?


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 09/04/2020 08:30, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Poster's note: a potentially relevant paper, not cited by the author, 
is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42524-019-0008-5



https://ceobs.org/from-enmod-to-geoengineering-the-environment-as-a-weapon-of-war/ 




  From ENMOD to geoengineering: the environment as a weapon of war

Category: Blog , Law and policy 
, 
Slider , Topic 
April 7, 2020 




  Without governance mechanisms, some geoengineering technologies
  could pose a threat to international peace and security.

The more our climate changes, the greater the pressure will be for the 
development and deployment of geoengineering technologies - we need to 
talk about the implications of this for peace and security. Credit: NASA.


With climate change accelerating, there is increasing pressure to
develop new technologies that could suck CO2 from the atmosphere
or block the sun’s heat. Some of the technologies under discussion
could have unpredictable effects that do not respect national
boundaries. We also know that critical civilian infrastructure is
commonly targeted in conflicts and that state and non-state actors
have a long history of manipulating the environment for tactical
advantage. With this in mind, Gabriela Kolpak examines whether the
deployment of geoengineering technologies could create new threats
to peace and to environmental security.


Introduction

Collateral environmental damage has long been regarded as an 
inevitable consequence of armed conflicts. But there have also been 
many examples of the intentional manipulation of the environment by 
warring parties, in which the environment becomes a weapon of war. 
This blog considers examples of environmental warfare such as scorched 
earth policies and the weaponisation of infrastructure, before 
examining how new technologies capable of modifying the environment 
could contribute to future security risks, or be instrumentalised in 
conflicts.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05xeRE41Z47p6G4GvkmuJ%2Be0T9U_WRN0POShk0UB7dpqA%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/b1bff068-7c80-80b2-13b5-5d72d901c23d%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/b1bff068-7c80-80b2-13b5-5d72d901c23d%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] Evaluating the efficacy and equity of environmental stopgap measures

[Stephen Salter]

Douglas

I will put in the effort needed to understand the complications.  I also 
send papers to academic colleagues.  No publisher could object to near 
final drafts being sent.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 28/03/2020 13:51, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


Unfortunately the cause and effect go the other way – for any of us 
trying to get research done on a shoestring, we simply don’t have the 
resources to pay for open-access on top of that.  I can’t speak for 
this team, but for much of what our research group does, that would 
have to come out of my personal pocket.


I think the reason for near-zero funding is more complicated…

*From:*geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 *On Behalf Of *Stephen Salter

*Sent:* Saturday, March 28, 2020 7:44 AM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Holly J 
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Evaluating the efficacy and equity of 
environmental stopgap measures


Hi All

There would be a dramatic increase in the funding for solar 
geoengineering if this paper was not behind a pay-wall.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs <http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 28/03/2020 09:26, Renaud de RICHTER wrote:

Holly Jean Buck et al. *Evaluating the efficacy and equity of
environmental stopgap measures*
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0497-6>, /Nature
Sustainability/ (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-0497-6
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0497-6>

Researchers create framework for evaluating environmental stopgap
measures

*phys.org*/news/2020-03-framework-environmental-stopgap.html
<https://phys.org/news/2020-03-framework-environmental-stopgap.html>

March 27, 2020

The paper considers the possible effects of measures like *solar
geoengineering*, which involves spraying small amounts of
reflective aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away sunlight
and slow global warming. Credit: NASA/JSC Gateway to Astronaut
Photography of Earth

Ending global environmental crises such as climate change and
slowing the growing number of extinctions of plant and animal
species will require radical solutions that could take centuries
to implement. Meanwhile, the crises are damaging the planet and
human well-being in ways that cannot wait for perfect solutions.

So academics and other environmental leaders are turning their
focus to stopgap measures, which may not fully solve the bigger
problems but could mitigate the damage from climate change while
more complex, longer-term solutions are implemented.

A new paper in /Nature Sustainability/—written by 13 academics and
nonprofit organization leaders, including UCLA experts in science,
law and public policy
<https://phys.org/tags/public+policy/>—evaluates the effectiveness
of such measures and recommends a framework for evaluating them.

Environmental stopgap measures could include using hatcheries to
support wild salmon populations, for example, instead of fully
restoring salmon habitats. Or *solar geoengineering
<https://phys.org/tags/solar+geoengineering/>*—spraying small
amounts of reflective aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect
away sunlight and slow global warming—instead of the larger, more
complex processes of transitioning our society to be
carbon-neutral and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Recent history offers specific examples, said Holly Buck, a UCLA
postdoctoral scholar and lead author of the paper. Puerto Rico
turned to quick fixes after its power grid was ravaged by
Hurricane Maria, using gas-powered generators while more permanent
infrastructure was rebuilt.

And in 2019, Pacific Gas & Electric cut off electricity to more
than 2 million people during periods of extreme wildfire risk in
California, recognizing that equipment failures had been linked to
five of the 10 most destructive fires in the state since 2015.

The paper sheds light on the social implications of climate change
<https://phys.org/tags/climate+change/>solutions, where previous
research tended to focus mostly on the measures' technical and
engineering perspectives.

"We're asking questions about who wins, who loses and who makes
the decisions," Buck said. "That will make the discussion more
robust."

The framework for evaluating stopgap measures comprises eight
criteria:

  

Re: [geo] Evaluating the efficacy and equity of environmental stopgap measures

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

There would be a dramatic increase in the funding for solar 
geoengineering if this paper was not behind a pay-wall.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 28/03/2020 09:26, Renaud de RICHTER wrote:
Holly Jean Buck et al. *Evaluating the efficacy and equity of 
environmental stopgap measures* 
, /Nature 
Sustainability/(2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-0497-6 



Researchers create framework for evaluating environmental stopgap 
measures
*phys.org*/news/2020-03-framework-environmental-stopgap.html 



March 27, 2020

The paper considers the possible effects of measures like *solar 
geoengineering*, which involves spraying small amounts of reflective 
aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away sunlight and slow 
global warming. Credit: NASA/JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of 
Earth


Ending global environmental crises such as climate change and slowing 
the growing number of extinctions of plant and animal species will 
require radical solutions that could take centuries to implement. 
Meanwhile, the crises are damaging the planet and human well-being in 
ways that cannot wait for perfect solutions.


So academics and other environmental leaders are turning their focus 
to stopgap measures, which may not fully solve the bigger problems but 
could mitigate the damage from climate change while more complex, 
longer-term solutions are implemented.


A new paper in /Nature Sustainability/—written by 13 academics and 
nonprofit organization leaders, including UCLA experts in science, law 
and public policy —evaluates the 
effectiveness of such measures and recommends a framework for 
evaluating them.


Environmental stopgap measures could include using hatcheries to 
support wild salmon populations, for example, instead of fully 
restoring salmon habitats. Or *solar geoengineering 
*—spraying small amounts 
of reflective aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away sunlight 
and slow global warming—instead of the larger, more complex processes 
of transitioning our society to be carbon-neutral and removing carbon 
dioxide from the atmosphere.


Recent history offers specific examples, said Holly Buck, a UCLA 
postdoctoral scholar and lead author of the paper. Puerto Rico turned 
to quick fixes after its power grid was ravaged by Hurricane Maria, 
using gas-powered generators while more permanent infrastructure was 
rebuilt.


And in 2019, Pacific Gas & Electric cut off electricity to more than 2 
million people during periods of extreme wildfire risk in California, 
recognizing that equipment failures had been linked to five of the 10 
most destructive fires in the state since 2015.


The paper sheds light on the social implications of climate change 
solutions, where previous 
research tended to focus mostly on the measures' technical and 
engineering perspectives.


"We're asking questions about who wins, who loses and who makes the 
decisions," Buck said. "That will make the discussion more robust."


The framework for evaluating stopgap measures comprises eight criteria:

  * Short-term effectiveness
  * Risks and harms
  * So-called distributional effects—that is, who wins and who loses
  * Whether there is a cost-effective path toward an economically
viable permanent solution
  * Whether it will act as a barrier to future solutions
  * How it will enable long-term goals to be realized
  * Whether there is a mechanism to move from short-term to long-term
goals
  * If it includes a process to evaluate long-term solutions and paths
to get there

The paper applied that framework to stratospheric aerosol injections, 
a type of *solar geoengineering* that could be used as stopgap until 
the ultimate goal of halting emissions and removing carbon dioxide 
from the atmosphere can be achieved.


The authors examined the approach because it is promising but has 
raised controversy. Early tests show it would be highly effective and 
come with few economic tradeoffs, and it performed well when judged by 
some of the criteria listed in the paper. But it is less clear whether 
*solar geoengineering* might put at risk communities, groups or 
nations that are short on resources. In addition, stopgap measures 
often raise concerns about whether they will create disincentives for 
more urgent actions to reduce emissions and remove carbon from the 
atmosphere.


"The real question is, when do these environmental stopgaps become an 
excuse for not moving 

Re: [geo] sulfate aerosol geoengineering modelled by solar dimming

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

But you also have to consider outgoing long wave radiation especially in 
winter.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 17/02/2020 08:35, Olivier Boucher wrote:


Dear Tamas,

there are typically 3 effects that govern RF by stratospheric aerosols 
as a function of latitude for a given aerosol burden. Let's think in 
terms of solar zenith angle (one has then to integrate over SZA which 
is a function of latitude and season)


1/ insolation decreases with SZA as cos(theta) where theta is the SZA

2/ air mass increases with  SZA as 1/cos(theta), of course the effect 
this has breaks down at some point because of multiple scattering


3/ upscattering function also increases with SZA (because more forward 
scattering contributes to upscattering).


You could assume 1/ and 2/ cancel each other at first approximation, 
so because of 3/ there is indeed more RF at larger SZA. In fact there 
is an optimum around SZA=60° but that depends on the AOD and how much 
multiple scattering there is.


Now life is a bit more complicated, as transport and aerosol size 
varies also.


In any case, the climate response is not a copy-paste of the spatial 
distribution of the RF. It matters but not too much. And it matters 
more for rapid adjustments than for feedbacks. See eg 
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JD021110


Regards,

Olivier



Dear All,

I would like to ask for some useful references about sulfate aerosol geoengineering. 
Assuming some uniform aerosol coverage around the globe, at some height, with a certain 
vertical layer thickness, i would imagine that at higher latitudes the radiative forcing 
exerted by the aerosols is larger due to the longer distance of travel of sun rays 
through the aerosol "cloud". As a consequence, the latitude-dependence of the 
downward-directed radiative forcing should have an even larger gradient than solar 
irradiance. Therefore, I’m wondering how big mistake it is to model such a geoengineering 
scenario by dimming the sun.

Any feedback or reference would be much appreciated.

Thank you,

Tamas


--

--
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/47fba577-d1ff-de51-6636-f87c391fc1bb%40lmd.jussieu.fr 
.


--
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/2ecbd308-7da2-acab-e310-f4fff1932114%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/2ecbd308-7da2-acab-e310-f4fff1932114%40ed.ac.uk.

[geo] Pine island Glacier bust

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/antarctica-pine-island-glacier/

Stephen

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


--
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/fcf2e2a2-2ba2-d9c3-831b-9ee3233a9774%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/fcf2e2a2-2ba2-d9c3-831b-9ee3233a9774%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] Weakening of the extratropical storm tracks in idealized solar geoengineering scenarios

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Do the brown bits in figure S1 mean polar warming would be caused by 
solar dimming in all six models?


Stephen

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


On 09/02/2020 07:39, Andrew Lockley wrote:



  [PDF] Weakening of the extratropical storm tracks in idealized
  solar geoengineering scenarios
  


CG Gertler, PA O'Gorman, B Kravitz, JC Moore…


Key Points:
• Northern extratropical storm tracks weaken by comparable amounts 
under idealized

global warming and solar geoengineering scenarios
• Southern extratropical storm track strengthens under idealized 
global warming, but

weakens under idealized solar geoengineering
• Storm track intensity changes quantitatively consistent with changes 
in mean temperature

structure and moisture content
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06n8P%2BZBY49E3hLS%2BvDJg-k73XOd7sat7xuPS1-Y1MZPA%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/a1a8e763-5490-63d2-0094-7fb3a47a16b7%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/a1a8e763-5490-63d2-0094-7fb3a47a16b7%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] A Small Provision in the FY20 Spending Package Deserves a Much Bigger Discussion SHUCHI TALATI

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Shame about no mention of the troposphere.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 662 1180 WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 24/01/2020 21:26, Andrew Lockley wrote:


https://blog.ucsusa.org/shuchi-talati/provision-in-fy20-spending-package-deserves-bigger-discussion 



A Small Provision in the FY20 Spending Package Deserves a Much Bigger 
Discussion
SHUCHI TALATI, SOLAR GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH, GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC 
ENGAGEMENT FELLOW | JANUARY 24, 2020, 2:36 PM EST



Bookmark and Share
The appropriations process is what Congress uses to make decisions 
about how the federal government will spend discretionary funds – 
funds that aren’t already designated to mandatory spending. The 
process is confusing, convoluted, and often gets behind schedule: the 
2020 fiscal year appropriations process, for example, finally came to 
a close a few months after FY20 began. The spending package that 
passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president in 
December 2019 accounts for $1.4 trillion in spending, from national 
defense to housing to climate science.


