[geo] New paper on Antarctic impacts of SAI

[Douglas MacMartin]

Press release:

https://news.iu.edu/live/news/32667-climate-engineering-could-slow-antarctic-ice-loss



Paper:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JD039434



Short summary… the effects of SAI on risks associated with Antarctic depend
on how much cooling you do (duh…) and on the latitude(s) of injection, with
SH injection helping and NH injection potentially making things worse.


Abstract:

Owing to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is
vulnerable to rapid ice loss in the upcoming decades and centuries. This
study examines the effectiveness of using stratospheric aerosol injection
(SAI) that minimizes global mean temperature (GMT) change to slow projected
21st century Antarctic ice loss. We simulate 11 different SAI cases which
vary by the latitudinal location(s) and the amount(s) of the injection(s)
to examine the climatic response near Antarctica in each case as compared
to the reference climate at the turn of the last century. We demonstrate
that injecting at a single latitude in the northern hemisphere or at the
Equator increases Antarctic shelf ocean temperatures pertinent to ice shelf
basal melt, while injecting only in the southern hemisphere minimizes this
temperature change. We use these results to analyze the results of more
complex multi-latitude injection strategies that maintain GMT at or below
1.5°C above the pre-industrial. All these multi-latitude cases will slow
Antarctic ice loss relative to the mid-to-late 21st century SSP2-4.5
emissions pathway. Yet, to avoid a GMT threshold estimated by previous
studies pertaining to rapid West Antarctic ice loss (1.5°C above the
pre-industrial GMT, though large uncertainty), our study suggests SAI would
need to cool about 1.0°C below this threshold and predominately inject at
low southern hemisphere latitudes (∼15°S - 30°S). These results highlight
the complexity of factors impacting the Antarctic response to SAI and the
critical role of the injection strategy in preventing future ice loss.



Douglas MacMartin

Associate Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and

Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future

Cornell University

(650) 619-9341

macmar...@cornell.edu

https://climate-engineering.mae.cornell.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/CALaO3y_s2QXZZm5_acr12bb7z0T8ZTUyoCFXvj18%2BAPEH7zmcg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

I did not state that the models are not policy-relevant… both because I don’t 
agree with that being a binary statement of either they are or they aren’t 
(rather, they are useful for answering some questions and less useful for 
answering others), and because the specific issue I was responding to is not 
the most relevant factor in thinking through that question.

I disagree completely with your assertion that if we don’t correctly capture 
what the temperature would be in the year 3000, then it follows that our models 
are utterly useless for making near-term policy choices.  Rather, I think that 
what happens in the next century or two actually do matter.  I agree with you 
that what happens beyond then *also* matters, but I don’t think it is essential 
that a climate model correctly capture that.  You don’t need to run a climate 
model to say that we’re in trouble if we maintain elevated CO2 concentrations 
for the next 1000 years, as this thread points out, and climate models aren’t 
necessarily useless simply because they ignore physics that isn’t (necessarily) 
relevant to predicting nearer-term impacts.

And I do agree that the degree of uncertainty in heading into uncharted 
territory is not well understood, including the possibility of more rapid 
changes than are predicted in current climate models.  But I think there’s a 
lot of room between “climate models are perfect representations of the future” 
and “climate models are not policy-relevant”; just because they are obviously 
not perfect does not make them totally useless as you seem to suggest…



From: Robert Chris 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:23 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; mmacc...@comcast.net; Tom Goreau 

Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration 
; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering 

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


Doug

It seems that mistakenly I thought you were justifying the appropriateness of 
the models.  Apologies.  On a closer reading, the following emerges:

Your final words 'That isn’t what the models are intended to do', in context, 
mean that we shouldn't criticise the models for not being policy-relevant even 
though they exclude millennial factors because the models are not intended to 
be policy relevant.  They are just models that produce certain outputs based on 
certain inputs and certain algorithms.  The degree to which the models are a 
faithful predictor of the range of plausible futures is unknowable until that 
future arrives, and made more so by the absence of the millennial factors.  
Policymakers use these models at their (and our) peril.

Have I got that right?  If so, it might be a good idea if someone told the 
policymakers that they're basing their policies on the wrong data.

Regards

Robert


On 11/04/2023 17:31, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Robert,

I agree with almost everything you write, except for your belief that what you 
wrote is in any way in conflict with what I wrote.

doug

From: Robert Chris <mailto:robertgch...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:17 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin <mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>; 
mmacc...@comcast.net<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>; Tom Goreau 
<mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: 
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>;
 Planetary Restoration 
<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>;
 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
<mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>; 
geoengineering 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Doug

There's a significant caveat in there - assuming we 'eventually get to net 
zero', and a significant ethical assumption - that policy relevance is limited 
to a century timescale.  And a further physical climate assumption - that 
cascading tipping events will not be triggered on any plausible current and 
short term policy regime.

If you set the rhetoric aside, there's little evidence to suggest that by 
mid-century or even for a decade or more after that, we'll get to net zero.  
Your 'eventually' is doing a lot of work here!  For this to happen requires  us 
to start the decommissioning of fossil fuel assets now and scaling GGR/CDR to 
close to or beyond GtCO2e/yr within the next few years.  Current geopolitics 
shows no sign of substantive action to match the rhetoric on either of those, 
or the likelihood of any imminent breakthrough that might materially accelerate 
things.

As to the ethical assumption, if the ethics are constrained to consider only 
the scenarios in which we get to net zero, then you need to be pretty damn sure 
you're going to get there.  But we're far from being sure about that.  So 
limiting policy relevance to the century timescale is t

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

Robert,

I agree with almost everything you write, except for your belief that what you 
wrote is in any way in conflict with what I wrote.

doug

From: Robert Chris 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:17 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; mmacc...@comcast.net; Tom Goreau 

Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration 
; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering 

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


Doug

There's a significant caveat in there - assuming we 'eventually get to net 
zero', and a significant ethical assumption - that policy relevance is limited 
to a century timescale.  And a further physical climate assumption - that 
cascading tipping events will not be triggered on any plausible current and 
short term policy regime.

If you set the rhetoric aside, there's little evidence to suggest that by 
mid-century or even for a decade or more after that, we'll get to net zero.  
Your 'eventually' is doing a lot of work here!  For this to happen requires  us 
to start the decommissioning of fossil fuel assets now and scaling GGR/CDR to 
close to or beyond GtCO2e/yr within the next few years.  Current geopolitics 
shows no sign of substantive action to match the rhetoric on either of those, 
or the likelihood of any imminent breakthrough that might materially accelerate 
things.

As to the ethical assumption, if the ethics are constrained to consider only 
the scenarios in which we get to net zero, then you need to be pretty damn sure 
you're going to get there.  But we're far from being sure about that.  So 
limiting policy relevance to the century timescale is tantamount to declaring 
that what happens beyond that is no concern of ours.  This is like setting a 
discount rate that reaches infinity on 1 Jan 2100 (or maybe 2103) - all 
benefits and costs thereafter have no present value today so we don't need to 
worry ourselves about them.  An ethics so constrained seems to me seriously 
dysfunctional.

On the tipping events, the literature on this suggests that we are already 
treading on thin ice.  Is it sane to base our policy regime on the assumption 
that there are no tipping points that might derail our smooth but slow 
transition to net zero?
Regards

Robert


On 11/04/2023 01:07, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Also, of course, the long-term response is only realized if nobody ever 
develops and deploys any CDR over that long-term timeframe.

If you believe that we will eventually get to net-zero and that some level of 
CDR will get deployed to go below net-zero, then it’s the century-scale warming 
that matters, not the millennial-scale.

There are of course millennial-scale processes that are not included in climate 
models, so there’s neither any reason to expect them to match on that 
time-scale, nor any reason to criticize them on that particular basis, or to 
use that particular argument to suggest that the models aren’t policy-relevant. 
 That isn’t what the models are intended to do.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> On 
Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Tom Goreau <mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org>; Robert 
Chris <mailto:robertgch...@gmail.com>
Cc: 
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>;
 Planetary Restoration 
<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>;
 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
<mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>; 
geoengineering 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Well, in that the climate depends on the radiative forcing and the radiative 
forcing is logarithmic with the CO2 concentration, doing a linear regression of 
CO2 and temperature would give an estimate of the rise in temperature that is 
far from linear, so the 16 C would be way too high.

There is then the issue that the change in temperature in high latitudes is 
well above the global average change in temperature, and so that would be 
another contribution to giving a rate too high for the change in global average 
temperature. So, if regression were to get temperature change in high latitudes 
ad not the global average, one would have a value more than the change in the 
global average temperature.

Mike
On 4/10/23 1:29 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:
It’s just the regression of Antarctic Ice temperature versus CO2 data. The sea 
level regression implies +23 meters.

When I did it in 1990 there was only one glacial cycle of data, but Eelco 
Rohling independently did the same analysis when there was 800,000 years of 
data, and got essentially identical values.

The models must be serious underestimates to fall so far off the actual long 
term climate data.

Thoma

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

Also, of course, the long-term response is only realized if nobody ever 
develops and deploys any CDR over that long-term timeframe.

If you believe that we will eventually get to net-zero and that some level of 
CDR will get deployed to go below net-zero, then it’s the century-scale warming 
that matters, not the millennial-scale.

There are of course millennial-scale processes that are not included in climate 
models, so there’s neither any reason to expect them to match on that 
time-scale, nor any reason to criticize them on that particular basis, or to 
use that particular argument to suggest that the models aren’t policy-relevant. 
 That isn’t what the models are intended to do.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Tom Goreau ; Robert Chris 
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration 
; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering 

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


Well, in that the climate depends on the radiative forcing and the radiative 
forcing is logarithmic with the CO2 concentration, doing a linear regression of 
CO2 and temperature would give an estimate of the rise in temperature that is 
far from linear, so the 16 C would be way too high.

There is then the issue that the change in temperature in high latitudes is 
well above the global average change in temperature, and so that would be 
another contribution to giving a rate too high for the change in global average 
temperature. So, if regression were to get temperature change in high latitudes 
ad not the global average, one would have a value more than the change in the 
global average temperature.

Mike
On 4/10/23 1:29 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:
It’s just the regression of Antarctic Ice temperature versus CO2 data. The sea 
level regression implies +23 meters.

When I did it in 1990 there was only one glacial cycle of data, but Eelco 
Rohling independently did the same analysis when there was 800,000 years of 
data, and got essentially identical values.

The models must be serious underestimates to fall so far off the actual long 
term climate data.

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon 
Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and 
sea level rise wash the beach away

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change



From: Michael MacCracken 
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:23 PM
To: Tom Goreau , Robert 
Chris 
Cc: 
"healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com"
 
,
 Planetary Restoration 
,
 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
, 
geoengineering 

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


Hi Tom--I'd be interested in seeing your 1990 paper because 16 C would take 
temperatures to much higher than they have ever been, and yet there have been 
periods when the CO2 concentration has apparently been well above 1000 ppm, so 
the 16 C value seems seriously inconsistent with what we know of Earth history.

Best, Mike
On 4/10/23 5:02 AM, Tom Goreau wrote:
BEFORE UNFCCC was signed, it was clear from paleoclimate data that +16 degrees 
C or so is the equilibrium temperature for 400ppm CO2 (Goreau 1990), but all 
governments ignored the real data because they preferred the fictitious claim 
from models that warming would “only” be around 1-4 degrees C, and occur well 
after a new leader emerges from the next election, selection, or coup.

I briefed the Association of Small Island States just before they signed on to 
a treaty that  was an effective death sentence for low coasts and a suicide 
pact for low lying island nations to that effect, but their heads of states 
were told by the rich countries to sign or they would lose their foreign aid, 
something none could 

[geo] Re: [CDR] Q with David Keith, Tuesday 4 April, 4.30pm EDT

[Douglas MacMartin]

I think that founding one of the DAC companies should count…

Get Outlook for iOS

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 on behalf of Michael Hayes 

Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 6:03:43 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net 
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; geoengineering 
; Planetary Restoration 
; Healthy Climate Alliance 
; Carbon Dioxide Removal 
; NOAC 
Subject: Re: [CDR] Q with David Keith, Tuesday 4 April, 4.30pm EDT

This is a CDR specific discussion group, not the general GE discussion group.

Does Dr Keith's work cover any aspect of CDR STEM, policy, or socioeconomics?




On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 3:36 PM mailto:rob...@rtulip.net>> 
wrote:

The Healthy Planet Action Coalition will host a public question and answer 
session with Dr David Keith, Director of the Harvard University Solar 
Geoengineering Program.

