RE: [geo] Climate Projections Very Likely Underestimate Future Volcanic Forcing and Its Climatic Effects

[david.sevier]

What this does not say is what happens after 2100. If there is no reversal on 
the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or there is no geo-engineering 
to cool the planet, we will be unloading kilometre thick ice loading from 
Greenland and Antarctica (which has the most volcanos of anywhere on the 
planet. It also has a super volcano which may be awoken by the melting). On the 
flip side we will be adding up to 60 metres of water pressure loading across 
the oceans.  There is little question that there will be increased vulcanism 
and more sulphur emissions. Accurate modelling of the increase in vulcanism 
after 2100 maybe difficult/impossible as it is somewhat uncharted territory I 
suspect. It would seem to me that an increase in vulcanism will likely be a lot 
more in the coming centuries as the melting rate increases. 

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoengineering News
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 12:32 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Climate Projections Very Likely Underestimate Future Volcanic 
Forcing and Its Climatic Effects

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103743

 

Authors

  Man Mei 
Chim,   
Thomas J. Aubry,  
 
Nathan Luke Abraham,  
 Lauren 
Marshall,   
Jane Mulcahy,  
 Jeremy 
Walton,   
Anja Schmidt

First published: 13 June 2023

 

  https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103743

 


Abstract


Standard climate projections represent future volcanic eruptions by a constant 
forcing inferred from 1850 to 2014 volcanic forcing. Using the latest ice-core 
and satellite records to design stochastic eruption scenarios, we show that 
there is a 95% probability that explosive eruptions could emit more sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere over 2015–2100 than current standard 
climate projections (i.e., ScenarioMIP). Our simulations using the UK Earth 
System Model with interactive stratospheric aerosols show that for a median 
future eruption scenario, the 2015–2100 average global-mean stratospheric 
aerosol optical depth (SAOD) is double that used in ScenarioMIP, with 
small-magnitude eruptions (<3 Tg of SO2) contributing 50% to SAOD 
perturbations. We show that volcanic effects on large-scale climate indicators, 
including global surface temperature, sea level and sea ice extent, are 
underestimated in ScenarioMIP because current climate projections do not fully 
account for the recurrent frequency of volcanic eruptions of different 
magnitudes.


Key Points


*   There is a 95% chance that the time-averaged 2015–2100 volcanic SO2 
flux from explosive eruptions exceeds the time-averaged 1850–2014 flux
*   Standard climate projections very likely underestimate the 2015–2100 
stratospheric aerosol optical depth and volcanic climate effects
*   Small-magnitude eruptions (<3 Tg SO2) contribute 30%–50% of the 
volcanic climate effects in a median future eruption scenario


Plain Language Summary


Climate projections are the simulations of Earth's climate in the future using 
complex climate models. Standard climate projections, as in Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report, assume that explosive volcanic 
activity over 2015–2100 are of the same level as the 1850–2014 period. Using 
the latest ice-core and satellite records, we find that explosive eruptions 
could emit more sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere for the period of 
2015–2100 than standard climate projections. Our climate model simulations show 
that the impacts of volcanic eruptions on climate, including global surface 
temperature, sea level and sea ice extent, are underestimated because current 
climate projections do not fully account for the recurrent frequency of 
volcanic eruptions. We also find that small-magnitude eruptions occur 
frequently and can contribute a significant effect on future climate.

Source: AGU

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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_WALEvJo%2BPzpFg%2Bm8KTgd_WEcXYRM74UG2Ej8SLHJXAg%40mail.gmail.com
 

RE: [geo] SATAN

[david.sevier]

Andrew,

 

Please can you expand a bit regarding your comment of unsafe slow assent vs 
difficulty venting. This sounds like something of importance. I have always 
assumed that venting or slowing down the speed would be an option. 
Understanding this sounds quite important. I would note that weather balloons 
seem to have a solution to this but I may be mistaken.

 

I would also point out that by doing the work that you did that you underscored 
the value of why actual experiments need to happen. It is essential.

 

Regards,

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 9:50 AM
To: Stephen Salter 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] SATAN

 

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> > 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 

RE: [geo] impacts of nanoparticle sodium chloride particles at high altitude

[david.sevier]

Dear Frank,

 

Regarding your comments, I have a few questions and comments. 

 

I can see that your point about chlorine but this will be dependent upon the 
rate of reaction. Do you have any data on reaction rates? Do you have any data 
of potential impacts of the height on reaction rates?  I suspect height could 
have a major impact as the concentration of both nitric and sulphuric acid will 
be different. 

 

I would also like to see data on the predicted concentrations of sodium 
chloride across the air column and if there is data on how position on the 
globe affects this. I am asking because if we are only increasing the salt 
concentration at a given height by overall a few percent compared to the 
natural background level, then this becomes a minor discussion. Obviously lower 
heights will mean lower residence times, but an understand of this issue will 
allow determination of the sweet spot where the greatest SRM effects are 
delivered for the lowest negative impact.

 

Potentially, alternative solid salts could be delivered such as sodium sulphate 
which is a common industrial waste product. Cost would be higher than sea salt. 
Neither option will have anywhere near the costs that using SO2, H2S, or 
sulphuric acid would attract due to handling and storage issues.

 

Regards,

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

 

 

From: Keutsch, Frank N  
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:28 PM
To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk; 'geoengineering' 

Subject: Re: [geo] impacts of nanoparticle sodium chloride particles at high 
altitude

 

Hi,

 

Introducing chlorine in any form into the stratosphere has potential to greatly 
affect stratospheric ozone. Nitric and sulfuric acid will liberate HCl from 
NaCl and this HCl can turn into active forms of chlorine. The chloride in solid 
NaCl itself can react with ClONO2 to form Cl2 which will destroy ozone. So 
overall, NaCl is not an ideal material for stratospheric aerosol…

 

There is not much sea salt aerosol in the stratosphere. Mostly it is sulfuric 
acid (with some nitric acid depending on conditions such as temperature) and in 
the lower stratosphere organic and biomass burning aerosol.