Within that almost incomprehensible amount, there was a small, yet 
important $4 million earmark that merits scrutiny: the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was given this money 
specifically to conduct solar geoengineering research, the first time 
in the United States that Congress has allocated money to a federal 
agency to do so. It’s a small pot of money, but it’s important to 
understand the context in which it was allocated. Currently, two 
critical processes to help design solar geoengineering research 
governance are taking place, and there are consequences to the federal 
government jumping ahead of their results. For something as 
controversial and dangerous as solar geoengineering, we have to get 
the governance right.


Some context
Solar geoengineering describes a controversial set of proposed 
approaches to limit warming by reflecting sunlight to cool the planet. 
The most widely discussed approach is stratospheric aerosol injection 
(SAI), a method that would inject aerosols into the stratosphere, 
which is an upper layer of Earth’s atmosphere. These aerosol particles 
would then reflect sunlight and could rapidly cool the planet, 
offsetting warming from global warming emissions for a relatively low 
direct cost. However, such measures come with significant risks and 
uncertainties – scientists, for example, do not fully understand the 
impacts of such measures on global weather patterns. There are also 
legitimate risks to geopolitical stability and these approaches do not 
address the underlying cause of climate change. However, when 
considered as part of a portfolio of approaches to address climate 
change, solar geoengineering could limit harm while we scale up 
mitigation, adaptation and carbon removal efforts.


Solar geoengineering research is in nascent stages and has been 
largely limited to computer modeling. More modeling research is 
certainly needed, and there are now proposals for small-scale outdoor 
experiments, such as Harvard University’s SCoPEx project. But moving 
forward with solar geoengineering requires us to first establish 
robust governance. Lack of governance on any scale is arguably the 
most dangerous aspect of geoengineering, including governance for 
research. Research governance is critical for solar geoengineering 
since it is a technology that poses global impacts, even at the 
experimental stage. It ideally includes oversight, transparency, and 
measures to ensure that the public and a diverse set of stakeholders 
can participate in important decisions. There has been debate on 
whether and how a federal program in the United States may conduct, 
fund, and oversee future research, but thus far such a program does 
not yet exist.


Right now, a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) is writing a report on developing 
solar geoengineering research priorities and approaches for research 
governance. This highly anticipated report is expected to provide 
detailed guidance on next steps in both research and oversight–a 
report that NOAA itself is helping fund. Importantly, National 
Academies reports provide legitimacy in their recommendations through 
a diverse and well-respected committee, thorough literature review, 
and external consultation. Due out in a matter of months, this report 
likely will be a basis on which future governance discussions and 
actions are built.


There is also an independent advisory committee in place to provide 
governance for the first outdoor small-scale experiment, the 
Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment, or SCoPEx for short, 
at Harvard University. This committee is working to produce an 
inclusive 

[geo] Arctic sea route

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site

   
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/12/moscow-adopts-15-year-grand-plan-northern-sea-route

has stuff about what might, quite likely, happen with less Arctic ice.

Stephen


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


--
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/136c9893-99fa-6cdd-594c-2e5cec46abe4%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/136c9893-99fa-6cdd-594c-2e5cec46abe4%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] CURRENT GEOENGINEERING PROPOSALS FOR THE POLAR REGIONS

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I have sent a message to Anja Chalmin to ask if she would like to see 
calculations about the use of marine cloud brightening to save the 
Arctic ice.  On reasonable assumptions we would need fewer than 100 
spray vessels operating for a month either side of the summer equinox in 
water flowing north, but clear of the ice.  They could move to the Cape 
Verde Islands for the rest of the year to moderate hurricanes.  I will 
let you know if she asks for them but nobody from the ETC group or the 
Heinrich Bőll Foundation has replied to my previous invitations.


If anyone else  would like to check my calculations or suggest other 
input assumptions, please send me your email address.


Stephen

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

On 20/12/2019 15:33, Andrew Lockley wrote:


http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2019/12/current-geoengineering-proposals-for-the-polar-regions/ 



CURRENT GEOENGINEERING PROPOSALS FOR THE POLAR REGIONS
DEC 19 2019
Weddell seals are one of the many members of the Antarctic ecosystem 
that would be affected by massive geoengineering proposals. photo: 
GRID-Arendal

by Anja Chalmin

The recently-published IPCC “Special Report on the Ocean and 
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate” states that surface air temperatures 
in the polar regions are rising at a rate higher than the global 
average and that polar areas continue to lose sea ice and snow cover. 
In the face of fossil fuel use that is likely to burn through carbon 
budgets, geoengineers have put forward large-scale proposals with the 
stated aim of restoring polar-ice or to slow the melting processes 
through interventions in the polar regions. Some of the proposals, and 
the concerns that have been raised about them, are outlined below.


Reflective materials as surface-cover

An organisation called Ice911 has proposed covering Arctic ice with a 
layer of floating reflective material to reflect more sunlight and to 
slow the melting of Arctic ice. The non-profit was founded in 2007 by 
Leslie Fields and is based in Menlo Park, California. The proposed 
cover material is a reflective silica glass and consists mostly of 
silicon dioxide. The silica glass has the shape of tiny glass spheres. 
Since 2010, Ice911 has conducted outdoor trials at five different test 
sitesi. Different materials were tested for their suitability and 
reflectivity on frozen lakes in the US and Canada.


The project’s largest test site is the Arctic North Meadow Lake near 
Utqiaġvik, in Alaska. The surface of the shallow lake is used to test 
various reflective materials as well as the efficiency of different 
application techniques. The outdoor trials on North Meadow Lake 
started during winter 2015/2016. In the following two years the 
testing area on the lake covered 15,000 to 17,500 m².


According to Ice911 these works were carried out in partnership with 
Indigenous, local, regional and global communities. However, some 
community members say they have little or no knowledge of the trials, 
while raising questions about the ecological impacts of the project 
activities. The effects on photosynthesis, on animals’ feeding 
patterns, changes to the hydrologic cycle and weather patterns, and 
other unintended effects in delicate arctic ecosystems are among the 
concerns that have been raised.


Since 2018, Ice911 has been looking for funding and governmental 
permissions to conduct large-scale testing with reflective materials 
on arctic ice. These tests form part of Leslie Field’s proposal to 
cover 15.000 km² to 100.000 km² with silica glass in selected arctic 
regions, e.g. in Fram Strait or Beaufort Gyre. In May 2019 she 
announced the first tests on sea ice within a period of one to three 
years.


Perhaps most importantly, the current knowledge of the silica glass’ 
behaviour in the environment and on plant and animal life is 
insufficient. The impacts in the target regions or on regional cycles 
or global weather patterns are difficult to determine.


Sea walls and artificial islands for the stabilisation of outlet glaciers

Increased melting of glaciers and ice sheets may also be caused by 
warm ocean currents. In 2018, John C. Moore, Michael Wolovick, and 
others from the US-American Princeton University and the Finish 
University of Lapland proposed three different potential megaprojects 
that they hypothesize could delay global sea-level rise by stabilizing 
three fast-moving outlet glaciers: Pine Island glacier and Thwaites 
glacier in western Antarctica and Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland. The 
three glaciers spread from the continent to the ocean and float on top 
of the ocean water. Warmer ocean currents at a water depth of 300 to 
500 metres melt the glaciers from below. To avoid that the glaciers 
lose 

Re: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

If higher altitudes give longer life and so lower spray quantities they 
also  give a slower frequency response, longer phase lag and a greater 
chance of being stuck with what you do not want such as reflecting 
energy back down during Arctic winters as pointed out by Jan-Egil 
Kristjansson.


Advocates for marine cloud brightening are pleased about the short life 
of spray to give a high frequency response and the ability to stop 
Arctic cooling in the autumn before, it too, works the wrong way.


Stephen


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

On 17/12/2019 12:36, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Considering all effects, what's your view on the ideal height?

Andrew

On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 08:47 Govindasamy Bala, > wrote:


26 km is probably not going to add any more benefit compared 25 km
if you consider the effect identified in our paper but it is
better when sedimentation effect is considered. More experiments
with the NCAR WACCM model would be good to precisely nail this down.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:10 PM Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Is 26k less good than 25?

On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 08:37 Govindasamy Bala,
mailto:bala@gmail.com>> wrote:

Andrew,

Sedimentation effect works in the same direction as the
effect we identified in our study. Therefore, higher the
altitude of injection, the better. My judgement: 25 km
would be good.

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:54 PM Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

So what's your judgement on the ideal injection altitude?

Andrew

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 10:36 Govindasamy Bala,
mailto:bala@gmail.com>> wrote:

Andrew,
Many modeling groups (e.g. Tilmes and others) have
already performed simulations that inject aerosols
at different heights and thus have included the
sedimentation effects and many many other effects.
These studies simulate the NET effects and hence
hard to interpret and quantify the individual
effects. The strength of our ESD paper is that it
changes only one variable and identifies its
individual contribution to the total problem.

What we have learnt during the course is that
there are too many variables in the aerosol SRM
problem (transport, location of injection,
aerosol-cloud interaction, aerosol-radiation
interaction, aerosol micro physics and the
resulting size distribution of the aerosols, etc.)
and the resulting uncertainties could be too
large. This is of course known to many of us for a
long time..

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 3:41 PM Andrew Lockley
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

If I understand from the email below , you
used aerosols with no fall speed. Are
experiments planned to simulate aerosol descent?

Andrew

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 05:43 Govindasamy Bala,
mailto:bala@gmail.com>> wrote:

Andrews,

We did not do experiments with aerosols
above 22 km. It is likely that the cooling
effect will be larger when aerosols are at
25 km. Beyond that it is likely that the
additional cooling benefits disappear. We
need more experiments to confirm this.

The sensitivity to height in our paper
arises mainly because of the increases in
stratospheric water vapor (which partly
offsets the cooling efficiency of the
aerosols) that is associated with the
stratospheric heating by the aerosols.
This increase in stratospheric water vapor
is largest when the aerosols (and the
heating) is close to the tropopause.

In our paper, we have isolated the effect
of just one factor. As Doug has pointed
   

[geo] Who's Who od climate change denial

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site

https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

has a useful collection of names and quite lengthy biographies of 
climate change deniers.  Information includes education, publications 
affiliations and donations.


They are in alphabetical order with 19 names starting with the letter 
A,  43 beginning with B, 32 with C . . .


. . . . .

 . . . none with X and only 5 with Z.

Stephen


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


--
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/fe5860b1-56bc-3bd6-e9b6-f2e875b2c0eb%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/fe5860b1-56bc-3bd6-e9b6-f2e875b2c0eb%40ed.ac.uk.

[geo] Hot blobbery

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Check out

https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/interview-the-pacific-ocean-blob-returns

This sound bad.   If only there was some way of target-cooling a 
particular sea area at short notice.


Stephen

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


--
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/e6f0b639-cfaa-a838-a8c8-be84c3aac01c%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/e6f0b639-cfaa-a838-a8c8-be84c3aac01c%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] Re: Green New Deal For Europe and Geoengineering

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The GND Blueprint report contains a number of mistakes about marine 
cloud brightening.  A significant point is that not one of the 35 people 
who produced the report made any request for information at least to me.


Stephen

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


On 06/09/2019 18:22, p.j.irvine wrote:

Hi Gideon,

I'd be interested in helping out here.