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

Meeting Time: Tuesday 4 April, 4.30pm EDT

Information about Dr Keith: https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/david-keith

HPAC is pleased to present this opportunity for conversation with one of the 
leading climate policy analysts working today.

Questions can be submitted in advance by reply to this email.

A Calendar Invite is attached.  4.30 pm Tuesday EDT = 6.30 am Wednesday 5th 
Australia AEST and 9.30pm Tuesday 4th UK BST.

Regards

Robert Tulip

https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/03d301d961c5%24c3454a50%2449cfdef0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1dLjB8EM8A98T-TT7w--6xjRG%2BJJFtJJfqheqkvUKmScQ%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/DM6PR04MB71007FFDB520139FE1FE295A8F899%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] SATAN

[Douglas MacMartin]

Andrew,

I second Dan, and your juvenile response to him regarding your choice of 
project name should leave no doubt on anyone’s part that you don’t take this 
subject seriously.

Had you actually been paying attention to the field as you claim to have been, 
you would be aware that there are broad public concerns, that trust is 
paramount, and that transparency is essential, as has been consistently 
recommended in every list of recommendations ever written on the subject – and 
your excuse of hiding while waiting for peer review is pathetic given that 
what’s needed would be transparency in advance about the existence of the test 
and the purpose, not about results.

You also know that your test has zero engineering value to the field since 
there’s no viable pathway to getting meaningful radiative forcing through 
balloons anyway.  There are certainly plausible engineering tests that could 
have value, but IMO this isn’t one of them.

So cost-benefit analysis… the benefit of your “test” is zero, but the cost, in 
terms of potentially setting back perceptions of the field and engendering a 
backlash against actual real legitimate science, is non-zero.  Hopefully people 
will appropriately ignore this stunt and recognize that it is neither directly 
damaging nor actually relevant to SAI.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:58 AM
To: Daniele Visioni 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] SATAN

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 

RE: [geo] Particles and SRM

[Douglas MacMartin]

Lofting/dispersal of any solid or liquid will likely be at least 5x the cost of 
lofting a gas, simply because it will require time at altitude to slowly 
disperse (and avoid immediate coagulation) that is presumably not necessary for 
a gaseous precursor such as SO2; that both increases mission time (and hence 
increases number of aircraft needed) and greatly increases fuel (given that 
time to get to altitude is of order 10 minutes, so if you need an hour at 
altitude, figure on 6x the fuel as a very crude guess), and hence cost, as well 
as reducing payload fraction in order to carry the extra fuel instead of 
payload.  Many of us are skeptical that the microphysical benefits of lofting 
H2SO4 are likely to pay off relative to lofting SO2 (or H2S if you want a 
fuller list of gas options, though if you don’t like SO2 you surely really 
wouldn’t like H2S!).
Curious why you dismiss SO2 (which is what is virtually always assumed as the 
default) in a sentence without any detail on why you think it is so much harder.
Though I do agree that ground-handling constraints are not well explored.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 10:44 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Particles and SRM

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 

RE: [geo] Re: Stratospheric warming, SRM and aerosol injection events

[Douglas MacMartin]

Why?

Option 1) Build a modest number of airplanes that can get to desired altitude, 
like 20km, without any need to spend much time at altitude, and then use them 
continuously.

Option 2) Build 10-100x as many airplanes as option 1 because you’re only going 
to use them when there might be fires, and while they won’t need to get as 
high, they’re still dedicated aircraft, and they’ll need to be able to fly long 
distances to get from wherever the air base is to wherever the fire might be… 
and while you’re at it, you lose the ability to decide latitude of injection 
and seasonality.

Option 1 sure seems a lot easier from a cost perspective regardless of how many 
massive fires there are

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Govindasamy Bala 
Cc: Adrian Hindes ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Stratospheric warming, SRM and aerosol injection events

My understanding is that current consensus is that adding black carbon to the 
stratosphere would be a bad idea, so the paper proposing using it for lofting 
is unlikely to be implemented.

But what if we used forest fires as a natural(ish) source of black carbon for 
lofting? Are there enough such fires that this could be a viable option for 
lifting sulfur to the stratosphere, without deliberately adding more?

Andrew

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, 07:10 Govindasamy Bala, 
mailto:bala@gmail.com>> wrote:

Besides the effects on stratospheric circulation and chemistry, stratospheric 
warming caused by sulfate aerosols reduces the effectiveness of what we are 
trying to achieve. The main intent is to increase sunlight reflection. Part of 
this cooling effect is offset by stratospheric warming. In a 2019 ESD paper, we 
show this by prescribing volcanic aerosols at 16, 19, and 22 km. In all these 3 
cases, there is stratospheric warming. However, in the case of 16km which is 
close to the troposphere, the stratospheric warming leads to more water vapor 
in the stratosphere which could further offset the originally intended cooling.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-885-2019

Cheers,
Bala

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:52 AM 'Adrian Hindes' via geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
I'm not an expert on atmospheric dynamics, but am aware of some relevant papers 
in that general direction.

Gao et al. (2021) looked at "practical" SAI using solar powered lofting from 
black carbon particles, partly inspired by the dynamics seen from large 
bushfires: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe3416

More broadly related, Christian et al. (2019) looked at the radiative forcing 
and stratospheric warming impacts of pyrocumulonimbus clouds: 
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082360
Along the same lines, Peterson et al. (2021) looked specifically at the Black 
Summer bushfires in Australia from 2019-20: 
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00192-9

Similar methods from those studies would presumably be applicable to studying 
SAI injection, and/or the potential dynamics between artificially injected 
sulphur (or other) aerosols with stratospheric warming events, pyroCb clouds 
and the like. I imagine there would be quite a lot of complexity with 
potentially compounding effects, maybe increasing aerosol lifetime, mixing and 
regional hydroclimatic changes, etc.

Speaking of which, Simpson et al. (2019) specifically looked at the regional 
hydroclimatic effects of SAI, and how stratospheric heating plays into it: 
10.1029/2019JD031093.

My understanding from reading that paper and others is stratospheric heating 
dynamics of SAI is one of those areas where there's still quite a lot of 
uncertainty, and an area of active research. Maybe other folks in the group 
here who have more experience with ESMs and atmospheric dynamics can comment 
further. I know the perspective paper by Ben Kravitz and Doug 
MacMartin on uncertainty in solar 
geo research picked out stratospheric heating impacts on tropospheric and 
surface climate as one of the key outstanding uncertainties.

On Wednesday, 19 October 2022 at 6:35:43 am UTC+11 
ggfut...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Do people know of the impact of stratospheric warming that SRM causes on the 
injection of other aerosols into the stratosphere, say from wildfire events or 
volcanic eruptions? Like, how does a warm stratosphere effect how these 
aerosols rise into the stratosphere and the dynamics of them within the 
stratosphere
Best Wishes
Gideon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

Also worth keeping in mind the context that ~1C of cooling (i.e., quite a lot) 
requires an amount of SO2 that is roughly 10% of current anthropogenic SO2 
emissions, though not with the same geographic distribution nor the same size 
distribution of sulfate aerosols when it ultimately comes down into the 
troposphere, however briefly.

Broadly I agree that of course we need more research to understand effects.

But there aren’t *any* options on the table at this point that don’t come with 
downsides, so rather than being opposed to one particular choice because there 
exists a downside, the right approach is ultimately to weigh the benefits and 
harms of different choices that could be made about the future.

(And the statement about “could be done much more simply and cheaper” by cloud 
whitening isn’t supportable, I don’t think anyone knows whether either of those 
claims are true or not true… and of course MCB *also* has downsides, so neither 
simplicity nor cost are really the relevant criteria one should be using to 
pick.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Oeste
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Synergistic and anti-synergistic scenarios for modeling 
solar radiation modification


Hi Andrew

Many thanks for this interesting paper which I am going to study. Surely I will 
give my comment about in the next days.

Best

Franz Oeste
Am 15.11.2022 um 22:47 schrieb Andrew Lockley:
The paper I posted yesterday may prove enlightening. It suggests MCB may 
shorten CH4 lifetime (and SAI could speculatively have a similar but smaller 
effect by the same mechanism).

Rapid cloud removal of dimethyl sulfide oxidation products limits SO2 and cloud 
condensation nuclei production in the marine atmosphere

https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2110472118

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, 03:21 Oeste, 
mailto:oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>> wrote:

Hi Robert

Since many years I kept in total opposition to SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol 
Injection) because to my opinion SAI would inhibit the methane depletion effect 
of ISA and its relatives EDARA and TOA and also the natural ISA effect from 
desert dust and also deplete the natural OH radical generation in the 
atmosphere.

Meanwhile I must accept some additional aspects in the photochemical picture of 
the atmosphere which had been overseen by me and which might change the 
tropospheric chemistry model of SAI. This mind change concerns only to the SO2 
Variant of SAI (additional all kind of sulfur containing gases which change by 
oxidation to sulfuric acid aerosol) but not those variants which use basic or 
neutral compounds just as carbonate or TiO2.

It is known that the sea-salt aerosol particles within the boundary layer above 
the ocean become influenced by chemical compounds as DMS, COS and SO2 after 
their oxidation in the atmosphere to sulfuric acid aerosol which by coagulation 
with sea-salt particles produce gaseous HCl.

This gaseous HCl is a precondition for the activation of all kind of aerosols 
like desert dust and aged HCl-depleted artificial aerosols containing iron just 
as ISA, also some TOA and EDARA variants. These aerosols are known to act by 
methane depletion, cloud whitening and/or cloud generation and also by 
phytoplankton nutrition which additional would trigger the cloud generation by 
DMS emission increase and also CO2 absorption by the ocean enhancement.

Hence, if the SAI proponents might be able to demonstrate that the SO2 SAI 
variant is able to enhance the methane oxidation chemistry of desert dust and 
ISA above the ocean I would reduce my opposition against SAI. If the SAI 
proponents would be able to reduce the altitude of their aerosol emission from 
the stratosphere to the troposphere above the ocean I would be some more 
delighted.

Independent from the altitude SO2 is emitted there must be certainty that SO2 
will increase the methane depletion effect of ISA and relative aerosols. Our 
skepticism has also the reason that sulfate is known to have a inhibition 
effect on the chlorine atom generation by ferric chloride. Probably the effect 
disappears if the HCl partial pressure becomes increased above the usual 300 
ppt HCl range in the atmosphere above the ocean but this fact has to be 
revealed.

Franz


 Weitergeleitete Nachricht 
Betreff:
Re: [geo] Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification
Datum:
Sun, 13 Nov 2022 14:09:42 +0100
Von:
Oeste 
An:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Hi Robert

All geoengineering options including SAI should presented not only with the 
focus on the only one physical, chemical or biochemical focus as done here by 
you: For instance, what happens exactly to the atmospheric chemistry and to the 
oceans biology if the mentioned SAI scenarios would happen. What would help the 
primary cooling  if by a reduced atmospheric 

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

>From Paul (lead author):

Q1 - 10.8 Tg/yr equivalent sea salt - see the 4th paragraph in 2.2
Q2 - See last sentence of the first paragraph in 2.2 "Along with the model's 
background wind-dependent sea
salt emission flux, the additional sea salt particles in the experiments are 
initially added to the lowest atmospheric
layer and are not wind dependent."
Q3 - I did not calculate the energy requirement.

Cheers,
Paul


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 8:12 AM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' 
Subject: RE: [geo] The Shortwave Radiative Flux Response to an Injection of Sea 
Salt Aerosols in the Gulf of Mexico

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 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 09 November 2022 21:04
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/DM6PR04MB7100C6208911681073EF64718F009%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

GLENS took place before SilverLining funded anyone!

Cornell was never funded by EDF or PNNL (though I’ve coauthored papers with 
people from both).  We’ve had funding over the years from a number of 
philanthropic donors, mostly from tech sector.

Highly entertaining that someone would write a paper about funding for SG 
research and then just make stuff up about the funding….  If the authors had 
actually cared, they could have asked; I think we’re all transparent about our 
funding if anyone wants to know (and it’s generally listed in acknowledgements 
of papers too.)

It is true, of course, that most funding comes from philanthropic interests, 
from people who fund broadly in approaches to reduce CO2 emissions, including 
CDR, and then recognize that in addition to that, it may be valuable to 
consider SRM as a way to reduce suffering.