 

Frank

 

 

 

___

Frank N. Keutsch

Stonington Professor of Engineering and Atmospheric Science

 

Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences 

Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences

Harvard University

12 Oxford Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

USA

 

E-mail: 

keut...@seas.harvard.edu  

 

Tel:+1-617-495-1878

___
 

 

 

From: mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
> on behalf of "david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk 
 " mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> >
Reply-To: "david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk 
 " mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> >
Date: Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:37 PM
To: 'geoengineering' mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: [geo] impacts of nanoparticle sodium chloride particles at high 
altitude

 

I am seeking to understand what might be any adverse impacts of delivering salt 
particles of 20 to 50 nanometres to the high atmosphere (greater than 20 km). 
The salt particles would be derived from sea water and therefore contain other 
sea minerals. It is worth pointing out that such particles already exist at 
this altitude derived from sea sprays.  I do not understand the impact of these 
current particles but I suspect others have already looked at this. I would 
like to tap into this work.

 

For this discussion, please can we leave aside how these would be delivered to 
this altitude. I want input on the impact of the fine salt particles and not 
the delivery.

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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/020201d94ad2%242f00a7e0%248d01f7a0%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk
 

[geo] impacts of nanoparticle sodium chloride particles at high altitude

[david.sevier]

I am seeking to understand what might be any adverse impacts of delivering
salt particles of 20 to 50 nanometres to the high atmosphere (greater than
20 km). The salt particles would be derived from sea water and therefore
contain other sea minerals. It is worth pointing out that such particles
already exist at this altitude derived from sea sprays.  I do not understand
the impact of these current particles but I suspect others have already
looked at this. I would like to tap into this work.

 

For this discussion, please can we leave aside how these would be delivered
to this altitude. I want input on the impact of the fine salt particles and
not the delivery.

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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/020201d94ad2%242f00a7e0%248d01f7a0%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk.

RE: [geo] Michael Mann - SIRIUS - geoengineering

[david.sevier]

How do you undertake meaningful development without field testing? 

 

A useful comparison that was used to defeat a ban on using animals to train 
surgeons. It was done as an ad, “ Today the doctor will do life or death 
surgery on your daughter. Today is the first time he has operated in reality 
and the first time that he has carried this operation. Previously he would have 
learned using animals but this has been banned. Do you want this future?”

 

It is stupid to think that we can develop what is likely to be an essential 
technology without actual field trials.  And the idea that we will try it at 
scale with to testing or ramp up is not remotely creditable.

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of H simmens
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 5:42 PM
Cc: hsimm...@gmail.com; Doug Grandt ; Planetary 
Restoration ; 
healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; geoengineering 
; John Nissen ; 
Robert Tulip ; Robert Chris ; 
Rebecca personal em 
Subject: Re: [geo] Michael Mann - SIRIUS - geoengineering

 

For those who may have missed Michael Mann's conversation an hour ago, there 
was not surprisingly little new. He did clearly and unambiguously support more 
research into solar geo engineering as long as it does not involve field 
testing. He invoked the familiar bogeymen - adverse unintended consequences, 
termination shock and moral hazard as reasons why it should not be deployed. He 
did not distinguish between SAI and other methods. To Smerconish’s credit he 
did bring up mount Pinatubo and Mann acknowledged that it lowered temperatures.

 

There was absolutely no discussion as is typical of these conversations of the 
relative risks and benefits of solar geoengineering versus ERA/emission 
reductions alone.

 

By the way Smerconish is one of the very few talk programs with a large base of 
listeners that is down the middle politically. 

 

You may be able to listen to the conversation at the link below, though you may 
need to be an XM subscriber. The conversation starts at 11:05 am.

 

 



  SiriusXM Player: Online Radio, 
Music, Sports, News, Podcasts & Talk

  player.siriusxm.com

  

 

Herb

 





On Feb 14, 2023, at 8:46 PM, H simmens mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Hi Jim,

 

I’m sure I speak for all of us in our support of your revised ‘and more 
forthright’ paper, and your ‘no holds barred’ book.  

 

Your courageous climate honesty is truly an inspiration. 

 

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens





On Feb 14, 2023, at 8:30 PM, James Hansen mailto:jimehan...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Not yet -- first will submit revised Pipeline paper soon -- clearer with some 
additional insight, IMHO, and hopefully more forthright w/o losing any 
co-author or reviewer - will be no holds barred in my book.

Jim Hansen

 

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:16 PM H simmens mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Good catch Doug. Smerconish to his credit is the only mainstream radio talk 
show host who regularly brings on climate scientists and alas it’s almost 
always Michael Mann.

 

Smerconish is usually deferential to Mann so I don’t expect much pushback when 
he excoriates Geo engineering.

 

I’ve got a friend who has a connection with Smerconish, so let me see if I can 
find a way to get him to bring on another establishment climate scientist next 
time - like Jim Hansen! 

 

Herb

 

 

 

 

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens





On Feb 14, 2023, at 8:00 PM, 'Doug Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition 
(HPAC) mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:



This should be interesting … or infuriating 

 

Michael Mann posted the following on his Facebook page this afternoon 

 

Wednesday 11am (EST), 4pm (UK)

Thursday  3am (AEDT)

 

I'll be talking about geoengineering with the great Michael Smerconish, 
tomorrow (Wednesday) 11am ET, SiriusXM: 






 

 POTUS Politics

 

 siriusxm.com

 

Click LISTEN LIVE



You may have to get the App if you don’t already subscribe. I did … hope it 
works!!