Pete

On Monday, 2 September 2019 04:42:53 UTC-4, Gideon Futerman wrote:

Today Green New deal for Europe released their draft report for
public consultation, where they speak extensively in Appendix A
about geoengineering, both CDR and SRM, essentially rejecting them
as part of a possible solution. Interestingly, they have very few
citations when discussing SRM, as compared to CDR. This is open
for public consultation, and so, if anyone has any critiscms, it
may be an idea to submit them to the GND for Europe movement.

https://report.gndforeurope.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf



The geoengineering section is on page 64

--
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/e6c9dc4f-4296-4591-b61a-924e9a6d396b%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/762c7ee9-75f0-6a25-bc27-0f8974620d17%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/762c7ee9-75f0-6a25-bc27-0f8974620d17%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] A Process Study on Thinning of Arctic Winter Cirrus Clouds With High‐Resolution ICON‐ART Simulations

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site reply.en...@reply.e.change.org  has a suggestion that 
hurricanes should be named after fossil fuel companies




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

On 14/08/2019 02:11, Andrew Lockley wrote:


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JD029815

A Process Study on Thinning of Arctic Winter Cirrus Clouds With 
High‐Resolution ICON‐ART Simulations
Simon Gruber Ulrich Blahak Florian Haenel Christoph Kottmeier Thomas 
Leisner … See all authors

First published: 22 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029815
About
Sections

Share on
Abstract
In this study, cloud‐resolving simulations of a case study for a 
limited area of the hibernal Arctic were performed with the 
atmospheric modeling system ICON‐ART (ICOsahedral 
Nonhydrostatic‐Aerosol and Reactive Trace gases). A thorough 
comparison with data both from satellite as well as aircraft 
measurement is presented to validate the simulations. In addition, the 
model is applied to clarify the microphysical processes occurring when 
introducing artificial aerosol particles into the upper troposphere 
with the aim of modifying cirrus clouds in the framework of climate 
engineering. Former modeling studies investigating the climate effect 
of this method were performed with simplifying assumptions and much 
coarser resolution, reaching partly contradicting conclusions 
concerning the method's effectiveness. The primary effect of seeding 
is found to be a reduction of ice crystal number concentrations in 
cirrus clouds, leading to increased outgoing longwave radiative fluxes 
at the top of the atmosphere, thereby creating a cooling effect. 
Furthermore, a secondary effect is found, as ice crystals formed from 
the injected seeding aerosol particles lead to enhanced riming of 
cloud droplets within the planetary boundary layer. This effectively 
reduces the coverage of mixed‐phase clouds, thus generating additional 
cooling by increased upward longwave radiative fluxes at the surface. 
The efficacy of seeding cirrus clouds proves to be relatively 
independent from the atmospheric background conditions, scales with 
the number concentrations of seeding particles, and is highest for 
large aerosol particles.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06mvm301tB%3D420v7o9PFeMOFQ7iWmHA%3D8Scjrbafzqmbg%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/7d827066-ad35-3856-3a20-6c96907f84b5%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/7d827066-ad35-3856-3a20-6c96907f84b5%40ed.ac.uk.

[geo] Glacier melt rate

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

If you thought that things were not quite as bad as all that check out

https://physicsworld.com/a/underwater-surface-of-glacier-is-melting-up-to-100-times-faster-than-previously-thought/?utm_medium=email_source=iop_term=_campaign=14290-43159_content=Image%3A%20Underwater%20surface%20of%20glacier%20is%20melting%20up%20to%20100%20times%20faster%20than%20previously%20thought%20-%20Editors_pick

I hope that most model prediction errors are less than two orders of 
magnitude.


Stephen

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


--
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/194f898e-c8e9-1aa6-b4a2-8b3541724a0c%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/194f898e-c8e9-1aa6-b4a2-8b3541724a0c%40ed.ac.uk.

[geo] Arctic fires

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/arctic-forest-fires-record/?utm_source=Iterable_medium=email_campaign=UK_26_July_2019_content_digest_alive

has scary stuff about Arctic fires.

Stephen

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



--
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/31ec9fc2-f297-4188-b7ed-c7ece521aa5d%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/31ec9fc2-f297-4188-b7ed-c7ece521aa5d%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/07/25/boris-johnson-s-cabinet-most-anti-climate-action-ever

has profiles of the new UK cabinet with regard to their views on climate 
change.


This may be relevant to the suicide rate finding discussed below.

Stephen

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


On 27/07/2019 12:25, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Poster's note: this is interesting, as it could conceivably be used as 
a justification for near-term, tropospheric, Regional SRM. It would be 
interesting to see a modelling study on such an Intervention. If lives 
could be saved quickly and reliably, that would add an important 
dimension to the governance debate.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0222-x


  Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and
  Mexico

  * Marshall Burke
,
  * Felipe González
,
  * […]
  * Solomon Hsiang


/Nature Climate Change/volume 8, pages723–729 (2018) | Download 
Citation 



Abstract

Linkages between climate and mental health are often theorized but 
remain poorly quantified. In particular, it is unknown whether the 
rate of suicide, a leading cause of death globally, is systematically 
affected by climatic conditions. Using comprehensive data from 
multiple decades for both the United States and Mexico, we find that 
suicide rates rise 0.7% in US counties and 2.1% in Mexican 
municipalities for a 1 °C increase in monthly average temperature. 
This effect is similar in hotter versus cooler regions and has not 
diminished over time, indicating limited historical adaptation. 
Analysis of depressive language in >600 million social media updates 
further suggests that mental well-being deteriorates during warmer 
periods. We project that unmitigated climate change (RCP8.5) could 
result in a combined 9–40 thousand additional suicides (95% confidence 
interval) across the United States and Mexico by 2050, representing a 
change in suicide rates comparable to the estimated impact of economic 
recessions, suicide prevention programmes or gun restriction laws.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-0741tBOxX1a-ycVW5B4KvUCxwwhgzQKQzQt3uT-JNafNw%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/f8454663-9879-64a5-f1da-503fcfc5d243%40ed.ac.uk.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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/f8454663-9879-64a5-f1da-503fcfc5d243%40ed.ac.uk.

Re: [geo] Do contrails warm or cool?

[Stephen Salter]

Dave

Water vapour is indeed a strong greenhouse gas and retains about 2.5 
times more  heat but fortunately it condenses back to liquid much more 
easily than CO2.


Kevin Trenberth 1987 gives the average mass of water in the atmosphere 
as 1.46 x 10^16 kg which you can compare with annual jet fuel 
consumption. This would be a liquid level of 2.86 centimetre of the 
earth's surface. This amount will increase as we warm the sea. Most of 
it is quite low in the atmosphere.


The evaporation /condensation residence time is about 10 days so the 
water comes out very easily.  Let me know if you would like papers about 
a way that might do this removal by cooling the sea surface. The method 
would also help Arctic ice, coral, hurricanes, sea level rise but nobody 
seems to want to do any of these.


Stephen




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

On 25/07/2019 20:57, Dave Stanley wrote:
Alan/Stephen, I follow the geoengineering site as an environmentalist 
particularly interested in global warming. Also particularly 
interested in this contrail issue – as an ex-fighter pilot many years 
ago.
My recollection is that contrails are also, under certain Met 
conditions, emitted by piston engined aircraft within the troposphere, 
and of course  jet engines in the stratosphere. Understand the point 
about uncertainty as to the net global warming effect of contrails.
However, I understand that water vapour is responsible for around 65% 
of the greenhouse effect.
And that has temperature decreases with altitude within the 
troposphere but increases in the stratosphere there is little exchange 
of air mass between the two?
Does this therefore imply that aircraft flying within the stratosphere 
and burning fossil fuels are increasing both water vapour and carbon 
dioxide levels in the stratosphere?


Suggests that the global warming impact exceeds that of 
straightforward CO2 emitted per kilogram of fuel? Or is this allegedly 
account for with the IPCC 1.8 X factor?


Impact in ozone in the stratosphere?


Tread Lightly!

Dave

Dave Stanley
Holly House
Camp Lane
Grimley
Worcester
WR26LX
01905 641529
07966528564
www.tochallengethethinking.co.uk <http://www.tochallengethethinking.co.uk>
www.pastureforlife.org <http://www.pastureforlife.org>




On 15 Jul 2019, at 15:31, Stephen Salter <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:



Alan

1.  The contrailscience site you give is an excellent source about 
detecting contrails but my question was how you can tell no contrails 
from very clear skies.  I show two pictures below.  Which is which?





2. I suggest that clarity is 'clearness' in skies, language and optics.

3. The mention of  a factor 30 was in the 2002 Nature paper.

https://www.nature.com/articles/418601aSnips are

Snips are:






A relevant factor might be the financial consequences of a reduced 
permission to burn hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.


A possibly relevant paper is attached.

Stephen





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

On 15/07/2019 14:05, Alan Robock wrote:

1. Contrailscience.com <http://Contrailscience.com>

2.  What is clarity?

3.  Where? When?  I have never heard this claim before. Please show 
us the data.


Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Associate Editor, /Reviews of Geophysics/
Department of Environmental Sciences      Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>

14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock

On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:45 AM, Stephen Salter <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:



Alan

1. How can you tell the difference between clear weather and no 
contrails?


2. Do contrails affect weather clarity?

3. Is there a reason why it was the clearest of clear weather for 
30 years?


Stephen

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


On 14/07/2019 15:51, Alan Robock wrote:
See also 
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html for 
a discussion of several papers on this.


Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Associate Editor, /Reviews of Geophysics/
Department of Environmental Sciences            Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
<mailto:rob...@e

Re: [geo] Do contrails warm or cool?

[Stephen Salter]

Alan

1. How can you tell the difference between clear weather and no contrails?

2. Do contrails affect weather clarity?

3. Is there a reason why it was the clearest of clear weather for 30 years?

Stephen

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


On 14/07/2019 15:51, Alan Robock wrote:
See also 
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html for a 
discussion of several papers on this.


Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Associate Editor, /Reviews of Geophysics/
Department of Environmental Sciences  Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 


14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock

On Jul 14, 2019, at 8:47 AM, Alan Robock > wrote:


The reported warming after 9/11 was actually a change in diurnal 
temperature range. Kalkstein and Balling found that it was just clear 
weather and not lack of contrails. 
https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/cr2004/26/c026p001.pdf


Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Associate Editor, /Reviews of Geophysics/
Department of Environmental Sciences  Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 


14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock

On Jul 14, 2019, at 7:00 AM, Seb Eastham > wrote:



Hi John ,

Inconveniently, they do both. They reflect and scatter incoming 
solar radiation (cooling effect) but also absorb outgoing longwave 
(warming). At night they are purely warming, but during the day the 
net effect can be either - depending strongly on whether there are 
clouds beneath them (decreases cooling benefit), the surface albedo 
(sea is dark so contrail benefits are greater), and the surface 
temperature. Kärcher wrote an excellent review article in 2018 
(Formation and radiative forcing of contrail cirrus) covering the 
degree of uncertainty in all this - since we have very poor records 
of total coverage and properties, the exact balance between warming 
and cooling is also highly uncertain.


Regards,

Seb

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 08:40 john gorman > wrote:


The report that got me into this was a research paper showing
that the lack of contrails just after 911 allowed a warming of
the atmosphere. So I came up with an idea to increase and
simulate the cooling effect of contrails. At the time I had
never heard of the this group or the word geoengineering.

I now see in a recent post that contrails warm the earth.

Which is correct?

John Gorman

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5d29a2ee.1c69fb81.57666.3e93SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com

.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAGb9uZsZgCSSaugj_KU8P%2BFt%2Ba14pBpAkzG1Gr3KJY%2BrDCbXQg%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 

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

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Some of my very best friends are vegetables and they really need CO2 
especially if we have to grow more of them.


Suppose that we could put temperature patterns, ice cover and sea level 
back to pre-industrial but leave cabbage-friendly amounts of CO2 just 
below the shell-fish point?  Does anyone have a number?


Stephen

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


On 11/07/2019 11:22, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


1.So agree with you that if you want to accurately characterize the 
Paris agreement on this plot, the line should corresponding to that 
should only go to 2030 and then stop. That is, not what you drew.  
Also agree that I was wrong in my interpretation of what you meant by 
that line; I was misled by the fact that you’d continued the line out 
towards the right-hand end of the plot rather than ending it in 2030 
like you intended.


2.Agree that there is uncertainty associated with this, and 
uncertainty associated with nonlinearity in particular.  I generally 
go back to Cao and Caldeira 2010, 
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024011/pdf, 
simply because Figure 1 has the nicest plot of the effect, but UVic is 
admittedly an old model with a lot missing and a questionable carbon 
cycle… but there is quite a bit of content on this in IPCC reports 
that would be good to digest before ignoring (that is, broadly the 
same behaviour is seen in current models, though again, I agree that 
there is potentially important physics missing from those models). But 
people (well, mostly John Nissen) keep making the argument you’re 
making on the assumption that zero emissions = constant 
concentrations, which is simply not true.