I understand that the authors don’t agree with that framing of SRM and view 
that anything short of smashing capitalism is a failure of imagination and/or 
ethics, and they are of course entitled to express their ideological viewpoint. 
 Though in doing so they shouldn’t misrepresent the views and values of those 
they disagree with.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Simone Tilmes
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 4:50 AM
To: daniele.visi...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar 
geoengineering research in the United States

Just following up regarding funding sources, GLENS has also not been funded by 
Silverling, but was initially funded by DARPA.
Simone

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:45 AM Daniele Visioni 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Talking on behalf of one of the efforts listed in Table 1, I want to stress 
that GeoMIP is not funded in any way by Silver Lining.
Anyone interested in facts can find a public list of supporters and funding for 
GeoMIP here http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP/support.html
Travel support for some past workshops has been provided by numerous research 
institutions, and different modeling groups might have different sources of 
funding.

I look forward to a correction in the blog and a Corrigendum in the published 
paper by the authors.

Best,
Daniele


On Oct 31, 2022, at 9:26 AM, 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 

RE: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Douglas MacMartin]

I agree that the sign of the effect is unclear in addition to the magnitude, 
that is, nuclear winter + termination is “better” at first than nuclear winter 
alone, but “worse” afterwards if it is impossible to restart; that of course is 
all contingent on how bad the nuclear winter is, how much cooling is being 
offset, and your beliefs about how the use of SRM does or doesn’t affect 
mitigation (that is, the circumstances in which termination materially affects 
outcomes are those in which SRM is being used to offset significant warming – 
so from a risk perspective, if the counterfactual is that much warmer world, or 
the counterfactual a world that had more mitigation, is essential).

I agree that as researchers we should try to inform decisions, and hence risks, 
and be responsive to stakeholder concerns.  In this case, I think the *much* 
bigger influence of SRM on nuclear winter comes from whether it increases or 
decreases the risks of nuclear war, and what we can do in terms of governance 
to affect that…

From: Gideon Futerman 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 6:10 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin 
Cc: gdebrou...@gmail.com; Daniele Visioni ; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

I think this is going to get into more general philosophy/ethics around 
Existential Risks, Longtermism and Global Catastrophic Risks, which whilst 
interesting and useful, probably a bit orthogonal to what people are turning to 
the geoengineering google group for. But basically, a difference between 6 
billion and say 6.1 billion or 6.5 billion is firstly important from the 
perspective of deaths: that's still 100 million people. Secondly, climatic 
effects, excess deaths on top of the nuclear winter (or reduced severity!)  etc 
are potentially relevant for whether it will "only" kill 6 billion and whether 
it will lead to irrecoverable (not merely awful) societal collapse, which from 
various longtermist perspectives is very bad. Given how hard it would be to 
recover anyway, a "double catastrophe" could make recovery much harder 
distinguish between a  Global Catastrophic Risk and an existential risk, which 
from various philosophical viewpoints is very important.
Thus, such a question ie whether SRM might increase/decrease the likelihood of 
a global catastrophic risk being converted to an existential risk (due to this 
Latent Risk of termination shock we have been discussing) is of serious 
interest to many people, including potentially major funders who are 
potentially interested in investing in SRM research. In that sense, this 
impacts some potentially very important decisions for the future of our field, 
and the distinction between 6 billion and say 6.5 billion, or  even if it just 
makes societal recovery 10% less likely to happen, it may be absolutely vital. 
I am happy to explain this in more depth if people need, although what I was 
really wanting to ask the list for was fundamentally a question of physical 
science to try and answer this application.
Even if none of this has convinced you of the moral importance of it, the 
question I was asking was fundamentally a physical one, responding to a 
scientific assumption in Baum et al 2013 that I thought seemed potentially 
unsound (that under nuclear war termination shock would lead to a double 
catastrophe and not a slight softening of the first catastrophe). Given that 
paper is one of only a handful papers published in this intersection between 
SRM and Global Catastrophic Risk studies, such a claim is, even from a 
physical/empirical rather than moral viewpoint, important to test. Hence why I 
have posed this question.


On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 19:59, Douglas MacMartin 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> wrote:
All of the above, with qualifiers… yes the climatic response would be 
different, but personally I think 6B dead is so bad that whether it’s 6.01 or 
6.1 or 6.5 isn’t something that I feel matters particularly (nor do I think it 
is particularly answerable).  What decisions would depend on the answer to that 
question?

From: Gideon Futerman mailto:ggfuter...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>>
Cc: gdebrou...@gmail.com<mailto:gdebrou...@gmail.com>; Daniele Visioni 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>>; geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

Hi Doug,
Apologies for misinterpreting. Its a statement like this that I have been 
looking for.
When you suggest it isn't appreciably worse, is that a suggestion that either:
- The death toll/ the ability for society to recover would be no different 
given the double catastrophe than the single catastrophe
- The climatic response to the double catastrophe is no different than the 
single catastrophe
- The difference in death toll may be, say (and these are made 

RE: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Douglas MacMartin]

All of the above, with qualifiers… yes the climatic response would be 
different, but personally I think 6B dead is so bad that whether it’s 6.01 or 
6.1 or 6.5 isn’t something that I feel matters particularly (nor do I think it 
is particularly answerable).  What decisions would depend on the answer to that 
question?

From: Gideon Futerman 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:31 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin 
Cc: gdebrou...@gmail.com; Daniele Visioni ; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

Hi Doug,
Apologies for misinterpreting. Its a statement like this that I have been 
looking for.
When you suggest it isn't appreciably worse, is that a suggestion that either:
- The death toll/ the ability for society to recover would be no different 
given the double catastrophe than the single catastrophe
- The climatic response to the double catastrophe is no different than the 
single catastrophe
- The difference in death toll may be, say (and these are made up numbers) 6 
billion vs 6.01 billion
Thank you so much for the clarification
Best
Gideon

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 17:58, Douglas MacMartin 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> wrote:
Of course there are more minor conflicts possible with less severe outcomes… 
though if it’s a regional war that doesn’t itself end civilization, I don’t see 
why one couldn’t restart SRM in a year or two if desired.

Gideon, you write: “I understand why there is aversion to me exploring such 
risks;” I think you misunderstand everyone’s response here.  It isn’t an 
aversion to exploring them, nor a belief that we don’t need to look at extreme 
but less likely scenarios, but rather, that this specific risk doesn’t seem to 
many of us like there’s anything that needs to be explored.  That is, my view, 
and I think others, is that any nuclear war severe enough to result in losing 
the ability to even restart SRM is so severe that the nuclear war + termination 
isn’t appreciably worse than the nuclear war itself.

I 100% agree with the need to think through low probability but high impact 
possibilities.

d

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Gilles de Brouwer
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 11:11 PM
To: ggfuter...@gmail.com<mailto:ggfuter...@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniele Visioni 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>>; geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

FYI   Updated nuclear winter analysis is so much worse than SAI that it's 
pointless to consider.

Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear 
arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences
Alan Robock,1 Luke Oman,1,2 and Georgiy L. Stenchikov1
Received 8 November 2006; revised 2 April 2007; accepted 27 April 2007; 
published 6 July 2007
https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf

Gilles de Brouwer


On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 5:50 PM Gideon Futerman 
mailto:ggfuter...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Apologies, you are correct, I was using the ECS values from AR5 and forgot it 
had reduced with AR6. I was also getting my range vs values mixed up.
Nonetheless, a similar point still broadly stands- the ipcc suggests with only 
medium confidence that it is "very likely" that ECS is between 2K and 5K (not 
6K as I had previously stated), putting a warming of anything above 5K 
therefore at between 0-5% probability with medium confidence.
Whilst I appreciate the desire to focus on the median ECS, I think it is 
nonetheless important to consider the more extreme, fat tailed risks. Not 
because these will happen or are likely to happen, but because in general such 
worse case scenario, low probability high impact scenarios are neglected.
This is the same reason I care about SRM in concert with a nuclear war. Not 
because I want to overplay how important SRM is under such a scenario, but 
merely want to explore the worse case scenarios. I don’t think (certainly hope 
not) that any of the scenarios the RESILIENCER Project explores are likely, 
certainly none are the median scenarios. Rather, they are those scenarios in 
the fat tails of the possible risks.
I understand why there is aversion to me exploring such risks; I would hate 
people to think that I am claiming the research community at large should start 
focusing on such risks (which would be foolish). Nonetheless, it seems odd to 
not at least some degree look at these more extreme, much less likely, 
scenarios.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, 22:33 Daniele Visioni, 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Gideon,
not to pile on but I feel like this should be corrected: none of the most 
current IPCC projections say that 550ppm have a 10% chance of leaving us with 
6K of warming.
Even the most high sensitivity models in CMIP6 only show a ECS of, at most, 5 
per doubling of CO₂ (so 560

RE: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

[Douglas MacMartin]

Of course there are more minor conflicts possible with less severe outcomes… 
though if it’s a regional war that doesn’t itself end civilization, I don’t see 
why one couldn’t restart SRM in a year or two if desired.

Gideon, you write: “I understand why there is aversion to me exploring such 
risks;” I think you misunderstand everyone’s response here.  It isn’t an 
aversion to exploring them, nor a belief that we don’t need to look at extreme 
but less likely scenarios, but rather, that this specific risk doesn’t seem to 
many of us like there’s anything that needs to be explored.  That is, my view, 
and I think others, is that any nuclear war severe enough to result in losing 
the ability to even restart SRM is so severe that the nuclear war + termination 
isn’t appreciably worse than the nuclear war itself.

I 100% agree with the need to think through low probability but high impact 
possibilities.

d

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Gilles de Brouwer
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 11:11 PM
To: ggfuter...@gmail.com
Cc: Daniele Visioni ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Nuclear Winter and SRM (including termination shock)

FYI   Updated nuclear winter analysis is so much worse than SAI that it's 
pointless to consider.

Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear 
arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences
Alan Robock,1 Luke Oman,1,2 and Georgiy L. Stenchikov1
Received 8 November 2006; revised 2 April 2007; accepted 27 April 2007; 
published 6 July 2007
https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf

Gilles de Brouwer


On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 5:50 PM Gideon Futerman 
mailto:ggfuter...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Apologies, you are correct, I was using the ECS values from AR5 and forgot it 
had reduced with AR6. I was also getting my range vs values mixed up.
Nonetheless, a similar point still broadly stands- the ipcc suggests with only 
medium confidence that it is "very likely" that ECS is between 2K and 5K (not 
6K as I had previously stated), putting a warming of anything above 5K 
therefore at between 0-5% probability with medium confidence.
Whilst I appreciate the desire to focus on the median ECS, I think it is 
nonetheless important to consider the more extreme, fat tailed risks. Not 
because these will happen or are likely to happen, but because in general such 
worse case scenario, low probability high impact scenarios are neglected.
This is the same reason I care about SRM in concert with a nuclear war. Not 
because I want to overplay how important SRM is under such a scenario, but 
merely want to explore the worse case scenarios. I don’t think (certainly hope 
not) that any of the scenarios the RESILIENCER Project explores are likely, 
certainly none are the median scenarios. Rather, they are those scenarios in 
the fat tails of the possible risks.
I understand why there is aversion to me exploring such risks; I would hate 
people to think that I am claiming the research community at large should start 
focusing on such risks (which would be foolish). Nonetheless, it seems odd to 
not at least some degree look at these more extreme, much less likely, 
scenarios.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022, 22:33 Daniele Visioni, 
mailto:daniele.visi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Gideon,
not to pile on but I feel like this should be corrected: none of the most 
current IPCC projections say that 550ppm have a 10% chance of leaving us with 
6K of warming.
Even the most high sensitivity models in CMIP6 only show a ECS of, at most, 5 
per doubling of CO₂ (so 560), but the best estimate is still around 3K given a 
whole range of approaches to estimate it.
For more relevant IPCC scenarios during this century, given transient 
sensitivity and more, scenarios that lead to 550ppm (considering also other 
GHG, LUC, aerosols) like SSP2-4.5 have a median warming of a bit less than 3K.
How can surely say the IPCC is wrong and climate models are wrong, of course.

(Ça vas sans dire, I’m not trying to downplay climate change! But being precise 
helps having better discussions :) )



On 26 Jul 2022, at 17:20, Gideon Futerman 
mailto:ggfuter...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Dr Robock,
Whilst I would admit that 3K of cooling by SRM is unlikely, it is certainly not 
out of the range of possibility. Given CO2 concentrations of 550PPM have a 10% 
chance of leaving us with 6K of warming (and that certainly doesn't seem to be 
an unreasonable amount of emissions given mitigation trajectories), it 
certainly doesn't seem like there is a less than 10% probability of a given 
deployment scheme being 3K of forcing.
Secondly, why care about this if there is a nuclear war. Maybe you are correct, 
and there is no worry. But if you care about post-nuclear war societal 
recovery, it may be important to know whether SRM-driven termination shock 
makes that more or less likely, or is entirely negligible. Of course, the 
primary worry here is avoid the initial catastrophe (nuclear war). Nonetheless, 

Re: [geo] SG and Tropical Monsoons

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Bala,

Agree that we need to better understand the impact of different choices,
but I'm not sure why you think it is "precise control" to avoid injection
into a single hemisphere?  We've known for a long time that doing something
like only injecting at 15N would be a bad idea, so hopefully no-one will do
that (and if someone did, and diplomacy weren't enough to dissuade them,
then some other actor should develop simultaneous capability to inject at
15S; in that sense I don't think a sustained significant deployment at 15N
is a remotely plausible scenario as it would require an actor so driven to
damage the tropics that they are willing to use military force to block any
other actor from deployment).