 

Doug Grandt

 

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 

RE: [geo] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

[david.sevier]

Andrew,

 

I can only speak for myself but please keep doing what you are doing. It is 
needed. 

 

I tell people that when the world finally wakes up with white knuckle fear to 
the risks and danger that Climate Change represents they will need 
geo-engineering to buy the essential couple of decades required to make the 
real transition to zero carbon emissions and then to start CO2 removal on mass 
from the atmosphere. Cold hard facts are that even if we started scaling up 
this today, it would not be fast enough and geo-engineering would be needed. 
The longer society takes to wake up, the greater the need will be for 
geo-engineering to address the time problem. 

 

Those would have us do no research into the tools of geo-engineering are those 
who would leave us and our children defenceless to avoid disaster. No remotely 
sensible person or organisation in this space is arguing for avoiding moving to 
net zero quickly. We all worry about the massive risk the delay to this 
happening is creating and wish this would happen a lot faster.

 

Keep doing what you are doing and ignore those who would risk our children’ 
future for foolishness.

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 31 January 2023 00:06
To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 
; geoengineering 

Subject: [geo] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

 

Hi Geo/CDR lists, 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

How bad has it got? Well, I'm reliably informed that I've had my CV binned for 
at least 1 job because I use the word "geoengineering" to describe the field. 
I've recently had several people (without exception CDR types) refuse to 
cooperate with my scicomm work - because I use the word "geoengineering" as a 
convenient, dictionary-accurate, and historically-relevant way to describe my 
work. That's denying their work an audience, based on a squabble over historic 
branding. Coca-Cola doesn't even have cocaine in anymore, but people don't 
argue with bar staff about it. So why argue with me, when my work is much more 
accurately described?

 

People are free to use whatever words they like to describe what they do; my 
beef isn't with the string of related terms for the same things (geoengineering 
vs climate intervention; solar radiation modification vs solar radiation 
management; carbon removal vs CDR vs GGR; etc.). The problem I have is with the 
petty personal sniping and factionalism that's increasingly creeping in to the 
discipline, as a result.

 

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not rebranding everything I do just because a 
few CDR fans won't play nicely with their SRM counterparts. And I'm not going 
to jump into a silo, just because other people think I should. 

 

Notwithstanding the objectionable pettiness of this behaviour, I don't believe 
the core argument bears any real scrutiny. So let's get to that. 

 

With a quick Google I have found both present and historical references to the 
term "geoengineering" (relatedly climate engineering/intervention) being used 
to encompass CDR. 

 

[geo] Particles and SRM

[david.sevier]

Particles and SRM

 

The post covers some of the issues around various materials that could be
used for SRM, handling and equipment challenges, and issues around creating
fine particles of the different materials. I am excluding discussion about
how each of the materials might react with other chemical species in the
environment of the upper atmosphere. Other previous discussions of this
forum have covered this.

Sulphuric acid

This is probably the most widely discussed material for SRM. I have seen
little regarding the handling hazards and the quite serious issues of
storage and equipment selection. I have worked on production plant design
that has had to incorporate concentrated sulphuric acid. Every aspect of
storing, handling, pumping, and dosing this product is problematic and
expensive. SRM will by definition need to use reasonable amounts of this
material and this will trigger all kinds of health and safety issues for
aspects of the operation. The problems get exponentially worse and more
expensive if you try to go the route of sulphur dioxide or trioxide.
Shifting to diluted sulphuric (50% for example) does not always make things
easier. I can guarantee that the costs of using sulphuric acid at any scale
will be harder and a lot more expensive than people will initially expect.
This will mean higher CAPEX and OPEX costs. I can see real issues of pumping
sulphuric acid and spraying at high altitude once you undertake a risk
failure analysis for if something goes wrong. The problems are not
unsolvable but they will limit where you can do this and they will raise
costs.

 

Titanium Dioxide

Titanium dioxide has the significant advantage that when it is made, it
forms small submicron particles that are well suited for SRM. Regretfully
there are other confounding issues with titanium dioxide:

*   It is quite costly and a limited resource. If a new market emerged
to start using more of it the price would become even greater.
*   It takes a lot of refining and will increase the waste production
that is associated with its production. Again I have some experience in this
area. It is a non-trivial matter.
*   Powdered titanium dioxide carries a cancer risk if mishandled. I
think if you started seriously talking about spraying particles of this
material in the upper atmosphere, there would be public pushback for this
reason.

 

Calcium Carbonate

Previous, I was a one of the people who early on argued for considering this
material.  Calcium carbonate could have a lot of advantages (easy to handle,
plentiful, etc) but I now realise there is a serious issue that I feel needs
to be brought to the fore. Creating submicron calcium carbonate is going to
be costly in terms of Capex, OPEX, and energy. Again I have experience here
because my team was looking at capturing CO2 by reacting gypsum with CO2 and
ammonium sulphate to make pigment quality calcium carbonate (white filler).
We solved the purification problem which had defeated all who had attempted
this before. We could make 10 micron precipitated calcium carbonate fairly
easy and the grinding costs to make 3 micron product (this was our target
market) are not bad BUT if you want to make a lot of small fine submicron
calcium carbonate, there are issues. When you grind calcium carbonate below
10 micron, the grinding energy exponentially climbs the finer you get. This
means if you want to make product with an average diameter below 0.1 micron,
the energy costs is going to be very substantial. The production plant will
need to be quite large. So you will incur high CAPEX and OPEX costs.
Potentially, I think this could be enough to prevent calcium carbonate being
a material to use for SRM.