3.I think we agree that the choice is non-obvious, but I personally 
don’t think it is likely that <280ppm is going to be optimal, so I 
still don’t think it is particularly disingenuous to draw the line as 
it was.  (Besides, the axis was climate effects, presumably relative 
to some baseline, and if that baseline is preindustrial, then going 
below 280ppm is likely to increase climate damages in the opposite 
direction… but agree that I don’t know that, and that it would be 
wonderful to ever be in a situation where that question matters.)


4.I would never use the word “assertion” with regards to a schematic 
figure like that…  though as someone who uses (my own version) of this 
diagram frequently, I agree with you that when I talk about it I 
should be a bit more careful with regards to how I talk about where 
the SRM line goes.


(And yes, John’s napkin is the first I know of that diagram, I don’t 
know what paper that specific version came from, it looks nearly 
identical to the one that I typically use, but with different fonts.  
I think I more or less copied the version I use from one that David 
Keith was using, so it is hardly surprising that plenty of us have our 
own independent but very similar versions.)


*From:*Robert Tulip 
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 9:35 PM
*To:* Douglas MacMartin ; Andrew Lockley 

*Cc:* Stephen Salter ; geoengineering 

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


Response to comments from Doug MacMartin and Andrew Lockley

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


· Sorry Doug, but you completely miss the point.  Under the Paris 
Accord, Image removed by sender.Nationally Determined Contributions 
<https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs> 
have been made to 2030. These indicate a cut of <10% in annual 
emission growth by 2030, from about 60 GTCO2e under BAU to 56.2 GT 
Image removed by sender.(2016 report page 9) 
<https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2016/cop22/eng/02.pdf>, 
and still way above the current level.  Including that in the chart as 
I suggested would accurately reflect the marginal impact of current 
climate policy.  It does not in any way imply that emission reduction 
could not be more than has been already agreed under Paris, as shown 
with the “aggressive” line on the chart.  It might ratchet up, and 
economic forces might increase the cut to a still marginal 20%, but 
seeing the political reaction to efforts to make energy more expensive 
I am not holding my breath for more aggressive emission cuts.


“2.   Most

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

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

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


Stephen

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

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


This diagram from the paper says it all in my opinion, and 
simply!!Figure 1. Potential Effects of Solar Radiation Management in 
Long-Term Climate Policy


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


Good realistic paper!

John gorman

*From: *Benoit Lambert 
*Sent: *09 July 2019 18:39
*To: *Carbon Dioxide Removal 

*Subject: *[CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // 
Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération


blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // Elon Musk vs le 
développement de régénération


https://cologie.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/elon-musk-vs-regenerative-development-elon-musk-vs-le-developpement-de-regeneration-french-below-en-francais-plus-bas/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8b7c44ee-316a-4c1b-af45-666ec73df1fe%40googlegroups.com 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5d25a35f.1c69fb81.4c0a8.6ed0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/913f2925-04bc-01db-6b95-99c9cfba%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/913f2925-04bc-01db-6b95-99c9cfba%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] EDF - our position on geoengineering

[Stephen Salter]

Gernot

Do you have an update?  Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are still 
accelerating.


Stephen

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


On 01/07/2019 12:30, Gernot Wagner wrote:

This is from...2015.

Gernot Wagner, New York University
gwagner.com 

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, 04:36 Andrew Lockley > wrote:



https://www.edf.org/climate/our-position-geoengineering

Our position on geoengineering
Based on our best understanding of the current science, EDF
believes that:

Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases as rapidly as possible is
essential to addressing the climate challenge facing humanity.
Deliberate climate interventions such as albedo modification
should not be undertaken for the foreseeable future as they
present serious ecological, moral and geopolitical concerns.
Engaging in transparent small-scale field research to further our
understanding of the climate system and the implications of any
albedo modification proposals is prudent and governance regimes
should be established in parallel with the very first experiments.
Research on development of carbon dioxide removal techniques and
their impacts should also be undertaken.
Geoengineering: Why it can't save the day
What environmental advocates are saying
EDF has played an early role in the NGO community in promoting
governance of climate engineering research. Increasing numbers of
environmental NGOs have joined us in this effort, and some of them
have endorsed small-scale research. For example, the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS) stated its support for a U.S.
government-led SRM research program, but called for guidance on
governance before scaling up.

Natural Resources Defense Council recently released a statement
endorsing small-scale research and World Wildlife Fund-UK is also
"cautiously supporting" it. Most other large environmental NGOs
have taken mixed and sometimes internally inconsistent positions
on small-scale outdoor SRM research.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) International and FoE-U.S. oppose
outdoor research, while FoE-UK has taken a different position. At
the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Greenpeace
International proposed language to ban all geoengineering
activities but Greenpeace-UK representatives have not taken the
same approach in discussions in the UK.

The most vehement opposition to research has come from The Action
Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC), which has
rallied dozens of primarily small NGOs to its "Hands Off Mother
Earth" campaign and recently launched a website "to provide a
space for critical perspectives, building resistance and tracking
developments." ETC has repeatedly lobbied at the CBD for a
complete moratorium on outdoor geoengineering research.

At the other side of the spectrum, the Arctic Methane Emergency
Group urges deployment of geoengineering technologies as soon as
possible to "refreeze the Arctic," halt snow and sea ice decline
and prevent rising methane emissions from becoming a dominant
climate forcing agent.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06MN_xg%2B7y%2BMMwMXj59S3z9-vYyq-15_QiNsm0PtXrVOA%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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: [geo] SRM sea level rise

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew

The problem is a mix between melting ice from Greenland,  other glaciers 
and the Antarctic and a larger from effect the thermal expansion of the 
world's oceans.  This is amazingly complicated because the thermal 
expansion coefficient depends on salinity and pressure. My estimate is 
that the thermal expansion problem is 20 times the ice.  The energy 
removal needed is about 30 times total world energy consumption and 500 
times US electrical generation capacity.


I can send calculations, based on Schwartz and Slingo, on the number of 
spray vessels needed to hold the fort to anyone who asks.


Stephen


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

On 28/06/2019 12:23, Andrew Lockley wrote:
What's the current understanding of the interplay between SRM and sea 
level rise? I don't think the subject has been comprehensively studied


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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04CSZKykSQtigjob%2BnmCB5ohsafcqFog%3DVaYgBR4%2BJfNQ%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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/208362e3-bee5-21e5-3530-20a338de6409%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/208362e3-bee5-21e5-3530-20a338de6409%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Work on wave energy showed that the crests of waves would overtop 
horizontal cylinders with a low freeboard so that water would move over 
the cylinder and move it gracefully in the opposite direction of wave 
travel.  This will also happen with a ring or sections of a ring to 
maintain a gentle hoop tension.


I can confirm slide 3. If you made it out of high tensile steel or 
carbon fibre it would be quickly broken by bending failure but if a low 
modulus material, like jelly fish, allows movement through the biggest 
wave amplitudes, it will survive.


Rings like this can be made from used tires and so a major structural 
part of the system can have a negative cost.


It may be possible to manage without the mooring system and give it a 
degree of mobility by selective freeboard adjustment.


Stephen



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

On 02/06/2019 15:09, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:

Dear Mark

Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 Final 
Report DE-AR916 
 
on the potential for seaweed forests to address global needs for food, 
fuel and climate.  I encourage readers to review the linked report, as 
it provides a compelling scientific agenda for reversing global 
warming and cleaning up the oceans.


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


Best wishes

Robert Tulip



On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST,  
wrote:



A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than 
the Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report.  
Estimated initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume 
that the Feed the world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly 
snowball to full global capacity.


The Reverse climate change step might be classified as 
geoengineering.  It could use any good-for-millennial and ocean 
restorative carbon storage technique.



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

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

mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>"
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>, geoengineering
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>



http://www.gesamp.org/publications/high-level-review-of-a-wide-range-of-proposed-marine-geoengineering-techniques


High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine
Geoengineering Techniques

2019 #98 (143p.)
Author(s): GESAMP
Publisher(s): GESAMP
Journal Series GESAMP Reports and Studies
This report comprehensively examines a wide range o marine
geoengineering techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere or boost the reflection of incoming solar radiation to
space (albedo modification) or in some cases both. Further, the
report recommends a) that a coordinated framework for proposing
marine geoengineering activities, submitting supporting evidence
and integrating independent expert assessment must be developed
and b) that a greater expertise on wider societal issues is sought
with the aim to establish a knowledge base and provide a
subsequent analysis of the major gaps in socio-economics and
geopolitics.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To 

[geo] Pompeo welcomes Arctic melt

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48185793

has a story about Mike Pompeo *welcoming* the melting of Arctic sea ice.

Stephen

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

ore options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9691a130-2ca9-622d-1f84-289e64d14c59%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9691a130-2ca9-622d-1f84-289e64d14c59%40ed.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Is solar geoengineering crazy, or just crazy enough to work?

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

How would reducing sea surface temperatures with marine cloud 
brightening *worsen* hurricanes?


Stephen




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

On 06/05/2019 10:31, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Poster's note: report on the recent debate

https://www.fastcompany.com/90343440/is-solar-geoengineering-crazy-or-just-crazy-enough-to-work 



05.03.19WORLD CHANGING IDEAS
Is solar geoengineering crazy, or just crazy enough to work?
A debate on whether the scientific community should ignore the 
possibility of artificially altering the temperature of Earth managed 
to change a lot of the audience’s minds.

Is solar geoengineering crazy, or just crazy enough to work?
[Source Photos: Felipe Palacio/Unsplash, Bryan Goff/Unsplash]
BY JEREMY DEATON
6 MINUTE READ
The UN Environment Assembly recently considered a proposal to research 
solar geoengineering, as it’s known, an outlandish scheme to cool the 
Earth by blanketing the heavens with aerosols –chemicals that would 
reflect a small measure of sunlight back into space, lowering the 
average global temperature. The measure failed, not because countries 
were wary of investigating geoengineering, but because some, like the 
United States, feared the plan would unduly limit research.


ADVERTISEMENT

This dispute isn’t confined to diplomatic meetings. Scientists, 
ethicists and members of the public are wrestling with the full 
implications of solar geoengineering, and many are embracing the idea. 
At a recent debate at Hunter College in New York City, four leading 
intellectuals sparred over whether scientists should do more to 
investigate the potential benefits and dangers of solar 
geoengineering. At the start of the night, Intelligence Squared U.S., 
which organized the debate, asked how many in the audience thought 
researching this was a crazy idea. More than 6o% agreed that it was. 
At the end of the night, just 25% said so.



The winning argument? Impossibly desperate times call for outrageously 
desperate measures.


To be clear, the plan is fraught with risks. While solar 
geoengineering would cool the planet, it could also worsen droughts 
and hurricanes in parts of the world, setting up a wide-ranging 
conflict over if and how the technology should be deployed. It is 
cheap enough that a single country, or even a single wealthy 
individual, could take it upon themselves to radically alter the 
Earth’s climate. Opponents say that developing solar geoengineering 
would be akin to creating the atom bomb –a technology so powerful and 
dangerous it would threaten global peace and stability. And yet, a 
number of experts want to research solar geoengineering, believing it 
to be the only means of avoiding catastrophe.


“If we were having this debate in 1990, I would be on the other side. 
We knew enough by then to warrant strong action to cut emissions. And 
if we had started then, we would have had time to stop the train,” 
said Ted Parson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA and one of 
the debaters arguing for more research into solar geoengineering. “But 
it’s 2019. And 30 years of delay have let that opportunity slip out of 
reach. It is still possible to hold climate change to manageable 
limits. But it’s no longer possible to do this confidently, relying 
only on technologies and policies that are familiar, comfortable, 
uncontroversial.”