Here's a hypothesis (broadly similar to the sort phrased by Peter Irvine
and David Keith): In any climate model, a symmetric injection (whatever you
do in one hemisphere, do the same in the other) sufficient to cool by ~1C
(so 2C warming --> 1C, or 2.5 --> 1.5C) will not lead to changes in monsoon
precipitation that are detectably outside the range of historical values.
That seems eminently testable.

I do agree that the sorts of feedback control algorithms we used in GLENS,
for example, are purely modeling tools and not representative of the
adjustment strategies that would occur in a real deployment (which would
likely be more based on updating climate models based on observations and
making new projections of different strategies)

doug

On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 1:03 AM Govindasamy Bala  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> In this paper that came out last week in Climate Dynamics
> , we looked at the changes in
> mean precipitation in tropical monsoon regions for sulfate injections at
> different latitudes.
>
> Key message: India could experience persistent droughts if aerosols are
> injected at 15 or 30 deg N. The result is interpreted from planetary
> energetics and interhemispheric asymmetry in energy balance.
>
> Many of you may be aware that Ben Kravitz, Doug, Simone and others have
> worked on ideas such as controlled injections at several locations
> simultaneously to avoid such catastrophes, but I am not sure we can really
> have such precise control on the climate system
>
> --
> 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; bala@gmail.com
> Google Scholar 
> ---
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/CAD7fhVk1OSANz7esABWgM%2BNFG9P%2BAo57Nuvecx27k9VF_Duvwg%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/CALaO3y-3r4Ra-Tj0XwFPFvRKn_KY69k29mydy1ZUEqt-iev4rA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] 2022 Gordon Research Conference

[Douglas MacMartin]

Apologies, corrected website link is here:
https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2022/
(Managed to change the text you see but not the underlying hyperlink when
editing email from 2 years ago!)


On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:24 PM Douglas MacMartin 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The program for the 2022 Gordon Research Conference on Climate Engineering
> is now online here:
> https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2022/
> <https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2020/>, the meeting
> is planned for June 26-July 1, 2022 in Maine, and is planned for in-person.
>
>
>
> Here you can find the GRC vaccination policy, if interested:
> https://www.grc.org/_resources/common/userfiles/file/10.7%20Revised%20Alert.pdf
> .
>
>
>
> We are looking forward to what will be an exciting and valuable meeting.
> If you are an early-career researcher (graduate students, postdoc, and
> other scientists with comparable levels of experience), we also encourage
> you to apply to the associated Gordon Research Seminar held immediately
> before the GRC; see here:
> https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-grs-conference/2022/. The final
> GRS program will be available by April 25, 2022. The keynote speaker for
> the GRS will be Holly Buck, from the University at Buffalo, SUNY.
>
>
>
> We expect to have funding available to assist in supporting early-career
> researchers in particular; if you would need funding please email us
> directly as soon as you can, to allow us to make an informed decision by
> April at the latest.  Financial assistance might also be available for
> qualified applicants through the GRC Carl Storm Underrepresented Minority
> Fellowship Program
> <https://www.grc.org/carl-storm-underrepresented-minority-fellowship-information/default.aspx>
> .
>
>
>
> Deadlines to keep in mind are:
>
> *GRC application deadline*
>*May 29, 2022*
>
> *GRS application deadline to be considered as speaker
>**March 25, 2022*
>
> *GRS application deadline*
>        *May 28, 2022*
>
>
>
> We look forward to seeing you there,
>
>
>
> Doug & Trude (GRC chairs) and Daniele and Katie (GRS chairs)
>
>
>
> Douglas MacMartin
>
> Senior Research Associate and Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace
> Engineering, and
>
> Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
>
> Cornell University
>
> (650) 619-9341
>
> macmar...@cornell.edu
>
> https://climate-engineering.mae.cornell.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/CH2PR04MB6936D56BA1E9D901C2CDD6AB8F719%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CH2PR04MB6936D56BA1E9D901C2CDD6AB8F719%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CALaO3y8OS66ZwnT4W108LW1S2oGvRmmk7sQZN9fCng97mQxE%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] 2022 Gordon Research Conference

[Douglas MacMartin]

Dear all,

The program for the 2022 Gordon Research Conference on Climate Engineering is 
now online here: 
https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2022/<https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2020/>,
 the meeting is planned for June 26-July 1, 2022 in Maine, and is planned for 
in-person.

Here you can find the GRC vaccination policy, if interested: 
https://www.grc.org/_resources/common/userfiles/file/10.7%20Revised%20Alert.pdf.

We are looking forward to what will be an exciting and valuable meeting.  If 
you are an early-career researcher (graduate students, postdoc, and other 
scientists with comparable levels of experience), we also encourage you to 
apply to the associated Gordon Research Seminar held immediately before the 
GRC; see here: https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-grs-conference/2022/. 
The final GRS program will be available by April 25, 2022. The keynote speaker 
for the GRS will be Holly Buck, from the University at Buffalo, SUNY.

We expect to have funding available to assist in supporting early-career 
researchers in particular; if you would need funding please email us directly 
as soon as you can, to allow us to make an informed decision by April at the 
latest.  Financial assistance might also be available for qualified applicants 
through the GRC Carl Storm Underrepresented Minority Fellowship 
Program<https://www.grc.org/carl-storm-underrepresented-minority-fellowship-information/default.aspx>.

Deadlines to keep in mind are:
GRC application deadline
   May 29, 2022
GRS application deadline to be considered as speaker
 March 25, 2022
GRS application deadline
   May 28, 2022

We look forward to seeing you there,

Doug & Trude (GRC chairs) and Daniele and Katie (GRS chairs)

Douglas MacMartin
Senior Research Associate and Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace 
Engineering, and
Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
Cornell University
(650) 619-9341
macmar...@cornell.edu<mailto:macmar...@cornell.edu>
https://climate-engineering.mae.cornell.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/CH2PR04MB6936D56BA1E9D901C2CDD6AB8F719%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night

[Douglas MacMartin]

Any option involves pros and cons, but it is curious to refer to SAI as neither 
scalable nor reversible.  For scalability, it is essentially the only option we 
know for sure can scale (as your own email suggests by choice of defining 
success).  For reversibility, if you stop putting aerosols in, the effect goes 
away.  Note that if you’ve been doing it long enough for it to matter, then the 
time constant of the effect going away is going to be mostly dominated by the 
response times of the climate system, not by the residence time of the 
aerosols.  So it’s true that the termination shock would be a bit more abrupt 
for MCB than for SAI, but that’s probably not that big a deal.  It would seem 
to me that if one wants to do a comparison between methods, then one ought to 
actually evaluate their impacts rather than arbitrarily dismissing them by 
throwing incorrect adjectives around.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Oliver
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 5:06 AM
To: mklee...@well.com
Cc: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; infogeo...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up 
tropical forests at night


Hello Michael,

Absolutely agreed on your point about rich desert ecology, and that we need to 
be humble in the face of the complex earth system. In all likelihood, all 
goeengineering methods are in some way 'simplistic' because they intervene in 
processes which have evolved over time, in symbiosis with the Earth system's 
changing state, as driven from the outside by Milankovich cycles and tectonic 
processes.

However, we are at the point now where we are looking for 'least worst' 
solutions rather than magic bullets which moderate global forcing with little 
impact on important ecosystem services, as they probably don't exist. Hence, 
there is a risk calculation where we may need to accept a limited amount of 
damage to achive the greater good, i.e.,  a reduction in glocal forcing to 
preserve as many ecosystems as possible. Saving every desert ecosystem with 
little biomass may be a luxury we cannot afford.

Furthermore, I would argue that we need to shift away from a 'magic bullet' 
geoengineering paradigm to one which advocates a diverse mix or 'package' of 
smaller scale solutions which all together have a synergetic impact on forcing, 
e.g., a mixture of regional aforestation, white roofs, marine cloud 
brightening, cirrus thinning, enhanced weathering, CCS and so on (these must be 
scaleable, sustainable and quickly reversible). By doing this, we retain the 
option to assess these pathways and then emphasize or deemphasize individual 
options over time as their impacts on society and environment become apparent.

In consequence, one must redefine 'geoengineering' in a way that removes the 
requirement that any one single method needs to have a measurable impact on 
global forcing. An example of this is instead is to call methods 'regional 
geoengineering'. We would also need to refine our notion of what success is for 
these solution. In other words, a reduction in forcing of 0.01 W m-2 might be 
called a success, instead of requiring 0.2 W m-2 or similar as a benchmark 
(arbitrary numbers).  Research would need to reflect this complex mix instead 
of writing paper after paper on the impacts of e.g. global reforestation alone, 
or global SAI alone, and so on.

However, in my opinion SAI should be thought of in a different catgory to 
geoengineering. Recreating Pinatubo or Krakatoa is neither scaleable, or easily 
reversible and hence gives the rest of geoengineering proposals a bad name. On 
the other hand, marine or cirrus cloud seeding and its meteorological impacts 
can be stopped much more rapidly (of course, feedbacks with vegetation may be 
much slower).

Regards

Oliver

--

Dr. Oliver Branch

Inst. for Physics and Meteorology (120)

University of Hohenheim

Garbenstr. 30

D-70599 Stuttgart



phone: 0711 - 459 -23132


On 10/11/2021 23:52, Michael Kleeman wrote:
Irrespective of the benefits or risks of solar radiation management the 
ecosystem impacts are real.

And for reference deserts have a rich life and are sensitive to light, 
pressure, vibration and general disruption.   Different from forested area but 
no less alive in their own way

We need to be humble in the face of complex systems and not propose simplistic 
interventions that make assumptions based on too little data.


On Nov 10, 2021, at 12:55 PM, Oliver 
 wrote:
 Do you not think this is rather a kneejerk reaction? Is it as awful an idea 
as injecting thousands of tons of silver dioxide or similar materials into the 
stratosphere? An action which will influence the global weather for a minimum 
of 4 years if done at the equator. Now that is a truly awful idea. On the other 
hand, I would say that the consequences of lighting forests are more 
predictable, and the idea is scalable and can be stopped easily.

In 

[geo] CEC 21 submission deadline is tomorrow!

[Douglas MacMartin]

Just a reminder to everyone; CEC21 will be on-line only this year, the 
submission deadline is tomorrow...

https://www.ce-conference.org/contributions

doug

Douglas MacMartin
Senior Research Associate and Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace 
Engineering, and
Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
Cornell University
(650) 619-9341
macmar...@cornell.edu<mailto:macmar...@cornell.edu>
https://climate-engineering.mae.cornell.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/CH2PR04MB6936EBA48FC60F889B2FAEF88F029%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering

[Douglas MacMartin]

I could point to a number of vaguely-incoherent (or simply factually untrue) 
statements in here, but there’s one in particular that I haven’t the foggiest 
clue what it means:

“Unfortunately while the topics of investigation have been defined by Southern 
partners, the models, norms, and practices applied in DECIMALS remain primarily 
those of the dominant Northern research community.”


-  If “models” refers to the climate models used, well that’s true for 
climate change research too, so does that mean that all climate change research 
should cease until the South codes the exact same equations in the exact same 
programming languages?  Do we expect different answers if the equations are 
turned into computer code by someone from a different country?

-  Are the “norms and practices” intended to refer to things like 
writing papers that pass peer review?