 

Salt (NaCl)

There has been a lot of discussion about spraying salt water to make fine
particles through different ways.  I have done work on spraying reactants.
Coalescence is a non-trivial issue that tends to rob you of the fine
particles that you were initially seeking. There are solutions but all
require more energy and equipment complication. I found nozzle clogging
issues became more of an issue the finer that we tried to spray and when we
tried to increase the volumes. Again, not an unsolvable problem but if your
spray nozzle is tens of miles up, it will likely be an issue to give real
thought to. It will definitely be a lot harder to deliver salt particles
that are fine submicron rather than above 1 micron salt particles.

There may be a more direct solution for salt that I have not previously
seen. It would be relatively straightforward to create sub-micron salt
particles using a spray drier. This is well established technology that
equipment exists for small and large applications. I believe it is likely
that you could create bulk salt particles below 10 nm.  It would be
relatively easy to blow a mixture of dry air and fine salt particles up a
tube to high altitude where they would be released. 

An ideal arrangement would be to have a small spray 

RE: [geo] The Shortwave Radiative Flux Response to an Injection of Sea Salt Aerosols in the Gulf of Mexico

[david.sevier]

Some questions:

 

1.  I am assuming that we are talking about 10.8 Tg yr of sea water and not 
10.8 Tg of salt. Is this correct?
2.  To what height is the injection being modelled at?
3.  Any idea of the predicted energy calculation for delivering and 
spraying this much material to this height?

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 09 November 2022 21:04
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] The Shortwave Radiative Flux Response to an Injection of Sea 
Salt Aerosols in the Gulf of Mexico

 

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2022JD037067

 

Authors

P. B. Goddard,B. Kravitz,D. G. MacMartin,H. Wang

 

November 4th, 2022

 

Abstract

Marine cloud brightening (MCB) has been proposed as a potential means of 
geoengineering the climate, temporarily providing cooling to offset some of the 
effects of climate change. Marine sky brightening (MSB), involving direct 
scattering of sunlight from sea salt injection into the marine boundary layer, 
has been proposed as an additional geoengineering method that could work in 
areas that are not regularly cloudy. Here we use a regional atmospheric model 
to simulate MCB and MSB over the Gulf of Mexico and nearby land, a highly 
populated and economically important region that is not characterized by 
persistent marine stratocumulus cloud cover. Injection of sea salt in the 
Aitken mode from a region in the central Gulf of Mexico equivalent to 10.8 Tg 
yr-1 produces an upwards 8.4 W m-2 radiative flux change across the region at 
the top of the atmosphere, largely due to cloud property changes. 
Comparatively, a similar mass injection in the accumulation mode produces a 3.1 
W m-2 radiative flux change driven primarily by direct scattering. Injection of 
even larger particles produces a much smaller radiative flux change. Shortwave 
flux changes due to clouds are largely driven by an increase in cloud droplet 
number concentration and an increase in cloud liquid water path (each 
contributing about 45% to the flux change), with a much lower contribution from 
cloud fraction changes (10%).

 

Source: AGU

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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-06cx5enV31_vMyRO%3DJmazuthh4nQ-gVnw7LrSTA6q3oiA%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/01a901d8f51f%24213348b0%246399da10%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk.

RE: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a geoengineering future

[david.sevier]

Agreed. I was referring to insoluble matter and not soluble matter. Are you 
saying that the soluble organic matter of sea water will lead to ozone 
depletion? I like to see a paper discussion of this (if that is what you are 
saying).

 

From: Adrian Tuck  
Sent: 07 November 2022 15:45
To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; ayesha iqbal ; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a 
geoengineering future

 

Filtering out soluble organics and surfactants will not be a trivial operation.





On 7 Nov 2022, at 08:37, mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> > mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> > wrote:

 

If you were spraying sea water, it is unlikely that there would be a large 
organic element to it. For practical operation, you would likely pre-filter the 
sea water to control clogging issues. Spray nozzle clogging may seem like a 
trivial issue during design but during actual implementation, it is a much 
larger issue. You will end up filtering to prevent this. 

 

From: Adrian Tuck mailto:adrianft...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 07 November 2022 15:16
To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk  
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com  ; ayesha iqbal 
mailto:ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com> >; geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a 
geoengineering future

 

Sea water has a load of organic matter, living and dead. The Hunga-Tunga 
eruption will have injected that way up into the stratosphere, with so far as 
yet unknown and unmodelled consequences. The increase in water vapour has been 
modelled, and is substantial.






On 7 Nov 2022, at 07:57, mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> > mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> > wrote:

 

You may want to define aerosol particles more specifically. I do not think that 
spraying sea water into the high atmosphere will cause ozone depletion (but 
perhaps there is a paper out there that says it does). 

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk  

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com   
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 05 November 2022 23:26
To: ayesha iqbal mailto:ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com> >
Cc: geoengineering mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a 
geoengineering future

 

Just a note to welcome ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com 
  to the list. She's what your money gets 
spent on. We welcome your feedback; the service is for your benefit - not ours. 

 

If you'd like to make a contribution to our costs, use these links for donations

 - Regular http://patreon.com/geoengineering  

 - Single https://gofund.me/da586daa 

 

 

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022, 23:22 ayesha iqbal, mailto:ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Poster's note: Old, but new to the list.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/preparing-the-united-states-for-security-and-governance-in-a-geoengineering-future/

By:Joseph Versen  , Zaruhi 
Mnatsakanyan  , and 
Johannes Urpelainen   

Introduction

Imagine the following scenario: it is the year 2035. One large country, dealing 
with major issues of global warming, decides to take extreme action. The 
government begins secret deployment of a geoengineering system for pumping 
large amounts of reflective particles into the air, a technique designed to 
mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic eruption, only on a much larger scale 
and over a much longer time horizon. Although such behavior has been 
discouraged by the international community, research has continued, largely 
behind closed doors and without real regulation. Now that the climate situation 
has become more dire, the country has decided that it can no longer afford to 
wait; they see geoengineering as their only option.