Experts debate solar engineering at an event hosted by Intelligence 
Squared U.S. at Hunter College in New York City, April 18, 2019. 
[Photo: Nexus Media]
At this point, he explained, any credible path to keeping warming in 
check relies on scrubbing huge volumes of carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere, which is a herculean task. “Removing CO2 from the 
atmosphere is like draining a lake through a straw. It will work, but 
it’ll take a long time,” Parson said. “So deep emission cuts and 
carbon removal are both essential, but they may not be enough soon 
enough, even with extreme efforts. We need something else, and 
geoengineering might be that something else.”
Parson’s ally in the debate, Harvard physicist David Keith, argued 
that it is all but inevitable that a future generation will deploy 
solar geoengineering, so it is vital to understand its full 
implications now. “We can’t bind our children’s hands. Decisions about 
deployment will still be made, but they will be made without adequate 
understanding of what the risks are, without an exploration of 
technologies that could substantially reduce those risks, without 
knowledge about how to monitor it adequately, and without enough time 
for nations to discuss how they might govern this technology,” he said.


ADVERTISEMENT

While Keith and Parson made a compelling case, they elided real 
worries about the geopolitical 

Re: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts

[Stephen Salter]

Russell

Some of my best friends are astronomers but few of them use telescopes 
in mid ocean so you and I can remain on good terms.


Stephen

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

On 07/04/2019 14:31, Russell Seitz wrote:
Why would  reductions  in the  downwelling tropospheric light flux 
increase any of the above?    I'd instead  ask instrumental 
 astromomers what they think SO2 scattering would do in the UV , as 
they have a lot to lose from  scattered light, which can  cost them 
contrast and  degrade the signal to noise ratio in interferometry and 
spectroscopy.


Try the Magellan and OWL teams

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

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

Andrew Lockley

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] UNEP Nairobi

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The site

   
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/18/us-and-saudi-arabia-blocking-regulation-of-geoengineering-sources-say

has a report from UNEP Nairobi with lots from ETC.

Stephen

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


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Institutional Legitimacy and Geoengineering Governance: Ethics, Policy & Environment: Callies

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

We could also use the ideas on institutional legitimacy to regulate 
space junk, plastic waste disposal, excessive routine antibiotic use 
with life stock, bee-extermination, the use of helium for party balloons 
and unsolicited email.


Stephen

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


On 01/02/2019 10:02, Andrew Lockley wrote:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562523
Institutional Legitimacy and Geoengineering Governance
Daniel Edward Callies
Published online: 08 Jan 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562523

ABSTRACT
There is general agreement amongst those involved in the normative 
discussion about geoengineering that if we are to move forward with 
significant research, development, and certainly any future 
deployment, legitimate governance is a must. However, while we agree 
that the abstract concept of legitimacy ought to guide geoengineering 
governance, agreement surrounding the appropriate conception of 
legitimacy has yet to emerge. Relying upon Allen Buchanan’s 
metacoordination view of institutional legitimacy, this paper puts 
forward a conception of legitimacy appropriate for geoengineering 
governance, outlining five normative criteria an institution ought to 
fulfill if it is to justifiably coordinate our action around 
geoengineering.


KEYWORDS: Geoengineering, climate engineering, legitimacy, governance, 
metacoordination view

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Daniel Sutter: Politics and the economics of the Carbon Tax - Alabama Today

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Is it very un-American to think about a ration for everyone with a tax 
coming in if you want to exceed your ration?


Stephen

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

On 31/01/2019 16:31, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Poster's note: brief mention of CE (CDR), but interesting, due to the 
implicit morale hazard exhibited


http://altoday.com/archives/28407-daniel-sutter-politics-and-the-economics-of-the-carbon-tax
Daniel Sutter: Politics and the economics of the Carbon Tax
BY DANIEL SUTTER ON JANUARY 31, 2019 OPINION, SLIDER
A carbon tax involves some good economics and is probably the best way 
to address global warming. And yet I think that adopting the tax 
represents bad policy. My reservations involve the politics of policy 
implementation as examined by Nobel prize-winning economist James 
Buchanan.


Before getting to my concerns, let’s consider two other arguments 
against limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The first is that 
reducing U.S. emissions will have little effect on global 
temperatures. The Clean Power Plan’s emissions cuts, for instance, 
were projected to prevent 0.02 degrees Celsius warming by 2100.
This just reflects the global nature of the challenge. The U.S. will 
likely generate 10 to 20 percent of global GHG emissions through 2100. 
We cannot stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide alone. Whether leading 
by example or conditioning our actions on other nations’ efforts makes 
more sense is a matter of international

diplomacy, not economics.

Another argument is the overestimation of the costs of warming by 
economists’ Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). This could happen for 
two reasons. First, future GHG emissions may produce less warming than 
currently forecast. Second, the projected warming may occur and not 
prove extremely costly.


Climate models are a crucial component of an IAM; the costs of warming 
come entirely from predicted climate impacts. The Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate models have been running hot: 
since 1990, only about half of the predicted warming has been 
observed. This raises questions about the models.Humans will adapt to 
higher temperatures and rising sea levels. Inadequate modeling of 
adaptation means that IAMs will overestimate the costs of warming. And 
climate engineering could potentially remove carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere, allowing continued use of fossil fuels while limiting warming.


And yet these climate and economic concerns, I think, recommend a 
smaller tax than currently estimated as opposed to no tax. 
Unrestrained use of fossil fuels over 200 or 300 years may eventually 
produce dramatic and costly warming, even if emissions through 2100 
merely constitute a nuisance.


James Buchanan pioneered the integration of economic and political 
analysis. He criticized policy recommendations based exclusively on 
economics. Such advice implicitly assumes government by a benevolent 
despot who does exactly what economists recommend. Ignoring politics 
leads to useless and potentially harmful policy recommendations.


Economists advocating for initiating carbon taxation based on the 
benefits from an optimal tax are committing the error Buchanan warned 
against. The IPCC in 2018 announced a new goal of keeping global 
temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Attainting 
this goal will essentially require ending the use of fossil
fuels by mid-century. IAM pioneer William Nordhaus’ model estimates an 
optimal tax of almost $50 per ton, or $0.50 per gallon of gas. The 
optimal tax increases over time but not enough to halt use of fossil 
fuels anytime soon. Ending fossil fuel use might require a tax of as 
much as $5,000 per ton.


The debate is now whether to end the use of fossil fuels. If the U.S. 
begins taxing GHG, we will almost certainly within a few years end up 
with a tax set well above $50 a ton. Why? After we initiate taxation 
of GHGs, politicians would then need to set and adjust the tax. 
Politicians will likely balance the views of tax supporters in setting 
a rate, having resigned themselves to losing the votes of tax 
opponents. All proponents other than a handful of economists will want 
a tax much in excess of $50.


The IAMs underlying economists’ support for a carbon tax show that 
costs rise sharply if we limit GHG emissions more than optimally. The 
IPCC’s new 1.5 degrees of warming goal would, according to Professor 
Nordhaus’s model, produce net losses for the global economy even 
relative to no limits on GHGs. An optimal carbon tax may well be sound 
economically. But if we enact carbon taxation, politics will likely 
produce a very costly tax rate. Economists should not let the allure 
of an optimal tax create an impression that carbon 

Re: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew

I did something similar to optimize the control of a wave energy 
generator in a 1/100 scale test tank.  We want to control forces on the 
model in three degrees of freedom, pitch heave and surge during the 
passage of a 51.2 second repeatable 'random' sea with 16 adjustments per 
second.  We measured generated power by multiplying force by velocity 
sample by sample.  We made random changes, rejected ones which had 
reduced mean power output and retained ones which improved it.


It worked very well and we could improve performance by 25% overnight 
doing one experiment every minute.


I predict that it will also work very well if you can provide computing 
power and time for a very large number of experiments. This was back in 
1977 when we had 16k of RAM and tape storage. The term neural network 
had not been thought of then.  We called it Parrots and Monkeys.  The 
parrots kept sending the same wave pattern and the monkeys fiddled with 
the model controls.


Stephen


On 27/01/2019 20:04, Andrew Lockley wrote:
To clarify, I'm suggesting a combination of supervised and 
unsupervised learning.


In each iteration there would be a base line (could be pre-industrial, 
or anything else). There would be a test case with extra CO2 and SRM 
tools (SAI, MCB CCT).


The generator network would create a pattern of geoengineering, to get 
as close to the baseline as possible. It could use any combination of 
the tools.


The detector network would try to classify the two cases as geo or 
baseline (it would know the baseline position, eg 2x CO2 - but not the 
climate impacts).


There would be a degree of supervision, in that the correct answer 
would be revealed to the detector - so it knows if it has got the 
right answer or not.


I'm not an AI expert by any means, so articulating this formally is 
hard for me. But I hope this communicates the idea reasonably clearly.


I don't see the model sophistication as very important, here. If the 
generation algo learns (for example) to use CCT over land to reproduce 
diurnal temperature variations, then that result should hold in a 
better model.


Andrew


On Sun, 27 Jan 2019, 17:57 Zhen Dai  wrote:


Hi Andrew,

I thought about similar problems as you did, namely the
statistical aspect of the design problem hasn't been explored
fully. However, I'm not sure why you think GAN is the right
algorithm to use. For one thing, I don't think the goal of solar
geo is to create a different climate, but to mitigate climate
risks. If there are specific goals that solar geo is trying to
achieve, then a supervised model could be more intuitive to work
with than an unsupervised one.

To Doug's point, if the goal of machine learning methods is to
fill in the design space, then there are a few considerations:

1) If model outcome is used as the training cases, the model
should not be a simple one. The power of machine-learning methods
lies in their ability to capture non-intuitive relationships (in
the case of neural networks, capturing completely arbitrary
relationships without any mechanistic information). If a simple
model is used, then the outcome can be sufficiently predicted with
a simple algorithm (for the slab-ocean case, maybe just linear
regression with a Gaussian kernel).

2) To capture spatial variations, CNN might be the easiest place
to start - provided the data structure requires a neural network
at all. CNN was developed to account for localized relationships,
and regional solar geo creates exactly that.

3) To capture temporal variations, RNN could be used. I don't
think that is absolutely necessary, but could be helpful if there
is actually a lot of data. In fact, in Jonathan Proctor's recent
paper on plant impact, it seems like models with a rigid form
(compared to NN, which trains the model form in addition to the
parameters) work just fine to predict temporal relationships if
you are confident in the feature space. As Doug already pointed
out, for solar geo, there might not be enough data to justify the
use of a complicated algorithm.

To start, though, it might be helpful to define a set of
measurable goals (what is solar geo trying to do?) as the target
variables. I don't think there's wide agreement on the goals at
all at this point, but I'd love to hear about suggestions!

Best,
Zhen

On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 3:07:51 PM UTC-5, Douglas
MacMartin wrote:

My initial reaction is that ANN is a great way to work out
strategies for non-linear and/or highly multivariable systems
in data-rich contexts.

For the sorts of control that’s been done to date by Ben and
I, the system response (at least that of the models) is
remarkably linear, and the nonlinearities are not complicated
– that is, in the relationship 

Re: [geo] More on SRM governance

[Stephen Salter]

Florian

Thank you for some common sense.  The computer models show that after 
the termination of solar radiation management normal conditions will 
return in about ten years.   Would objectors prefer a technology that 
could NEVER be reversed?


A failure in electricity generation is serious in 20 milliseconds. A 
failure in the internet in about 20 seconds, air traffic control in 
about two minutes water purification in about two hours and food 
distribution in about two days.  Should we never have developed these 
technologies because of their termination problems?   Ten years is a 
long time to fix a spray vessel.


If  people want to have bad dreams about sudden termination they should 
check out automated stock-market trading.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of Engineering, 
Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland


On 16-Oct-18 10:39 AM, Florian Caspar Rabitz wrote:


Dear all,

In light of the ongoing discussion, I just wanted to share a recent 
publication of mine that looks at the governance implications of the 
termination problem in SRM. The broader point is that the governance 
challenges associated with the termination problem are not 
particularly unusual and may even be comparable to those of other 
large-scale technological systems (which is, I should add, not 
intended to trivialize the broader difficulties and risks of SRM 
governance and implementation). The text is available from here:


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2018.1519879

A couple of ungated ones should still be available through this link:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/HhQ5VBSbHvvauR8AGAPp/full

All the best,

Florian

Dr. Florian Rabitz

Research Group Civil Society and Sustainability

Kaunas University of Technology

Phone: +370 676 27 532

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: [AMEG 12806] Re: Progress towards truth and appropriate action

[Stephen Salter]

John

Got to

http://ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

You can click on chapters  in the pane headed 'Document's in red.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of Engineering, 
Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland


On 10-Oct-18 5:34 PM, john gorman wrote:


Thanks for that Stephen but page 52 of chapter 4 of what?