I’m truly baffled by this sentence… would love to have someone shed some light 
on it.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Geoeng Info
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 9:02 AM
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering

Publication link -> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.707

Abstract
Research into solar geoengineering, far from being societally neutral, is 
already highly intertwined with its emerging politics. This review outlines 
ways in which research conditions or constructs solar geoengineering in diverse 
ways, including the forms of possible material technologies of solar 
geoengineering; the criteria and targets for their assessment; the scenarios in 
which they might be deployed; the publics which may support or oppose them; 
their political implications for other climate responses, and the international 
relations, governance mechanisms, and configurations of power that are presumed 
in order to regulate them. The review also examines proposals for governance of 
research, including suggested frameworks, principles, procedures, and 
institutions. It critically assesses these proposals, revealing their 
limitations given the context of the conditioning effects of current research. 
The review particularly highlights problems of the reproduction of Northern 
norms, instrumental approaches to public engagement, a weak embrace of 
precaution, and a persistent—but questionable—separation of research from 
deployment. It details complexities inherent in effective research governance 
which contribute to making the pursuit of solar geoengineering risky, 
controversial, and ethically contentious. In conclusion, it suggests a case for 
an explicit, reflexive research governance regime developed with international 
participation. It suggests that such a regime should encompass modeling and 
social science, as well as field experimentation, and must address not only 
technical and environmental, but also the emergent social and political, 
implications of research.

This article is categorized under:
Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice
Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Duncan McLaren; Olaf Corry.
First published: 14 March 2021 . DOI
Edited by: Mike Hulme, Editor‐in‐Chief
Funding information: Det Frie Forskningsråd, Grant/Award Number: 116716

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/CAKSzgpZ%3DpMroc6Wp-rgnf0cQKF23%2BYFZSjLaRVM2K%3Dv%3DrHwQoQ%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/CH2PR04MB69367324C77442E9352CB9698F7D9%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] National Academy briefing re: geoengineering governing happening right now

[Douglas MacMartin]

The charge to the committee was to recommend research agenda and research 
governance, not to assess the literature.  We provided background material that 
we felt was sufficient to motivate the research agenda and governance 
recommendations, but the report should not in any way be interpreted as a 
comprehensive assessment of the literature (where we might have cited maybe 10% 
(?) of what’s been written).

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of SALTER Stephen
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 1:14 PM
To: ro...@ultimax.com; geoengineering 
Subject: RE: [geo] National Academy briefing re: geoengineering governing 
happening right now

Hi All

I wonder why they did not include a reference to doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-629

Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road  EH9 3 DW
University of Edinburgh
Scotland.
Tel 0131 662 1180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8




From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Robert Kennedy
Sent: 25 March 2021 16:07
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: [geo] National Academy briefing re: geoengineering governing happening 
right now

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.eventbrite.com/e/reflecting-sunlight-report-release-tickets-145868401315?aff=odeimcmailchimp_cid=3ab7b3aca2_eid=718c68cad6
On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 3:47:28 AM UTC-4 Andrew Lockley wrote:
CSSN Position Paper 2021:2
Solar Geoengineering Research in the
United States: Key Critical Questions
In anticipation of the March 25th release of the National Academies report: 
Reflecting Sunlight:
Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance, this 
brief primer
outlines three areas of key questions to ask about any effort to advance solar 
geoengineering
research using public funds.
Background
Solar geoengineering, also referred to by the National Academies of Science, 
Engineering and Medicine
(NASEM) as sunlight reflection or climate intervention, comprises prospective 
technologies that could
potentially cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back to space (or, more 
technically, ‘modifying Earth’s
albedo’).
1 Proposed strategies include spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to block 
incoming sunlight
(this is the leading solar geoengineering proposal known as Stratospheric 
Aerosol Injection (SAI)),
enhancing the reflectivity of clouds over the ocean, and increasing the 
reflectivity of the Arctic by spreading
glass microspheres across the ice. Once on the fringes of climate policy, solar 
geoengineering is gaining
traction, particularly in the United States, where some are calling for 
substantial public investment in solar
geoengineering research.
2 During the past five years, the U.S. has become the world leader in solar
geoengineering research, with multiple philanthropic efforts funding research 
at major universities,
including Harvard, where researchers are preparing to launch the first outdoor 
field experiments testing SAI
technology in Sweden during summer 2021.
3
These philanthropic-academic research efforts are expanding into federal 
policy, with Congressional
appropriation of $4 million to NOAA to advance solar geoengineering research,
4 calls for a ten-fold increase
in that funding from high-level science advisors in the Biden Administration,
5 and the forthcoming National
Academies (NASEM) report, which is expected to propose guidance on federal 
funding, research, and
governance of solar geoengineering in the U.S.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/4a9c0ccc-0eca-4e0d-82ba-902a9e70af66n%40googlegroups.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 

RE: [geo] News coverage of SCoPEx- The Times

[Douglas MacMartin]

Media coverage of SCoPEx is stunningly bad, I have to say.

“As it climbs to an altitude of 12 miles it will cross a historic threshold: 
the first serious attempt to explore whether global warming could be kept in 
check by dimming the sun”

Seriously?  It’s a tiny experiment to measure some chemical reaction rates that 
inform/improve climate models… it is a historic threshold perhaps in the first 
deliberate material release experiment in the stratosphere that is specifically 
intended to inform SAI, but not the first in any other sense, and I don’t know 
why that is somehow magically more “serious” than all the rest of the research 
to date.  Popular media has a dismal track record in this field.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Gideon Futerman
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:53 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] News coverage of SCoPEx- The Times

Bill Gates backs bid to cool Earth with chalk dust | News | The 
Times
It is behind a paywall, but nonetheless a discussion of solar geoengineering in 
popular media
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/605a00de.1c69fb81.dec9a.2420SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.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/CH2PR04MB6936CC93AC20C9260B2E1B8F8F649%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] FW: Report Releases and More from NASEM Climate

[Douglas MacMartin]

From: NASEM Climate 
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:00 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin 
Subject: Report Releases and More from NASEM Climate

[Facebook]<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=e11e51daec=93726827ff>
[Twitter]<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=3d62f87818=93726827ff>
[Website]<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=acc1bcf66b=93726827ff>
<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=6dffbc0962=93726827ff>[https://gallery.mailchimp.com/18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97/images/875cc7e5-4cf1-4768-aac2-0a796fb8b873.png]<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=6dffbc0962=93726827ff><https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=6dffbc0962=93726827ff>
REPORT RELEASE EVENT
Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and 
Research Governance
March 25, 2021 | 12:00-1:00 PM ET
[https://mcusercontent.com/18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97/images/5edc4ed5-dfc3-4b7c-930d-2e8de987d488.jpg]Mark
 your calendars for a public briefing on an upcoming report that examines 
strategies to reduce global temperatures by reflecting sunlight back into 
space, known as solar geoengineering. Concerns that efforts to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, remove and sequester carbon, and adapt to climate 
change impacts are not on pace to avoid the worst consequences of climate 
change have led some to suggest adding solar geoengineering to the portfolio of 
response strategies. The upcoming report, to be released at 11:00 am ET on 
Thursday, March 25, 2021, examines the current understanding of the potential 
risks and benefits of three proposed solar geoengineering strategies and makes 
recommendations for how to establish a research program, a research agenda, and 
mechanisms for governing this research.

Register to 
Attend<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=bba4380262=93726827ff>
Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in to emails from a unit or 
project in the Division on Earth & Life Studies.

Our mailing address is:
National Academy of Sciences
500 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001

Add us to your address 
book<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/vcard?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=3c0b1ad5c8>


unsubscribe from this 
list<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=3c0b1ad5c8=93726827ff=eb2fbe3563>
update subscription 
preferences<https://nas.us8.list-manage.com/profile?u=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=3c0b1ad5c8=93726827ff=eb2fbe3563>

[Email Marketing Powered by 
Mailchimp]<http://www.mailchimp.com/email-referral/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter_medium=email_campaign=referral_marketing=18fe6f8f25ec0bc7509e65e97=1>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/CH2PR04MB6936421B2E74F6D1CAC55FC18F6C9%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[geo] RE: [The Enormous Risk of Atmospheric Hacking

[Douglas MacMartin]

Thanks Robert,

I’m certainly not an expert on cloud-aerosol interactions, other than what I 
read and who I talk with.

The two references you provide have, respectively, the following sentences:
“The model has been modified to have a fixed CDNC in the three regions of 
low-level marine stratocumulus; these regions are of the coasts of California, 
Peru and Namibia as shown in Figure  1 of Jones et al. 2009 [4]. ”

“… the three areas containing the most extensive concentrations of such 
clouds—off the West coasts of North and South America, and Africa [7,8,11]. 
These three areas (combined) cover approximately 5% of the total oceanic area 
and were used in most of the current computations outlined herein.”

Which are both consistent with my recollection of what I’ve seen elsewhere and 
read.  I have not read the details of either paper, but at least based on the 
introductions don’t see clouds over the Gulf Stream as being one of the areas 
where MCB is expected to be effective.  Am I missing something here?

(And I would repeat my caution in using GCMs to predict the efficacy of MCB, 
insofar as whatever they predict is based on whatever subgrid cell 
cloud-aerosol parameterization has been made in writing the model – and thus 
whatever uncertainties exist in that parameterization remain.  Using a GCM to 
say what might happen if MCB is effective is great, but using it to ask whether 
MCB is effective is a circular argument, as that effectiveness is simply coded 
in the assumptions in the model.)

doug

From: rob...@rtulip.net 
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:11 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; 'John Nissen' 

Cc: 'Clive Elsworth' ; 'Peter Wadhams' 
; 'Stephen Salter' ; 
'geoengineering' 
Subject: RE: [The Enormous Risk of Atmospheric Hacking

Thanks Doug.  This discussion is relevant to geoengineering so copying to that 
group.

My conversations with Stephen Salter suggest brightening clouds over the Gulf 
Stream to cool the current would be an effective way to cool the Arctic.

Two papers which imply the Gulf Stream would be a good location for Marine 
Cloud Brightening are https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/142872/ and 
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2014.0053

Robert Tulip

From: Douglas MacMartin mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>>
Sent: Sunday, 7 March 2021 11:26 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net<mailto:rob...@rtulip.net>; 'John Nissen' 
mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>>
Cc: 'Clive Elsworth' 
mailto:cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>>; 'Gene 
Fry' mailto:gene@rcn.com>>; 'Chris Reed' 
mailto:chris.r...@sduniontribune.com>>; 'Douglas 
Grandt' mailto:answerthec...@mac.com>>; 'Peter Wadhams' 
mailto:peter.wadh...@gmail.com>>; 'Stephen Salter' 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Subject: RE: [CDR] The Enormous Risk of Atmospheric Hacking

Well, unfortunately we don’t even know yet when/where/how much MCB works (and 
you should really really hope that it isn’t very effective, because that means 
that climate sensitivity is on the low end), so without understanding the right 
meteorology to influence, this isn’t ready to go deploy.  And over the gulf 
stream is not likely one of the regions where it is effective, if I recall 
right.   And if you do that at meaningful scale, I bet it would be 
controversial too, but of course no-one really knows.

And we don’t know how to pump water onto sea ice at any relevant scale, or the 
extent to which the newly formed ice is more saline vs adequate brine rejection 
(and if it’s particularly saline then it melts first, decreasing albedo earlier 
in the melt season).

These are all great things to research.  So is SAI.  Bottom line is, we do not 
have any options that we can simply go out and start doing tomorrow without a 
ton of research first.  (And the closest to being able to do that – which 
doesn’t mean it’s the best in any other respect – is high-latitude SAI.)  I 
think it’s a bit premature to start throwing out options.

d

(And once again removing the CDR google group from the addressees, since this 
doesn’t belong there.)

From: rob...@rtulip.net<mailto:rob...@rtulip.net> 
mailto:rob...@rtulip.net>>
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:12 AM
To: 'John Nissen' mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>>; 
Douglas MacMartin mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>>
Cc: 'Clive Elsworth' 
mailto:cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>>; 'Gene 
Fry' mailto:gene@rcn.com>>; 'Carbon Dioxide Removal' 
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>;
 'Chris Reed' 
mailto:chris.r...@sduniontribune.com>>; 'Douglas 
Grandt' mailto:answerthec...@mac.com>>; 'Peter Wadhams' 
mailto:peter.wadh...@gmail.com>>; 'Stephen Salter' 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Subject: RE: [CDR] The Enormous Risk of Atmospheric Hacking

Planetary brightening is essential to cool the temperature.  My view is the 
best ways to brighten and cool the planet are Marine Cloud Brightening using 
sea salt in the air to 

RE: [geo] THE COOLING CONUNDRUM REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE TO REFREEZE THE ARCTIC

[Douglas MacMartin]

Adrian – your list of ostensibly viable should include SAI too, as was pointed 
out earlier on this same thread.  In principle one could inject SO2 or other in 
the spring at high latitude (and indeed, that may be the most economically 
viable, technologically achievable near-term approach – and to be clear I 
wouldn’t advocate doing anything simply because it’s cheap, simply pointing it 
out).  Re MCB, I don’t know if there are sufficient susceptible clouds at high 
latitudes to do something focused on the Arctic, vs using it to cool lower 
latitudes and thus cool the Arctic by reducing heat transport – which, of 
course, if your sole metric is freezing the Arctic, would work.   For any of 
these things one has to look at all of the impacts, and the science is still 
pretty immature beyond recognizing the overall ability to cool.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Adrian Hindes
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 6:37 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] THE COOLING CONUNDRUM REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE TO REFREEZE 
THE ARCTIC

Ah of course, the straightforward thermodynamics of it aren't favourable to 
direct cooling through refrigeration.