At first, the decision seems wise, as the increase in global temperatures start 
to level off. But soon other types of anomalous weather begin to appear: 
unexpected and severe droughts hit countries around the world, disrupting 
agriculture, and the ozone layer begins to decay rapidly, exposing populations 
to harmful radiation. Global weather has become politicized—delegates argue at 
the United Nations over new climate complications allegedly caused by 
geoengineering, and diplomatic relationships are strained. This new 
geoengineering crisis escalates when another large country, under the 
impression it has been severely harmed by the geoengineering, 

RE: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a geoengineering future

[david.sevier]

If you were spraying sea water, it is unlikely that there would be a large 
organic element to it. For practical operation, you would likely pre-filter the 
sea water to control clogging issues. Spray nozzle clogging may seem like a 
trivial issue during design but during actual implementation, it is a much 
larger issue. You will end up filtering to prevent this. 

 

From: Adrian Tuck  
Sent: 07 November 2022 15:16
To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; ayesha iqbal ; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a 
geoengineering future

 

Sea water has a load of organic matter, living and dead. The Hunga-Tunga 
eruption will have injected that way up into the stratosphere, with so far as 
yet unknown and unmodelled consequences. The increase in water vapour has been 
modelled, and is substantial.





On 7 Nov 2022, at 07:57, mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> > mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> > wrote:

 

You may want to define aerosol particles more specifically. I do not think that 
spraying sea water into the high atmosphere will cause ozone depletion (but 
perhaps there is a paper out there that says it does). 

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk  

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com   
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 05 November 2022 23:26
To: ayesha iqbal mailto:ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com> >
Cc: geoengineering mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a 
geoengineering future

 

Just a note to welcome ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com 
  to the list. She's what your money gets 
spent on. We welcome your feedback; the service is for your benefit - not ours. 

 

If you'd like to make a contribution to our costs, use these links for donations

 - Regular http://patreon.com/geoengineering  

 - Single https://gofund.me/da586daa 

 

 

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022, 23:22 ayesha iqbal, mailto:ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Poster's note: Old, but new to the list.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/preparing-the-united-states-for-security-and-governance-in-a-geoengineering-future/

By:Joseph Versen  , Zaruhi 
Mnatsakanyan  , and 
Johannes Urpelainen   

Introduction

Imagine the following scenario: it is the year 2035. One large country, dealing 
with major issues of global warming, decides to take extreme action. The 
government begins secret deployment of a geoengineering system for pumping 
large amounts of reflective particles into the air, a technique designed to 
mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic eruption, only on a much larger scale 
and over a much longer time horizon. Although such behavior has been 
discouraged by the international community, research has continued, largely 
behind closed doors and without real regulation. Now that the climate situation 
has become more dire, the country has decided that it can no longer afford to 
wait; they see geoengineering as their only option.

At first, the decision seems wise, as the increase in global temperatures start 
to level off. But soon other types of anomalous weather begin to appear: 
unexpected and severe droughts hit countries around the world, disrupting 
agriculture, and the ozone layer begins to decay rapidly, exposing populations 
to harmful radiation. Global weather has become politicized—delegates argue at 
the United Nations over new climate complications allegedly caused by 
geoengineering, and diplomatic relationships are strained. This new 
geoengineering crisis escalates when another large country, under the 
impression it has been severely harmed by the geoengineering, carries out a 
focused military strike against the geoengineering equipment, a decision 
supported by other nations who also believe they have been negatively impacted. 
This development, however, becomes even more devastating, as once the 
geoengineering stops, global temperatures dramatically rebound to the levels 
they would have reached on their previous trajectory, prior to the use of 
geoengineering. The resulting consequences of such a dramatic increase in 
temperatures are disastrous.

A scenario such as the one above remains unfortunately possible given the 
current state of global geoengineering policy. As the increasingly severe 
effects of global warming generate greater interest in geoengineering 
technologies, the United States must prepare itself for the risks and 
uncertainties that come along with their potential deployment. Preparedness for 
such a world 

RE: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a geoengineering future

[david.sevier]

You may want to define aerosol particles more specifically. I do not think that 
spraying sea water into the high atmosphere will cause ozone depletion (but 
perhaps there is a paper out there that says it does). 

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 05 November 2022 23:26
To: ayesha iqbal 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Preparing the United States for security and governance in a 
geoengineering future

 

Just a note to welcome ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com 
  to the list. She's what your money gets 
spent on. We welcome your feedback; the service is for your benefit - not ours. 

 

If you'd like to make a contribution to our costs, use these links for donations

 - Regular http://patreon.com/geoengineering  

 - Single https://gofund.me/da586daa 

 

 

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022, 23:22 ayesha iqbal, mailto:ayeshaiqbal...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Poster's note: Old, but new to the list.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/preparing-the-united-states-for-security-and-governance-in-a-geoengineering-future/

By:Joseph Versen  , Zaruhi 
Mnatsakanyan  , and 
Johannes Urpelainen   

Introduction

Imagine the following scenario: it is the year 2035. One large country, dealing 
with major issues of global warming, decides to take extreme action. The 
government begins secret deployment of a geoengineering system for pumping 
large amounts of reflective particles into the air, a technique designed to 
mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic eruption, only on a much larger scale 
and over a much longer time horizon. Although such behavior has been 
discouraged by the international community, research has continued, largely 
behind closed doors and without real regulation. Now that the climate situation 
has become more dire, the country has decided that it can no longer afford to 
wait; they see geoengineering as their only option.