Google can find all sorts of comments and newspapers but where is the 
actual document that the IPCC produced last week? Can anyone help?


Thanks

John g



--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] IPCC

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

There are three sentences on page SPM 16

Enjoy

Stephen

--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of Engineering, 
Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] BBC hurricane programme

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Tonight at 20:32 UK time  the BBC world service on radio has a programme 
about hurricane moderation.


Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Hurricane moderation

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I was asked to write something about hurricanes for a well known popular 
news outlet but they thought that it was too technical. However it might 
still be useful.   I hope that the ETC group can comment.


The formation of a hurricane depends on many factors including 
atmospheric water vapour, distance from the equator and the recent 
history of wind patterns.But an essential requirement is a high sea 
surface temperature. To get from a tropical storm to the lowest category 
of hurricane requires a temperature of 26.5 C.We can moderate 
hurricanes, or even prevent them, by reducing water temperature.


A useful start to any engineering project is the estimation of all the 
energy flows. One cubic metre of air at a temperature of 30 C can hold 
about 30 grams of water vapour. The energy to evaporate this is about 
the same as in 13 grams of TNT, enough for a nasty anti-personnel mine.A 
cubic kilometre of such air contains the same energy as the Hiroshima 
bomb.Hurricanes can be hundreds of kilometres in diameter and so contain 
tens of thousands of Hiroshimas.If you have read this far you will know 
about the billions of lost dollars and thousands of deaths from this 
amount of energy.


Most of the hurricanes that reach America (with the exception of 
Harvey), start on the African side of the Atlantic near Cape Verde and 
grow as they move west. We can use Google Earth to measure the hurricane 
breeding area. The US National Weather Service gives a warm water depth 
of 45 metres. To cool this volume by 2 C in 200 days needs more than 600 
times the mean US electricity power generation. If you want to moderate 
a hurricane tomorrow, today is much too late.You should have started 
last November.


All this heat has come from the sun. Some could be reflected back out to 
space by clouds. The reflectivity of clouds was studied by Sean 
Twomey.He flew over many clouds, scooped samples and measured the solar 
energy reflected from their tops.He showed that reflectivity depends on 
the size distribution of drops.Lots of small drops reflect more than the 
same amount of liquid water in fewer, larger ones.In typical conditions, 
doubling the cloud drop number increases reflectivity by a bit over 0.05.


Making cloud drops needs a high humidity but also some kind of ‘seed’ 
called a condensation nucleus on which to start growth.There are 
thousands of condensation nuclei per cubic centimetre of air over land 
but fewer in air over mid ocean, often less than 50. John Latham 
suggested that the salt residues left from the evaporation of a spray of 
sub-micron drops of sea water would be excellent condensation nuclei. 
They would be moved from the sea surface by turbulence to produce a 
fairly even distribution upwards through the marine boundary layer to 
where clouds form.


The condensation nuclei could be produced by wind-driven sailing vessels 
cruising along the hurricane breeding areas getting energy from their 
motion through the water. We can make spray by pumping water through 
very small nozzles etched in the silicon wafers used for making 
microchips. The main technical problem is that sea water is full of 
plankton much larger than nozzles.This can be filtered using 
ultra-filtration technology with back-flushing, originally developed for 
removing polio viruses from drinking water. Each vessel would produce 
0.8 micron diameter drops at 10^17 a second.


Spray operations would depend on the pattern of sea surface temperatures 
as measured by satellites. We want the trajectory of temperature rises 
through the year from November to the following July to be those that an 
international panel of meteorologists think will give a desirable 
rainfall pattern from ‘gentle’ tropical storms.


Most ships are made in quite small numbers.An exception was the Flower 
class corvettes built for the Royal Navy during World War II. If we 
index-link the 1940 cost to today we can predict that in mass production 
each spray vessel would cost $4 million. With assumptions which have not 
yet been rejected by hurricane experts, we think that controlling the 
Atlantic hurricane breeding paths would need about 100 vessels.With 
typical ship lifetime the annual ownership and maintenance cost would be 
about $40 million. If these figures and recent estimates of the cost of 
hurricane damage are correct the benefit-to-cost ratio is quite attractive.


Because of official UK Government policy updated in May 2018 the project 
is privately funded.


I will send anyone who asks an update on recent hardware development, 
still privately funded.


Stephen


--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of Engineering, 
Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to 

Re: [geo] MCB/cirrus stripping with particle accelerators

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I cannot reconcile

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2016JA022689

with what Olivier says is the IPCC position without saying things which 
might annoy the IPCC.


Can anyone else?

Stephen

On 19-Aug-18 5:48 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
As discussed in my original post, a significant scaling of synthetic 
cosmic rays is possible, over background levels (3-5 orders) This may 
give a large climate signal, sufficient to analyse the effect with a 
view to using it for CE.


Does anyone have a view on the potential usefulness of high-volume, 
standard-energy cosmic rays?


A

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018, 16:35 Olivier Boucher, 
> wrote:



Hello Andrew,

see section 7.4.6 of IPCC AR5 :
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf

The summary is

"Cosmic rays enhance new particle formation in the free
troposphere, but the effect on the concentration of cloud
condensation nuclei is too weak to have any detectable climatic
influence during a solar cycle or over the last century (medium
evidence, high agreement). No robust association between changes
in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified. In the event
that such an association existed, a mechanism other than cosmic
ray-induced nucleation of new aerosol particles would be needed to
explain it. {7.4.6}"

Best

Olivier



Cosmic rays cause cloud condensation nuclei. They are therefore
believed to affect cloudiness, and therefore climate. If we made
more cosmic rays, that would likely make it more cloudy. Whether
this was a warming or cooling effect would depend on whether it
was cirrus or cumulus clouds (NB, sometimes making cirrus
ultimately removes water, resulting in less cirrus)

Cosmic rays are almost all protons, with an typical energy peak
distribution of 0.3GEv. (4.8×10^−11  J). No idea if that's the
right energy for CCN, but we can tweak that later.

Creating artificial cosmic rays is possible, using a linear
particle accelerator. This is similar to an ion thruster, as used
in space probes.

To affect climate, you'd probably have to get densities of the
order of 1/s/sqm (more on that, later).

360 million square kilometers of ocean is 360tn sqm or
3.6x10^14sqm. You don't really want to send particles into
people, and the cleaner air over the oceans makes them more
effective.

A kilo of hydrogen contains 6x10^26 protons.

That means 1kg of H2 gives you enough material for 1.6x10^12s =
roughly 50 years - so a satellite could easily carry enough
material to do the job.

Power is 3.6x10^14 x 4.8x10^-11J/s = 17kW - again, well within
what a satellite could muster (roughly 100sqm of solar panels, at
around 20% panel efficiency (conservative) and 50pc conversion
(made up) efficiency).

Cheap satellites are about $50m - well within the capabilities of
a rich philanthropist. Even if this is not cheap, it's still only
perhaps 500m

If I'm out by 5 orders (1 ray per sq cm, not per sq m each
second), then that's only 10,000 satellites. That's expensive,
but not outlandish. Superficially, that would be $500bn at the
lower cost, but there is likely a 10x or 100x experience curve
cost reduction, meaning the whole programme would be about
$5-50bn max.

As an alternative, you could use aircraft or balloons, but beam
attenuation would be a serious issue. 40km balloons can be
launched, albeit with small payloads. They would fly at the
bottom of the mesosphere, over 99.9pc of the atmosphere. So maybe
beam attenuation would be tolerable, at that height. I don't know
how to calculate it, but I'm guessing it would be cms to kms - so
not really far enough to make a difference to climate. You could
perhaps have mountaintop accelerators with very high powers, and
a sweeping beam (like a lighthouse). If the power requirement was
GW-range, then maybe the beam range would be a hundred km, or so.
That might be enough to work, but it would have some pretty
significant effects on local atmospheric chemistry - so probably
not a good idea.

Any thoughts from anyone?

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


-- 

Re: [geo] MCB/cirrus stripping with particle accelerators

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew

Check out

www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2015/02/epn2015462p26.pdf

Based on the Wilson cloud chamber I can believe that cosmic rays can do 
the same job at condensation nuclei.


I also recall that they leave behind a chemical signature which lets you 
get historical cosmic ray flux density and the link to historical 
temperatures.


Stephen


On 19-Aug-18 3:17 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Cosmic rays cause cloud condensation nuclei. They are therefore 
believed to affect cloudiness, and therefore climate. If we made more 
cosmic rays, that would likely make it more cloudy. Whether this was a 
warming or cooling effect would depend on whether it was cirrus or 
cumulus clouds (NB, sometimes making cirrus ultimately removes water, 
resulting in less cirrus)


Cosmic rays are almost all protons, with an typical energy peak 
distribution of 0.3GEv. (4.8×10^−11  J). No idea if that's the right 
energy for CCN, but we can tweak that later.


Creating artificial cosmic rays is possible, using a linear particle 
accelerator. This is similar to an ion thruster, as used in space probes.


To affect climate, you'd probably have to get densities of the order 
of 1/s/sqm (more on that, later).


360 million square kilometers of ocean is 360tn sqm or 3.6x10^14sqm. 
You don't really want to send particles into people, and the cleaner 
air over the oceans makes them more effective.


A kilo of hydrogen contains 6x10^26 protons.

That means 1kg of H2 gives you enough material for 1.6x10^12s = 
roughly 50 years - so a satellite could easily carry enough material 
to do the job.


Power is 3.6x10^14 x 4.8x10^-11J/s = 17kW - again, well within what a 
satellite could muster (roughly 100sqm of solar panels, at around 20% 
panel efficiency (conservative) and 50pc conversion (made up) 
efficiency).


Cheap satellites are about $50m - well within the capabilities of a 
rich philanthropist. Even if this is not cheap, it's still only 
perhaps 500m


If I'm out by 5 orders (1 ray per sq cm, not per sq m each second), 
then that's only 10,000 satellites. That's expensive, but not 
outlandish. Superficially, that would be $500bn at the lower cost, but 
there is likely a 10x or 100x experience curve cost reduction, meaning 
the whole programme would be about $5-50bn max.


As an alternative, you could use aircraft or balloons, but beam 
attenuation would be a serious issue. 40km balloons can be launched, 
albeit with small payloads. They would fly at the bottom of the 
mesosphere, over 99.9pc of the atmosphere. So maybe beam attenuation 
would be tolerable, at that height. I don't know how to calculate it, 
but I'm guessing it would be cms to kms - so not really far enough to 
make a difference to climate. You could perhaps have mountaintop 
accelerators with very high powers, and a sweeping beam (like a 
lighthouse). If the power requirement was GW-range, then maybe the 
beam range would be a hundred km, or so. That might be enough to work, 
but it would have some pretty significant effects on local atmospheric 
chemistry - so probably not a good idea.


Any thoughts from anyone?

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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of Engineering, 
Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Stephen Salter]

Douglas

So we just send each other email attachments.  It is quicker and draws 
attention to each publication.  If people think that enough other people 
are less likely to cite their work the battle will be won.


The whole idea of money is to prevent excess consumption of a limited 
resource. The cost of spreading information is now very much lower and 
the possible value of spreading it widely to people who might save 
civlization is VERY high.


The UK Government has a specific published policy of not supporting any 
form of solar radiation management so this is even less than 'almost zero'.


Some of us do not even have salaries!

Stephen


On 05/08/2018 16:07, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


Some of us don’t have research budgets to cover publishing open-access 
(indeed, some of my funding explicitly doesn’t cover any publication 
fees at all).  Given that there is almost zero public funding in this 
field in the US, most US geoengineering papers probably aren’t 
generated with public money, and a lot of them aren’t even generated 
with any dedicated research funding that can be tapped.  Paying 
open-access fees isn’t cheap, and not something I’m inclined to do out 
of my personal bank account.  So ignoring any  research that was 
generated by people without big research budgets doesn’t seem like a 
solution to me.


Agree that Elsevier is one of the worst offenders in making profit off 
of things they didn’t generate, but ultimately even without their 
obscene profits, someone has to pay for the publishing, and that’s 
either the authors or the readers.




On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Salter <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:


Hi All

The turnover of Elsevier in 2017 was £2.478 billion. The profit
was 36.8%.

Suppose that nobody cited papers which appeared behind a paywall .
. . .

Stephen


On 05/08/2018 01:47, Alan Robock wrote:

Dear All,

Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by
public funds.  Many journals make papers free after a year or
two, but many still require a subscription.  I know AMS and AGU
are trying to decide how to maintain their business model if open
access is required.  They say they don't know how ACP (the EGU
journal) does it, as their page charges are similar to AMS and AGU.