I suppose the only way to make it work would be to transfer the heat to outer 
space or deep underground. I don't know too much about how heat exchangers or 
thermal transport works, but having a read of the basal freezing section of 
your paper, Andrew, I can't imagine anything thermosyphon related would be 
appropriate for the Arctic.

Aside from glass microspheres then, maybe only marine cloud brightening remains 
as an ostensibly viable Arctic refreeze technology? It'll be interesting to see 
what they discuss in the Climate Emergency Summit talk.
-A
On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 7:43:10 am UTC+11 Andrew Lockley wrote:
I'm unclear on the proposed mechanism, but any artificial refrigeration simply 
moves heat around. There is obviously an energy penalty for doing this - and 
for generating the electricity, in the first place. In short, all the 
additional thermal energy from the nuclear power plant will ultimately end up 
as waste heat, in the system you're trying to cool. You can't make a sealed 
room colder by locking a generator and refrigerator in it - even if that room 
is the size of a planet. Only by using energy to Accelerate hear transfer to 
space can anything be achieved. Pumping water through the ice can do this, as 
can freezing glacier bases to preserve them and their ice-albedo feedback. .

I address some of these issues in my recent paper.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927820300940

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021, 07:54 Adrian Hindes,  wrote:
@Oliver although that's quite a few nuclear power plants, that's actually not 
so far out of the realm of possibility.
On Friday, 5 February 2021 at 11:48:12 am UTC+11 Oliver Wingenter wrote:
It would take 20 nuclear power plants running conventional refrigeration  to 
cool the Arctic Ocean.and refreeze it.

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/IAkhl6EbYbQYD9J_1Dc6N_HPU5Z488DnGcKcnWpOKuYmchAYVxkuaNLcLza-a4lma2s9ti4CdivC6ngcOg6DxsKIfQSj1jUPE23T-RPW6SSIBxsEZEVz9o7f4AeRul4zwq6JNmxjsa05TVZzHfERYYI-=s0-d-e1-ft#https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
Virus-free. 
www.avast.com

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:10 PM Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://climateemergencysummit.org/the-cooling-conundrum-event-profile/

THE COOLING CONUNDRUM
REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE TO REFREEZE THE ARCTIC
With rapidly rising global temperatures, the harm to people and nature is 
already too great. Signs that we are on the brink of triggering runaway global 
warming are increasing by the day, as the strain on major ecosystems reaches a 
new level of stress. Analysis shows that even a zero-emission pathway will not 
be enough alone to slow warming and avoid further devastation. This points to 
an urgent need to consider establishing an immediate way to cool the planet. Is 
reversing climate change a real possibility? What would it take to refreeze the 
Arctic and Antarctic ice to repair the climate?

David Keith – Professor of Applied Physics, Harvard
Ye Tao – Principal Investigator, Rowland Institute at Harvard
Holly Jean Buck – Science Writer & Analyst
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

RE: [geo] Solar geoengineering may not prevent strong warming from direct effects of CO2 on stratocumulus cloud cover

[Douglas MacMartin]

This is a really interesting nonlinear mechanism, whereby high levels of CO2 
might result in more warming than our models currently project, and with 
hysteresis (so that once you lose the clouds, you don’t get them back by 
cooling).  But worth keeping in mind that their simulations were for 1700 ppm 
(~6x CO2); unclear whether or how much the mechanism might play a role at lower 
CO2 levels, but if we let CO2 get that high, we’re pretty much screwed anyway.  
Doesn’t say that SG would be bad (or good), just says that if we burn every 
ounce of fossil carbon in the ground, even SG might not save us.  Hopefully we 
won’t have to test that hypothesis…

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 2:38 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Solar geoengineering may not prevent strong warming from direct 
effects of CO2 on stratocumulus cloud cover


https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/11/10/2003730117.short

Solar geoengineering may not prevent strong warming from direct effects of CO2 
on stratocumulus cloud cover
 View ORCID ProfileTapio Schneider,  View ORCID ProfileColleen M. Kaul, and 
Kyle G. Pressel
PNAS first published November 16, 2020; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003730117
Add to Cart ($10)
Edited by Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 
MA, and approved October 7, 2020 (received for review February 27, 2020)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics  PDF
Significance
Solar geoengineering that manipulates the amount of sunlight Earth absorbs is 
increasingly discussed as an option to counter global warming. However, we 
demonstrate that solar geoengineering 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. High-resolution 
simulations of stratocumulus clouds show that clouds thin as greenhouse gases 
build up, even when warming is modest. In a scenario of solar geoengineering 
that is sustained for more than a century, this can eventually lead to breakup 
of the clouds, triggering strong (5°C), and possibly difficult to reverse, 
global warming, despite the solar geoengineering.

Abstract
Discussions of countering global warming with solar geoengineering assume that 
warming owing to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations can be compensated by 
artificially reducing the amount of sunlight Earth absorbs. However, solar 
geoengineering may not be fail-safe to prevent global warming because CO2 can 
directly affect cloud cover: It reduces cloud cover by modulating the longwave 
radiative cooling within the atmosphere. This effect is not mitigated by solar 
geoengineering. Here, we use idealized high-resolution simulations of clouds to 
show that, even under a sustained solar geoengineering scenario with initially 
only modest warming, subtropical stratocumulus clouds gradually thin and may 
eventually break up into scattered cumulus clouds, at concentrations exceeding 
1,700 parts per million (ppm). Because stratocumulus clouds cover large swaths 
of subtropical oceans and cool Earth by reflecting incident sunlight, their 
loss would trigger strong (about 5 K) global warming. Thus, the results 
highlight that, at least in this extreme and idealized scenario, solar 
geoengineering may not suffice to counter greenhouse-gas-driven global warming.

global warminggeoengineeringcloud feedback
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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-04C%2BAn%3DPFaR%3DSOehEH012HcF1HzVjd4sJEhsW%3Degx9ZKQ%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/CH2PR04MB6936EF1191B8A6A4FC4F3C168FE20%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Postdoctoral positions available

[Douglas MacMartin]

You’re quick!  I typed it in last night and figured I’d send it out to the list 
in the morning… but you beat me to it!

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:13 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Postdoctoral positions available


https://climate-engineering.mae.cornell.edu/postdoctoral-positions-available/

Postdoctoral positions available
We invite applicants for two postdoctoral research associates to conduct and 
analyze climate model simulations of climate engineering (also known as solar 
geoengineering or climate intervention) using stratospheric aerosol injection 
(SAI).  The postdoctoral researchers will join a team working on the 
Geoengineering Assessment across Uncertainty, Scenarios, and Strategies (GAUSS) 
project.  The broad research goals of this project are to better evaluate the 
climate effects of SAI and how they depend on the design strategy (through 
choices such as latitudes, altitudes, seasons of injection), different possible 
future scenarios for implementation, and uncertainties in climate model 
representations of stratospheric physics – all with an aim to ultimately better 
inform future decisions.  We believe that it would be irresponsible to advocate 
for or against actual implementation of climate engineering approaches such as 
SAI, given the absence of adequate knowledge.  However, we also believe that 
conducting research is essential for informing policy around the possible range 
of responses to climate change.  Funding for this project comes from the 
Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability and SilverLining.   A more detailed 
description of our research effort can be found on our website:  
https://climate-engineering.mae.cornell.edu/research/.

We anticipate that one postdoctoral research associate would primarily focus on 
understanding tropospheric climate implications from different aerosol 
injection choices to design new geoengineering strategies and explore the range 
of potential climate responses.  The second postdoctoral research associate 
would focus more on model uncertainty and inter-model comparison of SAI to 
understand differences and robust responses.

Applicants must have a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, physics, engineering, or a 
related field prior to employment.  Prior experience with geoengineering is not 
necessary, but experience in running and/or analyzing climate model output is a 
plus.  Additional qualifications include:

A demonstrated track record of conducting peer-reviewed climate research, 
including analyses of large data sets, making figures, interpreting results, 
and preparing manuscripts for peer review
Experience and knowledge in climate or climate-related fields, including 
climate dynamics, large-scale circulation mesoscale meteorology, aerosols, 
and/or atmospheric radiative transfer.
The ability to work independently and collaboratively with other researchers.
Written and oral communication skills, including publishing research findings 
in scholarly journals and oral presentations at conferences.
The positions will be for one year, renewable for up to three years pending 
satisfactory performance and funding availability.  Applications will be 
accepted until the positions are filled.

To apply, please email dgm...@cornell.edu, and 
include a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and writing sample.  Please also 
specify three people from whom we can solicit letters of recommendation.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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-07QWNheVtMV5_yD_V635-A-ikp51%3Dr%2BNn9xTp_fr88qpA%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/CH2PR04MB6936942B4F9D489D764C2D858F310%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

Certainly the term moral hazard as used in other literature doesn’t imply any 
conscious thought process as a requirement.  (Examples might be better termed 
risk compensation; someone is more likely to drive close to a cyclist who is 
wearing a helmet, for example.)

Perhaps better to simply use the term mitigation deterrence and not make any 
implied judgment.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 11:24 AM
To: Jasmin S. A. Link 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

To clarify, morale hazard is lazy recklessness (I'll put off swapping my SUV 
for a tesla, because geoengineering may sort it out) moral hazard is 
manipulative (I'll dangle the carrot of geoengineering, to get approval for 
keystone). Personal profit is inherent in moral hazard, knowingly harming 
others.

Sorry if this is wandering off topic.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020, 16:15 Jasmin S. A. Link, 
mailto:jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de>> wrote:

Yes. I am not sure, whether moral hazard or even morale hazard, as Andrew has 
pointed out, exactly name what I try to describe. Moral hazard or morale hazard 
seem to me both have at least a deliberate decision, at least concious, perhaps 
even rational or optimizing in some sense, of action making in common. 
Regarding emission behavior, people usually do not deliberately choose to emit 
CO2 directly or indirectly. Usally, the emissions are just a side-effect of 
their consumption, their way of living. Thus, a side-effect of their routines. 
For many people it is even difficult to reflect on how much carbon they emit 
via which choice of consumption. Consequently, an individual attempt to reduce 
carbon emissions is a great effort and usually a large step out of the comfort 
zone for a single person. Calling it moral hazard, if they "just relax" and 
fall back a bit in their routines, or enjoy intensifying them, sounds a bit 
hard. This kind of behavioral decision-making processes may be far from what 
you might expect as rational decision-making.

In my earlier referred thesis (Link 2018) I coin the term "path-dependent 
behavior", which is the result of the influence of existing path-dependent 
processes and is rather a following behavior, following 
routines/standards/institutions, the masses, neighbors etc. It is an efficient 
way of decision-making, resulting from a short-cut in the brain (applying the 
least-effort-principle from social psychology). But the resulting action may be 
a different one than the result of a utility function would be. Like following 
the advice of your computer expert (Herbert Simon has also described the 
phenomenon of personal experts) does not mean that you have optimized the 
variety of choices yourself. But if the choice you have made that way is 
producing more carbon emissions along the way than a different one would have, 
that you might have not even thought about when only relying on your personal 
expert: Can you be accused for moral(e) hazard?

Best regards,

Jasmin








Am 16.08.2020 um 12:59 schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps the 
biggest risk.  (But I also think it is important to be more explicit about 
one’s assumptions.)

There’ve been a few studies trying to look at moral hazard, with inconclusive 
results even on the sign of the effect – very hard to make predictions about, 
but, of course, very clear that it is a serious possibility.

(And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.)

doug

From: Jasmin S. A. Link 
<mailto:jasmin.l...@uni-hamburg.de>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin <mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


Thank you Doug,

> If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a 
> large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side 
> effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these 
> potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in 
> acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in biodiversity, 
> loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to name a few of 
> the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure 3.1.,p.71 in the 
> transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in: 
> https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf
>  ). <

Regarding ocean acidification and acid rain: Yes, putting up mirrors would not 
directly cause ocean acidification but SAI might cause acid rain (depending on 
the aerosol used). And no, it still is related via an indirect effect in terms 
of social behavior: If people comprehend SRM in a way as that there is some 
sort of technical 

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps the 
biggest risk.  (But I also think it is important to be more explicit about 
one’s assumptions.)