At first, the decision seems wise, as the increase in global temperatures start 
to level off. But soon other types of anomalous weather begin to appear: 
unexpected and severe droughts hit countries around the world, disrupting 
agriculture, and the ozone layer begins to decay rapidly, exposing populations 
to harmful radiation. Global weather has become politicized—delegates argue at 
the United Nations over new climate complications allegedly caused by 
geoengineering, and diplomatic relationships are strained. This new 
geoengineering crisis escalates when another large country, under the 
impression it has been severely harmed by the geoengineering, carries out a 
focused military strike against the geoengineering equipment, a decision 
supported by other nations who also believe they have been negatively impacted. 
This development, however, becomes even more devastating, as once the 
geoengineering stops, global temperatures dramatically rebound to the levels 
they would have reached on their previous trajectory, prior to the use of 
geoengineering. The resulting consequences of such a dramatic increase in 
temperatures are disastrous.

A scenario such as the one above remains unfortunately possible given the 
current state of global geoengineering policy. As the increasingly severe 
effects of global warming generate greater interest in geoengineering 
technologies, the United States must prepare itself for the risks and 
uncertainties that come along with their potential deployment. Preparedness for 
such a world will likely be multi-faceted and will likely include improved 
understanding of how the global climate will change both with or without 
geoengineering, the ability to detect and monitor geoengineering activity 
worldwide, an adequate policy roadmap for deterring certain kinds of 
geoengineering activity and for responding in case of geoengineering deployment 
by other nations, among other measures.

The U.S. should also make a concerted effort to foster the development of an 
international governance regime for geoengineering. In the short term, that 
will involve leveraging existing international fora to legitimately debate 
geoengineering issues on the international stage while also championing a 
comprehensive code of conduct for geoengineering research worldwide. In the 
long run, the U.S. should take the lead on creating a geoengineering-specific 
international body, one with the appropriate scope and flexibility to deal with 
the myriad challenges involved while also promoting wide participation.

 

II. GEOENGINEERING OVERVIEW AND SECURITY CONCERNS

We have already begun to see the effects of man-made climate change around the 
world. As average temperatures climb, droughts become 

RE: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[david.sevier]

I think you guys are giving yourselves an unfair hard time. Finding funding for 
this area of research is difficult to say the least. Take the money where you 
find it and publish your results for all to see. The research may someday be 
difference between disaster and not. 

 

 

David Sevier

 

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

 

Tel 44 (0) 208 288 0128

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
Sent: 03 November 2022 10:15
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar 
geoengineering research in the United States

 

Dear Surprise

This is as well a surprise to our community of researchers, as one could 
naively think that there is no conflict of interest in GE research. No wander 
that these GE Philosophies hit the wall of negative attitudes from 
policy-makers, who do not see their economic interest in our undertakings. 
Capitalism, communism, socialism, eugenism, Judaism,  christianism, bouddhism, 
shintoïsm, africanism, etc. also have their say in the current context of GE 
research. This does ipso facto affect the final result of the researches, which 
are still at a early stage of implementation. Shall we keep blaming 
policy-makers for not allowing open-door experiments of some forms of GE? Or 
shall we first with the ethics of GE, while perfecting our tools and approaches?

This is just food for thought.

Thanks

Prof. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD
Director of Postgraduate Studies/ Francophone Africa (Dist./Online)
Ballsbridge University
WFG (jombi), Mesing 14, Willemstad, Curacao, The Netherlands
WhatsApp: +243 970 649 946
Website: www.fr-acedu.org  
E-mail: lc...@fr-acedu.org  

 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 16:26 Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote:


https://www.solargeoeng.org/economic-interests-and-ideologies-behind-solar-geoengineering-research-in-the-united-states/

 


Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the 
United States


* KEVIN SURPRISE AND J.P. SAPINSKI 
 

*  October 27, 2022

Solar geoengineering research – also discussed as solar radiation management or 
stratospheric aerosol injection – is often thought of as a futuristic climate 
emergency measure, or as a tool of the fossil fuel industry to push back energy 
transitions as much as possible. In this post, we show that solar 
geoengineering is mostly now supported by interests aligned with technology and 
financial sectors, and advanced by researchers as a key part of near-term 
climate policy. This blog is based on a recent paper by the authors, which can 
be found here  
, with pdf here: Whose climate intervention? Solar geoengineering, fractions of 
capital, and hegemonic strategy. 

 

There is a persistent false dichotomy animating the politics of solar 
geoengineering. On one hand, proponents of research and development argue that 
solar geoengineering could serve as both a near-term intervention to reduce 
climate impacts for the most vulnerable, and a way to “buy time” for 
mitigation, adaptation, and carbon removal to take effect. On the other hand, 
critics tend to couch solar geoengineering as nothing but a smokescreen to 
perpetuate fossil fueled 

    business-as-usual. The truth 
lies somewhere in between (though critics are much closer to the mark). That 
is, solar geoengineering is not a humanitarian endeavor, nor is it a direct 
ploy by the fossil fuel industry. It is being advanced – funded, researched, 
and governed – by institutions and individuals broadly aligned with or 
connected to Silicon Valley and Wall Street, so-called green capitalists within 
the technology and financial industries operating under ideologies of 
philanthrocapitalism 

  (or effective altruism) and ecomodernism  . 
Solar geoengineering is being advanced by these interests as a way to “buy 
time” for the same staid, gradual, neoliberal climate policies that have failed 
for decades  : 
market mechanisms, policy tweaks, and technological innovations. There appears 
to be a faction within climate politics 

RE: [geo] Posts to list - input welcome

[david.sevier]

You do good work. Continue.