In the meantime, what do we do?  Do we break the rules and
distribute papers that we can access through our personal
subscriptions or our university or government access?
Alan

On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:

How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress
subscribes to all of the journals and makes them freely
available online to all tax-paying citizens. Your password is
issued to you when your federal income taxes are filed! Just
like single-payer healthcare, this would enable the government
to negotiate reasonable subscription rates, especially with
regard to predatory, for-profit publishing houses. The federal
government is already paying for most of the publishing expenses
in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs paid
to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right
direction; however, they are far from an ideal solution to the
problem of making science more accessible to the taxpayers
supporting it. Other countries could negotiate their own deals
with the publishing houses, or just imagine if countries
actually worked together to negotiate fair journal subscription
rates...


On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken
mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:

I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is
already being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the
public, especially on issues that are of significant public
concern and interest, argue that they should have free access
to the results and not have to pay further. Given the
scientific community is seeking to inform the public and
continue to want research funds from taxpayers, its hiding of
the results behind ridiculously priced paywalls is really an
obstruction (the journals really need to greatly lower their
prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get more
participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of
journals and if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be
broke--and it would be very inefficient to be getting so much
in really wanting access to so few articles of real interest to
those focused on looking at specific topics.

I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in
based on their very high paywall rates, and where that money is
coming from (probably mainly from overhead put on the research
money awarded to scientists--are many members of the public
actually paying the quite high rates?). In my view, if the
scientific community wants 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The turnover of Elsevier in 2017 was £2.478 billion. The profit was 36.8%.

Suppose that nobody cited papers which appeared behind a paywall . . . .

Stephen


On 05/08/2018 01:47, Alan Robock wrote:

Dear All,

Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by public 
funds.  Many journals make papers free after a year or two, but many 
still require a subscription.  I know AMS and AGU are trying to decide 
how to maintain their business model if open access is required.  They 
say they don't know how ACP (the EGU journal) does it, as their page 
charges are similar to AMS and AGU.


In the meantime, what do we do?  Do we break the rules and distribute 
papers that we can access through our personal subscriptions or our 
university or government access?

Alan

On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:
How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress subscribes 
to all of the journals and makes them freely available online to all 
tax-paying citizens. Your password is issued to you when your federal 
income taxes are filed! Just like single-payer healthcare, this would 
enable the government to negotiate reasonable subscription rates, 
especially with regard to predatory, for-profit publishing houses. 
The federal government is already paying for most of the publishing 
expenses in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs 
paid to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right 
direction; however, they are far from an ideal solution to the 
problem of making science more accessible to the taxpayers supporting 
it. Other countries could negotiate their own deals with the 
publishing houses, or just imagine if countries actually worked 
together to negotiate fair journal subscription rates...


On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken > wrote:


I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is 
already being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public, 
especially on issues that are of significant public concern and 
interest, argue that they should have free access to the results and 
not have to pay further. Given the scientific community is seeking 
to inform the public and continue to want research funds from 
taxpayers, its hiding of the results behind ridiculously priced 
paywalls is really an obstruction (the journals really need to 
greatly lower their prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get 
more participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of 
journals and if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be 
broke--and it would be very inefficient to be getting so much in 
really wanting access to so few articles of real interest to those 
focused on looking at specific topics.


I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based 
on their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming 
from (probably mainly from overhead put on the research money 
awarded to scientists--are many members of the public actually 
paying the quite high rates?). In my view, if the scientific 
community wants ongoing support, then there needs to be another way 
found than high paywall rates that inhibit the public actually 
getting to read the articles instead of just seeing the possible 
media coverage of the articles. Indeed, as Alan notes, most editors 
and reviewers work for free, so a good question is where all the 
money is going, especially with articles mostly now being provided 
to journals online. Across the community there are discussions on 
such issues, even on quite remote subjects--for things related to 
climate change science to be behind paywalls I just do not think is 
the optimal approach and alternatives need to be found.


Mike


On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:

Alan:

I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have 
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall.  I am not 
taking this personally - and am glad you responded below.


I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great 
value from that annual expenditure for *Science*.  I also this year 
found a sweet deal for two subcategories of *Nature. * And I 
receive a dozen other magazines - a few where I am a life member, 
and a surprising number that are free.  I don't subscribe to AMS 
and AGU because too little there that fits my background.


But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be 
reading four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 
different journals - maybe only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS 
re biochar.  No way anyone working in biochar can cover all that 
(the IBI website has started showing the 10-20% of unlocked papers 
every month - which I find helpful - and tend to read).


Re "/Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "/   I make 
a point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when 
someone has found a free-to-me way to help get their message out - 
and I presume 

Re: [geo] 'Truly scary': researcher wants to brighten clouds to rescue the Great Barrier Reef

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I did not understand the 15 million, the bit about the fan or which 
areas of the reef should be prioritised.


Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704

On 16/07/2018 08:13, Andrew Lockley wrote:


https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/truly-scary-researcher-wants-to-brighten-clouds-to-rescue-the-great-barrier-reef-20180715-p4zrm1.html?__twitter_impression=true 




  'Truly scary': researcher wants to brighten clouds to rescue the
  Great Barrier Reef


  By Nicole Hasham

16 July 2018 — 12:01am

 *


 *



 *




 *





Within days, oceanographer Daniel Harrison will become a father for 
the first time. Worried that his son may never experience the 
kaleidoscopic marvels of the Great Barrier Reef, he has devised an 
ingenious plan to help save it.


Dr Harrison is developing a technology known as “cloud brightening” – 
encouraging clouds over the reef to deflect more of the sun’s rays 
back into space, which would hopefully curb rising sea temperatures 
that cause coral bleaching.


The reality is dawning that even swift global action on climate change 
is unlikely to save the Great Barrier Reef, because several decades of 
elevated global temperatures are already locked in.


Scientists fear swift action on climate change will not be enough to 
save the reef and are looking for short term ways to restore it.


Scientists fear swift action on climate change will not be enough to 
save the reef and are looking for short term ways to restore it.


Photo: Tourism and Events Queensland

Scientific solutions are needed to buy the reef time and prevent 
catastrophic damage in the near future. Experts from Australia and 
around the world will meet at a symposium in Cairns this week to 
discuss the most promising and cost-effective techniques for intervention.


Dr Harrison’s proposal is similar to that of a snow-making machine or 
cloud-seeding to increase rainfall for hydro power. Except in this 
case, the water would stay in the clouds.


Sea water would be pumped through a filter and sprayed out of small 
nozzles that produce minuscule water droplets.


Oceanographer Daniel Harrison is researching whether clouds over the 
Great Barrier Reef could be 'brightened' to deflect the sun's rays and 
help curb rising sea temperatures.


Oceanographer Daniel Harrison is researching whether clouds over the 
Great Barrier Reef could be 'brightened' to deflect the sun's rays and 
help curb rising sea temperatures.


Photo: Supplied

A fan would propel the droplets into the atmosphere. The water would 
evaporate, leaving behind a tiny particle of salt to which other water 
droplets would condense, brightening existing clouds.


Aside from shading the reef, the clouds would also deflect solar 
radiation, potentially cooling surface water temperatures by about 
half a degree Celsius.


“That one droplet creates an aerosol particle that then grows 15 
million times in size into a cloud droplet,” said Dr Harrison, a 
University of Sydney researcher.


Corals bleach due to a combination of higher temperatures and 
sunlight, so the effect of the cloud “might be very powerful in 
mitigating the bleaching,” he said.


The units would need to operate over weeks or months when coral was at 
most risk of bleaching. The research is at an early stage and has not 
yet been trialled.


Dr Harrison said impending fatherhood had given his work new impetus.

“My first child is due on Tuesday ... I really hope the reef will be 
around for him to enjoy when he gets older,” he said.


“[Losing the reef] isn’t something that’s going to happen in future 
generations, it’s right now in this generation if we don’t act now. 
It’s truly scary.”


The project is part of the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, 
led by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which brings 
together experts to create new, targeted measures to preserve and 
restore the reef.


The program’s director David Mead said while aggressive action on 
climate change was critical, scientists were asking “what else can we do?”


“We are trying as broadly as possible to assess what some of the other 
options might be. [We’re taking] a no-stone-unturned approach,” he said.


Two mass coral bleaching events in recent years have made the task of 
rescuing the reef more urgent.


Two mass coral bleaching events in recent years have made the task of 
rescuing the reef more urgent.


Photo: Supplied

One option being investigated involves dispersing a microscopic film 
over the water’s surface to prevent light photons from reaching coral, 
reducing the risk of bleaching.


Other research involves collecting resilient corals that survive a 
bleaching event and using them to repopulate other reefs.


While the risk to the reef was pressing, time would be taken to 
develop and test the cutting edge technologies.


“The last thing you want to be doing is taking actions where the 

Re: [geo] Sea surface temperatures Japan other factors

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I agree with Jessica about East and West.  Spray vessels can go very 
fast in the non-spray mode and could move around the UK or Japan quickly 
enough to be useful.   Going across the Pacific or from Atlantic to 
Pacific would take much long but we could have fleets in both ocean 
areas and send them emails to stop operation when we did not need them.  
It would be like having a navy which took things easy in peacetime.


A possible experiment might be to backtrack the movement of the water 
vapour which caused the floods in Japan along the path of the wind, back 
to where it evaporated.   We could then change temperatures in the 
evaporation areas and then run the model forwards to see what would have 
happened if we had done some cooling.


Does anyone have a computer climate model with rewind capability?

Stephen


On 10-Jul-18 2:36 PM, Jessica Gurevitch wrote:
Prediction would be wonderful, but it's not the only valuable thing to 
gain from this insight/hypothesis. And aren't the east sides of 
continents (i.e. Japan) going to behave differently than the west 
sides of continents (i.e. UK)?


~~
Jessica Gurevitch
Professor
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA
~~

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Chris Burgoyne <mailto:c...@eng.cam.ac.uk>> wrote:


Stephen

I am curious how we turn hindsight into foresight.

It is one thing to be able to say "there is a terrible storm over
Japan" and "the water around Japan has been warm" as implying that
there is a causal link from one to the other.

I note that the same data shows that the waters around the UK have
been warmer than usual for the last month during which period
there has been virtually no rain, which belies the old adage that
an English summer is "two fine days and a thunderstorm".

If you could take this data and predict (and publish) where
exceptional rain would occur within the next month, and then
report to us afterwards how good the correlation was, THEN I would
be impressed.

Chris Burgoyne




On 10/07/2018 12:38, Stephen Salter wrote:

Hi All

Following Cyril's link  I found where you can do week-by-week
steps over a year by single-clicking from  the site

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.year.html
<https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.year.html>

This will show that the trend leading to the present floods
started back in March 2018.

High sea surface temperatures are not the only factor.  High
winds will increase evaporation but will also move water vapour
away.  The dangerous conditions are how long we have had high sea
surface temperatures and winds blowing to-and-fro or
round-and-round without going far from the hot patch of sea  and
then moving inland over rising ground.

Stephen


On 09-Jul-18 1:49 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

The model is simple: you'd present the risk ratios to the client
(verified by consultants), and charge for the work done. For
example 60pc risk of a category 4 without MCB, 20pc chance with
MCB. They'd pay for the work, regardless of the result achieved.

A

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, 12:58 Stephen Salter, mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:

Andrew

I have worked out benefit-to-cost ratios of marine cloud
brightening up to three orders of magnitude but it is
difficult to get paid for stopping something with an
uncertain probability of occurrence.

It might be possible to have payments based on the
deviations of sea surface temperature from historical
observations but there would be problems about two cooling
corporations in competition.

Chinese doctors used to be paid while a patient remained
healthy but payments stopped when they were ill.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of
Engineering, Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW,
Scotland

On 09-Jul-18 10:32 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

I remain of the view that MCB could be commercialised for
this purpose relatively easily. The investment would for
R and fleet construction be perhaps $10-100M, and the fee
for each storm-busting job would probably be 20M (a
bargain, when the US alone is taking 200bn damage per
year). You'd likely get 1-3/Yr, min, giving an average
income of 40M. Alternatively, there may be a larger number
of cheaper jobs.

Assuming an operating cost base of 30pc of fee, that's
roughly 25M/yr operating profit. The investment breaks even
at year 2-4, is sustainably profitable thereafter, and
retains substantial value in know-how and IP.