There’ve been a few studies trying to look at moral hazard, with inconclusive 
results even on the sign of the effect – very hard to make predictions about, 
but, of course, very clear that it is a serious possibility.

(And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.)

doug

From: Jasmin S. A. Link 
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


Thank you Doug,

> If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a 
> large-scale) you would in the same way have to consider the potential side 
> effects beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these 
> potential side effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in 
> acidification of the oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in biodiversity, 
> loss in coral reefs, accumulating in social tensions (just to name a few of 
> the interconnected potential side effects, cp. Figure 3.1.,p.71 in the 
> transdisciplinary network of potential side effects in: 
> https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf
>  ). <

Regarding ocean acidification and acid rain: Yes, putting up mirrors would not 
directly cause ocean acidification but SAI might cause acid rain (depending on 
the aerosol used). And no, it still is related via an indirect effect in terms 
of social behavior: If people comprehend SRM in a way as that there is some 
sort of technical compensation happening for their carbon emissions, they are 
likely to rather not reduce their own carbon emissions, but instead increase 
their own carbon emissions. This is marked in Figure 3.1. as "less necessity 
for direct emission reduction?" connected to a "rise of CO2 emissions", which 
causes multiple feedbacks such as the necessity to further increase the SAI 
deployment. I think, there have been more recent simulation studies at MIT on 
this kind of behavior that support the relevance of this potential indirect 
effect.

In my argument on the potential accumulation in acidification of the oceans, I 
had this indirect effect of the SRM deployment on the rather increased carbon 
emission behavior in mind: Officially applying a method to reduce global 
warming which might be understood as "fixing the problem with engineering" 
might rather reduce than increase individual mitigation efforts. (Of course, we 
know that the problem is not really fixed, but try to explain that to usual 
consumers who would know at some point that their government would regularly 
spend large sums of money on SRM and who might feel more comfortable to stick 
and increase their former behavior than to really change it, due to path 
dependence).

Best,

Jasmin


Am 15.08.2020 um 23:40 schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
Thanks Jasmin,

Agree that all the side effects of SRM need to be considered, and need to 
evaluate options holistically.

That said, SRM does not cause ocean acidification; CO2 causes ocean 
acidification.  So one should never list ocean acidification as a side effect.  
(It is true that SRM doesn’t solve ocean acidification, but it also doesn’t 
solve car accidents… and no-one lists that as a reason not to consider SRM.)  
Implicit in listing acidification in any discussion of SRM is an assumption 
that somehow we’re required to choose between reducing CO2 or using SRM, in 
much the same way that we have to choose whether to drive safely or wear a seat 
belt, but we’re not allowed to do both.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> On 
Behalf Of Jasmin S. A. Link
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:32 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


"The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder it is 
to stop or reverse." The same can count for social dynamics. Self-reinforcing 
processes with the tendency towards a lock-in are path-dependent processes. 
That is, why it is not easy to just change carbon intensive behavior towards 
low carbon emission behavior. Many social, economical, and technical processes 
have the production of carbon emissions as side effects which accumulate during 
the intensifying self-reinforcing processes (cp. Figure 4 p. 63 in 
https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2020/10431/pdf/Dissertation.pdf ).

But what about the side effects of SRM that would accumulate over time while 
deployment in an intensity of "driving the earth into a glacial period"?

It is necessary to decouple self-reinforcing processes from producing carbon 

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

Thanks Jasmin,

Agree that all the side effects of SRM need to be considered, and need to 
evaluate options holistically.

That said, SRM does not cause ocean acidification; CO2 causes ocean 
acidification.  So one should never list ocean acidification as a side effect.  
(It is true that SRM doesn’t solve ocean acidification, but it also doesn’t 
solve car accidents… and no-one lists that as a reason not to consider SRM.)  
Implicit in listing acidification in any discussion of SRM is an assumption 
that somehow we’re required to choose between reducing CO2 or using SRM, in 
much the same way that we have to choose whether to drive safely or wear a seat 
belt, but we’re not allowed to do both.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Jasmin S. A. Link
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:32 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


"The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder it is 
to stop or reverse." The same can count for social dynamics. Self-reinforcing 
processes with the tendency towards a lock-in are path-dependent processes. 
That is, why it is not easy to just change carbon intensive behavior towards 
low carbon emission behavior. Many social, economical, and technical processes 
have the production of carbon emissions as side effects which accumulate during 
the intensifying self-reinforcing processes (cp. Figure 4 p. 63 in 
https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2020/10431/pdf/Dissertation.pdf ).

But what about the side effects of SRM that would accumulate over time while 
deployment in an intensity of "driving the earth into a glacial period"?

It is necessary to decouple self-reinforcing processes from producing carbon 
emissions as a side effect. And try to potentially include the reduction of 
carbon emissions as side effects of new self-reinforcing processes that show 
the dynamic of "the more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and 
the harder it is to stop or reverse".

If you would plan the potential deployment of SRM (especially on a large-scale) 
you would in the same way have to consider the potential side effects 
beforehand to assure to decouple a deployment of SRM from these potential side 
effects. Otherwise you would risk the accumulation in acidification of the 
oceans, self-reinforcing the reduction in biodiversity, loss in coral reefs, 
accumulating in social tensions (just to name a few of the interconnected 
potential side effects, cp. Figure 3.1.,p.71 in the transdisciplinary network 
of potential side effects in: 
https://www.iass-potsdam.de/sites/default/files/2018-06/EuTRACE_report_digital_second_edition.pdf
 ).

Furthermore, with SRM you address the global mean temperature. If this would 
work at all, this would not imply the globally even reduction of temperature, 
regional effects may differ a lot, potentially increasing also the climate 
related risks for coastal cities, which you have mentioned as your main concern 
to safe.

Best,

Jasmin


Am 15.08.2020 um 13:19 schrieb Andrew Lockley:
The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder it is 
to stop or reverse. It's unclear whether we could arrest mass loss, without 
driving the earth into a glacial period (colloquially, an ice age). I don't 
think there has been any serious modelling work done on ice loss reversal, or 
even if the models are capable of doing this with any useful accuracy.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, 12:03 Douglas MacMartin, 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> wrote:

What is not correct in the media report is this sentence: “This process, 
however, would take decades.”  Well, I guess arguably that’s true, it’s just it 
would take a LOT of decades.  Melt rate is currently of order 1-2mm/yr 
equivalent SLR, so to get the 6m from melting all of Greenland would take a few 
thousand years.  Obviously it can speed up a lot, but “hey, it’s losing mass” 
does not remotely imply “therefore we only have a few decades before we lose 
our coastal cities”.  So no, you can’t use this study to claim that 
geoengineering is required to keep our coastal cities.  The problem with 
relying on mitigation+CDR is time-scale, but this study doesn’t prove that our 
response time-scale needs to be faster than what CDR can (at least 
hypothetically) provide.
d
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 3:40 AM
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

If this study is correct https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2
And is correctly reported here
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25A2X3
Then it appears to back up a point that I have been making for a long time: 
geoengineering is required, if we are to keep our coastal c

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Mike,


-  I don’t know (and I’m not sure anyone really does) how much 
Greenland ice sheet mass loss can accelerate, but agree that it won’t stay at 
the current rate.

-  Mainly my point was that the media link Andrew sent was silly by 
implying that the 6m could happen in decades (even if it didn’t technically say 
that), and the paper doesn’t make any claims about how much the loss rate will 
accelerate… and to support the claim that geoengineering is the *ONLY* way to 
avoid catastrophic sea level rise requires evidence that we need to intervene 
now rather than over the rest of the century.  I do agree that there’s good 
reason to suspect that Andrew’s claim may be true, but it is certainly not 
supported by the paper he was referring to, and I don’t think we can prove that 
the claim is true.

-  Paleo evidence makes it clear that staying at even the current CO2 
levels for millennia would be catastrophic.  It doesn’t do a great job of 
constraining how rapidly we need to change, e.g. if CDR over the rest of the 
century would also be an adequate alternative to SRM.  (And paleo evidence also 
shows that it is possible to get ~5m of SLR in a single century, but that’s 
coming out of the last glacial when there was a lot more available to be 
melted, and that doesn’t say that it is possible to get anything close to that 
this century.)

-  Arguably this is simply quibbling over whether we can prove we’re 
past the point where even aggressive CDR would work, or whether there’s simply 
a risk that we’re past that point, in which case arguing over whether that is 
20% or 50% or 10% might not matter for policy.  I do agree that we are gambling 
with the climate, and with odds that no-one would accept in any other 
circumstance.

-  Personally, given how little research has been done, I don’t think 
there’s strong justification for saying that the long-term climate consequences 
of waiting another 10-15 years for research (and to develop governance 
capacity) will be so bad that we should go ahead and deploy something now 
without doing the research (though if we did deploy something now, I’d worry 
more about the societal response than the physical issues).  But, just like the 
US didn’t use the first few months of this year to prepare for covid when it 
knew it was coming, it would be truly awful to not do the research now, leaving 
us in the same boat yet another decade later.
doug

From: Michael MacCracken 
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 12:54 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse


Hi Doug et al.--I'm a bit late to this particular conversation, but I am 
astonished by the suggestion that Greenland can only cause such a small 
potential rate of rise in sea level. There was just a kerfuffle with the IPCC 
authors on their draft projections of rates (see attached letter). While 
surface melt rate may be relatively slow as often calculated, it is not the 
main loss of mass process--ice stream flow is very likely the major loss rate 
once it gets going and the calculations that are done in most models do not 
include this term, nor do they include the effects of ice shelf thinning that 
is going on. From the peak of the last interglacial to 8 ka, sea level rose at 
an average rate of a meter per century while global average temperature rose at 
an average rate of a degree C per 2000 years, and the CO2 concentration was 
less than 300 ppm. The documentary "Chasing Ice" shows how fast ice can 
disappear, and not just in the ice stream calving that is the most amazing 
aspect of that film. And paleo evidence also makes very clear that ice sheets 
go away much faster than they build up.

And the question is not so much when the cities will be under water as when it 
will become inevitable that they will be under water--given that consideration 
and the paleo sensitivity being something like 15-20 meters per degree C 
warming (and this is not just me saying this, but see Eric Rignot talk to the 
NAS last year--see https://vimeo.com/332486918 ).

Based on this sensitivity, we're already past the point where it would be good 
to have climate intervention underway if we want to avoid significant and early 
risk to our cities with a very high likelihood (and this is the criterion that 
is often used in building infrastructure--avoiding 1 in 100 year events or even 
rarer ones--consider the Dutch for their levees--1 in 10,000 year storms).

Mike MacCracken







On 8/15/20 7:03 AM, Douglas MacMartin wrote:

What is not correct in the media report is this sentence: “This process, 
however, would take decades.”  Well, I guess arguably that’s true, it’s just it 
would take a LOT of decades.  Melt rate is currently of order 1-2mm/yr 
equivalent SLR, so to get the 6m from melting all of Greenland would take a few 
thousand years.  Obviously it can speed up a lot, but “hey, it’s losing m

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

True that, whether one uses lots of CDR and/or SRM, it is possible that neither 
of those options would arrest mass loss without cooling beyond preindustrial, 
and that over the ensuing millennium we would eventually lose our coastal 
cities no matter what we do, but that we would delay that if we start solar geo 
sooner.  But (a) we don’t know and I think your second statement is correct, 
that we don’t have the modeling capability for that, (b) I’m more concerned 
about what we do in the next 50 years, myself, so questions of whether the 
cities are ultimately un-savable on timescales of centuries I don’t think 
matters for near-term decisions (c) personally I’m a lot more worried about 
Antarctic than Greenland, (d) nothing you said justifies your original claim 
(insofar as solar geo doesn’t guarantee keeping coastal cities over long 
timescales either).  I agree that starting solar geo today would result in less 
SLR by 2100 than not starting it, if emissions stayed the same, but the only 
thing we know in that sentence is the word “less”.