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Ronal Larson
Sent: 28 October 2022 18:00
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 
; Geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Posts to list - input welcome

 

I find it helpful





On Oct 28, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Just an update regarding my posts to the list. After a hiatus, I've got an 
assistant again to help me with managing twitter @geoengineering1 and posts to 
CDR & geoengineering lists. (Fundraising has therefore now reopened to help 
offset the costs - both for for regular donations 
http://patreon.com/geoengineering and one time donations, 
https://gofund.me/da586daa ) 

 

It's now a good time to ask people what they want. Presently we post the 
following - very comprehensive on twitter and much more selective on the lists. 

- Reports from think tanks 

- Policy announcements, esp. large economies 

- Scientific papers 

- Occasional high quality news articles 

- Blogs from prominent commentators, especially those with new ideas 

- Some jobs (usually more senior ones) 

We haven't done summary emails (eg for this week's videos) for a while, but 
we'll hopefully start these again soon

 

Is this what you are looking for? We can potentially throttle any of the above. 

 

Finally, the format is up for debate. We normally do one story per email, so 
you can open what you want and reply selectively. Round up emails are more 
manageable for readers, but don't allow threaded replies. We normally send in 
plain text. This makes it easy to read, minimises your data, makes the content 
searchable and allows you to click through to read stories on the original 
source. 

 

Any of these things can be changed. FYI CDR isn't my list (it's Greg's), so I 
have no say what and who goes on. If the work I do isn't useful or welcome then 
let me know so I can change or stop it. I'm only doing it to help. It takes 
loads of my time and a not insignificant amount of my money to do this, so if 
it's not helpful then I need to know. 

 

Andrew 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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-06ZUGwwWvcQyAGnFqRh__4UALxm48Kg9W63PY%2B8nf4rGw%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/DD04BB5A-3A11-49E1-8ABA-DD4E61549222%40comcast.net
 

 .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/013e01d8eaf2%244bde8890%24e39b99b0%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk.

RE: [geo] Climate geoengineering must be regulated, says former WTO head

[david.sevier]

Will this include the geoengineering that is currently happening through the 
mass release of billions of tons of greenhouse gases? All efforts to do this 
have failed. Talk about having an uneven playing field….. 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoeng Info
Sent: 11 June 2022 21:15
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Climate geoengineering must be regulated, says former WTO head

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/17/climate-geoengineering-must-be-regulated-says-former-wto-head

 


Climate geoengineering must be regulated, says former WTO head


 

 

Pascal Lamy to lead commission exploring how methods to tackle global heating 
could be governed

 

Countries must urgently agree a way of controlling and regulating attempts to 
geoengineer the climate, and consider whether to set a moratorium on such 
efforts, as the  

 danger of global heating exceeding the 1.5C threshold increases, the former 
head of the World Trade Organisation has warned.

Pascal Lamy, a former director general of the WTO and a former EU trade 
commissioner, now president of the Paris Peace Forum, said governments were 
increasingly likely to explore the possibilities of geoengineering, as efforts 
to cut greenhouse gas emissions have so far been inadequate.

“Given where we are, we have to seriously consider the risk of overshooting 
1.5C,” said Lamy. “That is a huge risk. All of the ways by which we can 
alleviate this risk must be evaluated. I think a global effort on 
geoengineering could work.”

At present, there is little to stop a government experimenting with 
geoengineering. “There should be ways of stopping countries from doing this 
alone,” Lamy told the Guardian. “We should look at all options, including a 
moratorium.”

But Lamy said the likelihood of an individual billionaire, such as  

 Elon Musk, attempting to geoengineer the climate  

 without government involvement was still remote. “I don’t think that is a 
danger. I think Elon Musk would need some kind of authority [from 
governments],” he said. “I don’t think he could try to do it alone. You need 
government clearance to send up a rocket, even.”

 

 Geoengineering would involve trying to change the temperature or climate on 
Earth through methods such as whitening clouds, or injecting sulphur particles 
into the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight, or spreading iron in the ocean to 
absorb carbon dioxide. Ideas such as launching a giant sunshade into space have 
also been suggested, along with more prosaic options including painting roofs 
white.

None of these  

 possibilities have yet been tried, and  

 some could be dangerous: for instance, spraying sulphur could cause 
acidification of the seas, cloud whitening could change rainfall patterns and 
deflecting the sun’s rays  

 could cause crops to fail.

But Lamy said the world had to examine  
 such 
methods, as countries were failing to cut greenhouse gases fast enough. “It is 
tragic that we have to consider this [geoengineering]. Because we know we are 
not on the right path to avoid overshooting 1.5C,” he said.

Scientists warned this month there was a  

 50:50 chance of global average temperatures rising to more than 1.5C above 
pre-industrial levels within the next five years. If the earth’s temperatures 
exceed 1.5C consistently, drastic and in some cases irreversible changes to the 
climate will follow, including melting of the ice caps, floods, droughts, 
heatwaves and sea level rises.

Some methods of geoengineering could be cheap, Lamy added. “Some could be 
economically rather cheap, whereas we know that carbon capture and storage is 
something very costly.”

Lamy said the science behind geoengineering required careful investigation, but 
his concern is directed towards how any such attempts would be governed at an 
international level. Some forms of weather manipulation have already been 
tried: for instance, cloud-seeding to provoke rainfall  

RE: [geo] New threat from Climate change and the use of Geo-engineering

[david.sevier]

Renauld’s reference is very relevant to this discussion. It is worth looking at 
the actual published material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00242-3   
The communication shows that there is a high heat flux below this region’s 
glaciers and in particular the Thwaites and Popes Glaciers which act as a cork 
for much of the Marie Byrd Ice sheet which covers the super volcano.  This is 
not good news as the data indicates that this region is particularly 
susceptible to effects of loss of ice mass due to the thin earth crust below 
the glaciers. 