    Andrew

Re: [geo] Sea surface temperatures Japan

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew

I have worked out benefit-to-cost ratios of marine cloud brightening up 
to three orders of magnitude but it is difficult to get paid for 
stopping something with an uncertain probability of occurrence.


It might be possible to have payments based on the deviations of sea 
surface temperature from historical observations but there would be 
problems about two cooling corporations in competition.


Chinese doctors used to be paid while a patient remained healthy but 
payments stopped when they were ill.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of Engineering, 
Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland


On 09-Jul-18 10:32 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
I remain of the view that MCB could be commercialised for this purpose 
relatively easily. The investment would for R and fleet construction 
be perhaps $10-100M, and the fee for each storm-busting job would 
probably be 20M (a bargain, when the US alone is taking 200bn damage 
per year). You'd likely get 1-3/Yr, min, giving an average income of 
40M. Alternatively, there may be a larger number of cheaper jobs.


Assuming an operating cost base of 30pc of fee, that's roughly 25M/yr 
operating profit. The investment breaks even at year 2-4, is 
sustainably profitable thereafter, and retains substantial value in 
know-how and IP.


Andrew



On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, 10:04 Stephen Salter, <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:


Dear Cyril

Thank you.  That is exactly what I imagined.  The next questions
are how far in advance of the heavy rain can we get a warning and
how deep the patch of warm water goes. I will have to learn how to
drive the NOAA website.  It was alarming to get warnings from both
Google and Firefox that this might be dangerous.

I have done some calcualtions about the number of spray vessels
that would be needed to cool El Niño events with marine cloud
brightening. The number was surprisongly small and I would like to
hear from anyone who would like to check them.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Sea surface temperatures Japan

[Stephen Salter]

Dear Cyril

Thank you.  That is exactly what I imagined.  The next questions are how 
far in advance of the heavy rain can we get a warning and how deep the 
patch of warm water goes.  I will have to learn how to drive the NOAA 
website.  It was alarming to get warnings from both Google and Firefox 
that this might be dangerous.


I have done some calcualtions about the number of spray vessels that 
would be needed to cool El Niño events with marine cloud brightening. 
The number was surprisongly small and I would like to hear from anyone 
who would like to check them.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704


On 09/07/2018 08:20, cyril caminade wrote:

Dear all

This was a smoking gun in 2015 indeed (El Nino starting)
Warm SST anomalies can be seen around Japan in late June 2018
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/wkanomv2.png
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/monanomv2.png



2018-07-08 23:07 GMT+01:00 Stephen Salter <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>:


Hi All

This could be a smoking gun.

Image result for Sea surface temperature anomaly Japan


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704

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

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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
<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.




--
Dr. Cyril Caminade
University of Liverpool, Institute of Infection and Global Health, 
Horn office, LUCINDA group. Liverpool Science Park IC2 building, 146 
Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L35RF, UK

Tel: 00 44 (0)151 795 8322
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/infection-and-global-health/staff/cyril-caminade/


--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Sea surface temperatures Japan

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

This could be a smoking gun.

Image result for Sea surface temperature anomaly Japan


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Sea surface temperatures Japan

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Can any kind climate person point me to recent sea surface round Japan?

Did any models to predict the heavy rain?

If so, can we run the models again with lower tempertures?

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] (really quite astonishing) Tweet from Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf)

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I was sad to hear about the serious respiratory issues of Dr Wolf's 
child and would like to draw her attention to the discovery by the 
Polish doctor Felix Bochkowsky that workers in salt mines had fewer lung 
problems than other people. Several companies now sell salt inhaling 
pipes and I can confirm that they really do work. Asthmatic children in 
Eastern Europe are treated with deep breathing exercises in salt mines.  
My theory is that the mechanism is osmosis which kills viruses and 
bacteria by drying them.   To offset the thermal effects of double 
preindustrial CO2 we would have to release salt at about one tonne a 
second which is small compared with the 200 tonnes a second being 
released now from breaking waves which is the estimate from Grini et al. at


doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1717:MTACOS>2.0.CO;2.

The size of what we spray is important because larger or smaller salt 
particles can work in the wrong direction.  It is the number of 
successful nucleations which matters, not the salt mass. Sadly little of 
the salt released from marine cloud brightening in mid ocean will reach 
land.


If anyone can give me an address for Dr Wolf I would like to send her 
papers about our work and its environmental impacts.


Stephen Salter


On 23/06/2018 19:14, Andrew Lockley wrote:
This twitter fisticuffs between David Keith and Naomi Wolf is worth 
looking at. She's a twitter-verified (62k), multi-bestselling author 
making some utterly outlandish allegations against David and Gernot 
Wagner. David comes back, quite rightly, stating that this kind of 
misinformation puts him and his family's safety at risk. I couldn't 
agree with David more - this stuff is bait for the unhinged, and 
scientists cannot ordinarily hide their locations, afford close 
protection, or carry arms.


IANAL, but this would seem to be libel under UK law - although it's 
unclear whether such an action could be brought in the UK.


Naomi asked me for an interview after I called her out; I'd appreciate 
feedback on whether that's wise.


Andrew

Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf) tweeted at 5:21 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2018:
"Don't blame the scientists"? My child has serious respiratory issues 
and @DKeithClimate, @GernotWagner and @Harvard are spraying alumina 
and/or sulphates, a pollutant, at tropospheric level -- WHICH WILL 
REACH US  -- to "unknown environmental effect." This is a criminal act.

(https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1005666203975782400?s=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 
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Mono-disperse spray?

[Stephen Salter]

Hi all

The Altersjkær and Kristjansson 2013 paper at doi:10.1029/2012GL054286 
showed that while marine cloud brightening with accumulation mode spray 
worked well for cooling, drop sizes in both the Aitken and coarse modes 
worked in the wrong way.  We hope that our spray generation method will 
allow a narrow spread.


Does anyone know of climate model work with a mono-disperse spray and, 
if so, what diameter was used?


Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
+44 (0)131 650 5704


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Sea level rise

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

I sent you some calculations about the number of spray vessels needed to 
stop sea level rise.  It gave the ratio of the cooling power needed to 
the total US electrical generation capacity as 543, which I found 
surprisingly high.


From the latest BP world energy statistics which you can get from

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf

you will see that the cooling power for sea level plus ice is 32.5 times 
more than total world power.


Please tell me if you can see where I have made a mistake. Nobody else 
has yet.


Stephen



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Sea level

[Stephen Salter]

James

You are not dense but you are the second person to qualify for an 
observant reader's badge.  Congratulations.


The missing punch line is because I messed up the conversion from 
MathCad to PDF.  It  should have read






By the way my assumption for the Antarctic loss rate is much higher that 
the one given by Shepherd et al in today's Nature at


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y.pdf

Stephen


On 13-Jun-18 9:39 PM, Jamais Cascio wrote:

Hi Stephen

I must be dense — I can’t spot in this paper where you give the actual estimate 
of the number of vessels needed. I see where you estimate the production cost 
and the overall power requirements to carry out the task, but I can’t find the 
number of vessels required.

Could you please point me to the page/location?

thank you
Jamais Cascio





On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:54 AM, Stephen Salter  wrote:

Hi All

I attach some calculations on the number of spray vessels needed to save ice 
and stop sea level rise.  Increased sea level can affect rich pink people as 
well as poor brown ones.

Places with red text are where I am using single lumped values for what should 
be a long time series in a proper global model. I could easily change these to 
any others you might suggest if I cannot twist your arms to try models with 
spray at sensible times, places and cloud fractions.

To control sea level you can use them anywhere including hurricane breeding 
paths, El Niño hot blobs, coral beds etc.. I can send calculations for these 
too.

Stephen

--

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW
Scotland

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Gerrard and Hester 2018 Climate Engineering and the Law.pdf

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The section on marine cloud brightening is far more accurate than any of 
the other papers written by ethicists.  One can tell that people have 
been doing some reading.


However the mention of 45,000 kilograms of spray a second to offset 
current anthropogenic carbon emissions may be high. Perhaps the number 
might have come from the amount needed to offset the thermal effects of 
double preindustrial CO2 which one hopes would not be necessary.  Or 
perhaps it may be because of the larger than necessary drop size used in 
some climate models.  We believe that both the liquid drop and the dry 
residues should both be inside the Greenfield gap.  This points to a 0.8 
micron liquid diameter needing a very slight supersaturation to satisfy 
Kohler.


If electrostatic charge can reduce coalescence losses we hope that  300 
spray vessels  operating in the best places could offset thermal 
increases so far.  Not all will be in the best places all the time so 
the total fleet would have to be somewhat larger and would have to 
increase at a rate which depend on how well we can reduce atmospheric 
CO2 and methane.


If we can index link the cost of Royal Navy corvettes from 1940 the the 
mass production costs should be about $4 million US each. There are no 
fuel or crew costs so If we can maintain them and write off the the 
capital  over the typical 25-year life of a ship at 10% of capital, the 
annual cost of fleet ownership seems quite attractive relative to 
holding international climate conferences.


Stephen


On 25/04/2018 16:43, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-15727-9 — Climate Engineering and the Law
Edited by Michael B. Gerrard , Tracy Hester
Frontmatter
More Information
© in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org 


i
Climate Engineering and the Law
 Climate change is increasingly recognized as a global threat, and is 
already
contributing to record- breaking hurricanes and heat waves. To prevent 
the worst
impacts, attention is now turning to climate engineering – the 
intentional large-
scale modii cation of the environment to reduce the impact of climate 
change.

The two principal methods involve removing some carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere (which could consume huge amounts of land and money, and take
a long period of time), and reducing the amount of solar radiation 
reaching the
Earth’s surface, perhaps by spraying aerosols into the upper 
atmosphere from
airplanes (which could be done quickly but is risky and highly 
controversial).
This is the i rst book to focus on the legal aspects of these 
technologies:  what

government approvals would be needed; how liability would be assessed and
compensation provided if something goes wrong; and how a governance 
system

could be structured and agreed internationally.
 Michael B. Gerrard is a professor and Director of the Sabin Center 
for Climate

Change Law at Columbia Law School.
 Tracy Hester is a lecturer at the University of Houston Law Center.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] ACPD - The climate effects of increasing ocean albedo: An idealized representation of solar geoengineering

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Am I correct in assuming that the marine cloud brightening being 
modelled is steady through the year over all oceans with no variation 
relative to monsoons?


Oreopoulos 2008 figure 4b does show that the very most susceptibility is 
indeed at the Eastern side of large oceans but also that there are large 
swings north and south through the year and also that the very best 
regions (yellow and red) are only about 7/5 times better than much 
larger areas of cyan.  Are we wrong to ignore the mobility of spray vessels?


Stephen


On 23/04/2018 17:03, Andrew Lockley wrote:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2018-340/

Abstract. Marine cloud brightening has been proposed as a means of 
geoengineering/climate intervention, or deliberately altering the 
climate system to offset anthropogenic climate change. As an idealized 
representation of marine cloud brightening, this paper discusses 
experiment G1ocean-albedo of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison 
Project (GeoMIP), involving an abrupt quadrupling of the 
CO2 concentration and an instantaneous increase in ocean albedo to 
maintain approximate net top-of-atmosphere radiative flux balance. 
Eleven Earth System Models are relatively consistent in their 
temperature, radiative flux, and hydrological cycle responses to this 
experiment. Due to the imposed forcing, air over the land surface 
warms by a model average of 1.14 K, while air over most of the ocean 
cools. Some parts of the near-surface air temperature over ocean warm 
due to heat transport from land to ocean. These changes generally 
resolve within a few years, indicating that changes in ocean heat 
content play at most a small role in the warming over the oceans. The 
hydrological cycle response is a general slowing down, with high 
heterogeneity in the response, particularly in the tropics. While 
idealized, these results have important implications for marine cloud 
brightening, or other methods of geoengineering involving spatially 
heterogeneous forcing, or other general forcings with a strong 
land/ocean contrast. It also reinforces previous findings that keeping 
top-of-atmosphere net radiative flux constant is not sufficient for 
preventing changes in global mean temperature.
*Citation:* Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Wang, H., Robock, A., Gabriel, 
C., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Haywood, J., Ji, D., Jones, A., 
Lenton, A., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S., Schmidt, 
H., Watanabe, S., Yang, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: The climate effects of 
increasing ocean albedo: An idealized representation of solar 
geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-340, in review, 2018.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.