 

Basically the feedback loop that I have laid out is supported by this data and 
could come to pass. Does anyone know if any of the climate modelling includes 
any of this? Are we flying blind into a possible situation where all our models 
and predictions are wildly off? At the very least there needs to be some 
modelling of this and estimates of risk of it happening so some sensible 
decision making can be made. Ultimately if it is agreed that the risks are what 
I have outlined, there needs to be public discussion around this and what can 
be done to prevent this (emission cuts and geo-engineering if we are at or 
close to a dangerous tipping point (which I fear may already the case)).

 

Dave 

 

From: Renaud de RICHTER  
Sent: 19 August 2021 07:28
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: David Sevier ; HASZELDINE Stuart 
; geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] New threat from Climate change and the use of Geo-engineering

 

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-thwaites-glacier-significant-geothermal-beneath.html
 

 

 

Le mer. 18 août 2021 12:47, Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > a écrit :

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13583-melting-ice-caps-may-trigger-more-volcanic-eruptions/

 

 

Menu 

Melting ice caps may trigger more volcanic eruptions

EARTH 3 April 2008

By Catherine Brahic

 

New Scientist Default Image

Vatnajökull in the south-east is the largest ice cap in Iceland and conceals 
several volcanoes

 

(Image: NASA)

 

A warmer world could be a more explosive one. Global warming is having a much 
more profound effect than just melting ice caps – it is melting magma too.

 

Vatnajökull is the largest ice cap in Iceland, and is disappearing at a rate of 
5 cubic kilometres per year.

 

Carolina Pagli of the University of Leeds, UK, and Freysteinn Sigmundsson of 
the University of Iceland have calculated the effects of the melting on the 
crust and magma underneath.

 

 

They say that, as the ice disappears, it relieves the pressure exerted on the 
rocks deep under the ice sheet, increasing the rate at which it melts into 
magma. An average of 1.4 cubic kilometres has been produced every century since 
1890, a 10% increase on the background rate.

 

ADVERTISING

 

Frequent eruptions

In Iceland there are several active volcanoes under the ice. The last big 
eruption was in 1996 at Gjàlp, and before then in 1938 – a gap of 58 years. But 
Pagli and Sigmundsson say that the extra magma produced as the ice cap melts 
could supply enough magma for similar eruptions to take place every 30 years on 
average.

 

Predicting the eruptions precisely will be tricky, though, as the rate of magma 
migration to the surface is unknown.

 

 

The situation in Iceland does not necessarily mean magma will be melting faster 
around the world. Vatnajökull sits atop a boundary between plates in the 
Earth’s crust, and it is this configuration that is allowing the release in 
pressure to have such a great effect deep in the mantle.

 

But the thinning ice has another effect on volcanoes which will be more 
widespread.

 

As the amount of weight on the crust changes, geological stresses inside the 
crust will also change, increasing the likelihood of eruptions. “Under the 
ice’s weight, the crust bends and as you melt the ice the crust will bounce up 
again,” explains Bill McGuire of University College London in the UK, who was 
not involved in the study.

 

Unexpected activity

Pagli say places likely to be at increased risk of eruption due to ice-melt 
include Antarctica’s Mount Erebus, the Aleutian Islands and other Alaskan 
volcanoes.

 

The shifting stress might even cause eruptions in unexpected places.

 

“We think that during the Gjàlp eruption, magma reached the surface at an 
unusual location, mid-way between two volcanoes, because of these stress 
changes,” says Pagli.

 

McGuire thinks the Vatnajökull study is based on “perfectly reasonable” 
physics. However, he says that climate change presents an even more explosive 
threat. “It’s not just unloading the crust that triggers volcanic activity but 
loading as well.”

 

He and his team are looking into the effects that rising sea-levels – also a 
consequence of melting ice caps – will have on volcanoes. “We are going to see 
a massive increase in volcanic activity globally,” he told New Scientist. “If 
we look back at previous warm periods, that is what happened.”

 

Journal 

RE: [geo] Alphabet's Loon deploys internet connectivity balloons to Kenya for first commercial service launch | TechCrunch

[david.sevier]

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE INCOMING EMAIL TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS MIRRORED TO
OTHERS. OUR CONVERSATION IS NOT PRIVATE.  
 
If you like me find this creepy, please in future email me on
davi...@aqueouslogic.co.uk   where our
correspondence is NOT shared with others. All future correspondence from
myself will come from this address.
 
 
David Sevier
 
Carbon Cycle Limited
248 Sutton Common Road
Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW
England
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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/000d01d61882%242b94b770%2482be2650%24%40carbon-cycle.co.uk.

RE: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget

[david.sevier]

I would add further concerns about “trash rain” effects of numerous small 
balloons eventually returning to earth. Unless the balloons are fully 
biodegradable this may make the plastic problem worse. See issues of turtles 
eating plastic bags. The potential use of helium also concerns me as this is a 
very limited resource that already is being wasted far too much. 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Douglas MacMartin
Sent: 11 April 2020 15:59
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Aaron Franklin 
Cc: geoengineering ; Arctic Methane Google 
Group 
Subject: RE: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget

 

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

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com   
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:28 AM
To: Aaron Franklin mailto:stateoftheart...@gmail.com> >
Cc: geoengineering mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >; Arctic Methane Google Group 
mailto:arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com> >
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, mailto:stateoftheart...@gmail.com> > 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 not yet, and maybe never, 
I think it is prudent to not implement SRM at this time.  And it is prudent to 
mitigate as much as we can.

Alan
 

On 4/10/2020 12:43 PM, Michael MacCracken wrote:

Hi Alan--Is there a comparative and comprehensive assessment that indicates 
that the risks from injecting sulfates