Your original claim was also based on the premise of throwing out all other 
options.  Yes, generally in any situation in life, if you refuse to consider 
all of the options but one, then yes, you have only one option.  That’s true, 
but only trivially.  Yes, if you rule out large-scale CDR to tackle historical 
emissions, then it is unequivocally true that SRM would be the only way to 
reduce temperatures beyond the current level.  That’s not exactly a profound 
observation…


From: Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:20 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder it is 
to stop or reverse. It's unclear whether we could arrest mass loss, without 
driving the earth into a glacial period (colloquially, an ice age). I don't 
think there has been any serious modelling work done on ice loss reversal, or 
even if the models are capable of doing this with any useful accuracy.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, 12:03 Douglas MacMartin, 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> wrote:

What is not correct in the media report is this sentence: “This process, 
however, would take decades.”  Well, I guess arguably that’s true, it’s just it 
would take a LOT of decades.  Melt rate is currently of order 1-2mm/yr 
equivalent SLR, so to get the 6m from melting all of Greenland would take a few 
thousand years.  Obviously it can speed up a lot, but “hey, it’s losing mass” 
does not remotely imply “therefore we only have a few decades before we lose 
our coastal cities”.  So no, you can’t use this study to claim that 
geoengineering is required to keep our coastal cities.  The problem with 
relying on mitigation+CDR is time-scale, but this study doesn’t prove that our 
response time-scale needs to be faster than what CDR can (at least 
hypothetically) provide.
d
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 3:40 AM
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

If this study is correct https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2
And is correctly reported here
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25A2X3
Then it appears to back up a point that I have been making for a long time: 
geoengineering is required, if we are to keep our coastal cities. I do not see 
economic or political feasibility for large scale CDR to tackle historic 
emissions, and thus the task must fall to SRM.

Nobody has managed to rause an objection to this argument to date. I'd be 
grateful if those who might disagree were to raise counter arguments now.

If the situation is as I understand it, prevarication has no clear benefits, 
and we should thus move quickly to readiness for deployment.

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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07%2BJc0dmp26W2_H08Rsrs1V_sjEs1pkG6xuZZ75OcTa%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07%2BJc0dmp26W2_H08Rsrs1V_sjEs1pkG6xuZZ75OcTa%2Bw%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/CH2PR04MB6936FB0D9DE79204D90DE4138F410%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Douglas MacMartin]

What is not correct in the media report is this sentence: “This process, 
however, would take decades.”  Well, I guess arguably that’s true, it’s just it 
would take a LOT of decades.  Melt rate is currently of order 1-2mm/yr 
equivalent SLR, so to get the 6m from melting all of Greenland would take a few 
thousand years.  Obviously it can speed up a lot, but “hey, it’s losing mass” 
does not remotely imply “therefore we only have a few decades before we lose 
our coastal cities”.  So no, you can’t use this study to claim that 
geoengineering is required to keep our coastal cities.  The problem with 
relying on mitigation+CDR is time-scale, but this study doesn’t prove that our 
response time-scale needs to be faster than what CDR can (at least 
hypothetically) provide.
d
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 3:40 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

If this study is correct https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2
And is correctly reported here
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25A2X3
Then it appears to back up a point that I have been making for a long time: 
geoengineering is required, if we are to keep our coastal cities. I do not see 
economic or political feasibility for large scale CDR to tackle historic 
emissions, and thus the task must fall to SRM.

Nobody has managed to rause an objection to this argument to date. I'd be 
grateful if those who might disagree were to raise counter arguments now.

If the situation is as I understand it, prevarication has no clear benefits, 
and we should thus move quickly to readiness for deployment.

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-07%2BJc0dmp26W2_H08Rsrs1V_sjEs1pkG6xuZZ75OcTa%2Bw%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/CH2PR04MB6936220B9B7203A2CB55EA4B8F410%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Can stratospheric geoengineering alleviate global-warming-induced changes in deciduous fruit cultivation? The case of Himachal Pradesh (India)

[Douglas MacMartin]

Maybe someone should write something called “False narratives on 
geoengineering: solutionism”

Fundamentally, the framing in any of these (other than Alan’s, which lists both 
the benefits and harms, and was also written at a time when a few people 
actually *were* proposing geoengineering as a get-out-of-jail-free-card) is to 
pose it as a choice of *either* we cut emissions *or* we use geoengineering, 
much like with car accidents, where we frame those as *either* you wear a seat 
belt *or* you drive safely, but you’re required to only choose one (seat belts 
are, of course, a “false solution” to car accidents).  I happen to think that 
is a deliberately misleading and simplistic framing.  Reduced pressure on 
mitigation is an absolutely fair concern (and of course there is evidence that 
people drive less safely if they have more safety features), but acknowledging 
that concern doesn’t justify the either/or framing.

Note that one could take other titles below as well, and substitute “not 
geoengineering” every time you read “geoengineering”.  Of course there are side 
effects and risks, that’s why there is research to better understand them and 
put them in context; if we knew there were no side effects to implementing 
something, maybe it would have happened already.  The problem is that there are 
side effects and risks for the natural world without geoengineering too, hence 
the “context” part.  So the people crafting these headlines are deliberately 
generating naïve simplistic framings of what deserves a more difficult and 
nuanced treatment because that sort of emotional click-bait works in 
journalism.  The world deserves better.

(My $0.02 on these.)

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Cheri Simonne Rubens
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:26 AM
To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
Cc: Geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Can stratospheric geoengineering alleviate 
global-warming-induced changes in deciduous fruit cultivation? The case of 
Himachal Pradesh (India)

The following is for everyone's awareness and deep consideration. Hope these 
highlights do not step on anybody's toes, the intention is to simply create 
awareness and add to our knowledge base

False Solutions to Climate Change: 
Geoengineering

In a climate crisis, is geoengineering worth the 
risks?

Geoengineering carries ‘large risks’ for the natural world, studies 
show

Geoengineering side effects could be potentially disastrous, research 
shows

The Hidden Dangers of 
Geoengineering

20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad 
idea

In Unity & Resonance
Cheri Simonne Rubens
Love is the ONLY Truth



On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 23:05, Alan Robock ☮ 
mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
Singh, Jyoti, Sandeep Sahany, and Alan Robock, 2020:  Can stratospheric 
geoengineering alleviate global-warming-induced changes in deciduous fruit 
cultivation? The case of Himachal Pradesh (India).  Climatic Change, 
doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02786-3.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02786-3

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-020-02786-3.pdf

Abstract

Using Hadley Global Environment Model 2 - Earth System and Max Planck Institute 
Earth System Model simulations, we assess the impact of global warming and 
stratospheric geoengineering on deciduous fruit production in Himachal Pradesh 
(the second-largest apple-producing state in India). The impacts have been 
assessed for the Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 (RCP4.5) global 
warming scenario, and a corresponding geoengineered scenario (G3) from the 
Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, in which stratospheric aerosols 
are increased for 50 years from 2020 through 2069 to balance the global warming 
radiative forcing, and then aerosol precursor emissions are terminated. We used 
the period 2055–2069 (with the largest geoengineering forcing) and the period 
2075–2089 (beginning 5 years into the termination phase) and evaluated winter 
chill and growing season heat accumulation. We found that although 
stratospheric geoengineering would be able to suppress the increase in 
temperature under an RCP4.5 scenario to some extent during both switch-on and 
switch-off periods, if the geoengineering was terminated, the rate of 
temperature increase would be higher than RCP4.5. The agroclimatically suitable 
area is projected to shift northeastwards (to higher elevations) 

RE: [geo] Does the Democratic Climate Plan include SRM?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Search for “atmospheric climate intervention”.

(You’ll find it on p. 526)

d

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of E Durbrow
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 10:40 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Does the Democratic Climate Plan include SRM?

When I skimmed through the 500 page proposal I could not find any mention to 
SRM or MCB. But according to this press article, the Democrat (US House) 
climate plan DOES mention research in SRM.

https://earther.gizmodo.com/democrats-big-climate-plan-includes-studying-the-risky-1844249673

Here is a link to the original 500 page proposal (doomed in the Senate, 
probably)

https://climatecrisis.house.gov/sites/climatecrisis.house.gov/files/Climate%20Crisis%20Action%20Plan.pdf


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/5c8948fa-1f46-4f14-8afb-503d4ba1dbbdo%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/CH2PR04MB69365019DDF7D290C300F22F8F6B0%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT BACKS AWAY FROM SOLAR GEOENGINEERING PROJECT

[Douglas MacMartin]

Well, to the extent that one can interpret the CBD decision as a moratorium or 
not, it still has an explicit exception for research (and I think one would be 
hard-pressed to claim that SCoPEx will itself have negative impacts on 
biodiversity), so I think it is fair to say that the authors of this piece are 
perfectly well aware that their statements are not true.  They clearly don’t 
support the CBD decision as written and want to pretend that it says something 
else...

(And it has always been clear that Louise was acting in a personal capacity, so 
the first line of this is also simply silly.)


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 6:06 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT BACKS AWAY FROM SOLAR GEOENGINEERING 
PROJECT

Poster's note: the moratorium claim is controversial/wrong, but I don't know if 
the rest of this stands up


http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2020/06/california-government-backs-away-from-solar-geoengineering-project-but-doesnt-withdraw/

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT BACKS AWAY FROM SOLAR GEOENGINEERING PROJECT – BUT 
DOESN’T WITHDRAW
JUN 17 2020

The California State government is looking to distance itself from a 
controversial solar geoengineering project after pressure from civil society 
and movement groups around the world.

Last July, the California Strategic Growth Council – a part of the California 
State government with direct ties to Governor Gavin Newsom’s office – announced 
that its Executive Director, Louise Bedsworth, would be joining the advisory 
committee of a prominent solar geoengineering project, SCoPEx, hosted at 
Harvard University. They even issued a press release – featuring the California 
Strategic Growth Council logo, which features a map of the state – announcing 
that Bedsworth would be chairing the advisory committee, which aims to 
legitimize the SCoPEx experiments.

A letter signed by civil society groups from around the world called on 
Bedsworth and seven other “advisors,” all US-based, to resign.

That press release has now been removed from the Harvard University SCoPEx web 
site. Strategic Growth Council officials, including Bedsworth, have attempted 
to backpedal by issuing statements claiming the SGC has nothing to do with 
SCoPEx, and that Bedsworth is acting in a personal capacity.

SCoPEx is aiming to proceed despite an international moratorium on open-air 
geoengineering experiments supported by 196 countries that have signed the UN 
Convention on Biodiversity.

Development of solar geoengineering at a large scale would have serious global 
impacts, including changes in weather patterns, and potentially floods and 
droughts affecting the global south. For this reason, groups from around the 
world have called on all members of the SCoPEx advisory committee to step down.

To date, Bedsworth has not stepped down. The Executive Director of the 
California Strategic Growth Council continues to serve as the chair of a 
committee designed to legitimize something it has no authority to authorize — 
even as the state agency makes efforts to distance itself from previous support 
for the research. Sign the letter here.

Response from Kate Gordon, Chair of California Strategic Growth Council and 
Director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

Thank you for reaching out. Louise Bedsworth participates in SCoPEx in her 
personal capacity; no state resources have been expended on this work and it is 
unrelated to her work at the Strategic Growth Council. We are working with 
Harvard to make this clearer on the website; however this was made very clear 
in the original statement from the advisory committee on their engagement in 
this work, found at http://scopexac.com/news-and-updates/:

“We are contributing to this Committee as individuals with different expertise, 
experiences, and perspectives, and we will remain true to our values and 
beliefs as we conduct this work.”

Below please find a statement from Dr. Bedsworth. If you have additional 
comments please address them to Sally Klimp, Executive Coordinator, SCoPEx 
Advisory Committee, skl...@g.harvard.edu

Thank you,

Kate Gordon

Statement from Louise Bedsworth, PhD, Chair of the SCoPEx Advisory Committee

June 11, 2020

I am writing this statement in response to recent claims that my participation 
in this Advisory Committee represents an endorsement of this research by my 
employer, the California Strategic Growth Council. I will state emphatically 
that it does not.

I am undertaking this work in a volunteer capacity based on my previous work on 
broader issues of research governance, related both to solar geoengineering and 
other topics. The SCoPEx team has received no funding or endorsement by the 
Council, nor have any state resources been used to support this work. We have 
updated the Advisory Committee’s website to make this clear.

Neither my role nor the 

RE: [geo] John Moore steal my research work: Conference poster proof

[Douglas MacMartin]

I don’t believe that this is an appropriate forum for this.  If there’s a 
concern, it should be brought up at BNU and with the journal, not aired 
publicly.  (I could certainly state my opinion, but I don’t think that belongs 
here either.)



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 8:14 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] John Moore steal my research work: Conference poster proof

The list does not permit ad hom. However, this is an alleged malpractice - so, 
on this specific occasion, I'm going to allow it (without endorsing it).

I will refrain from passing judgement. I'd welcome discussion.

Andrew
On Sat, 16 May 2020, 13:10 Calaggier, 
mailto:zhihuazhan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All

John Moore's response is full of lies, moreover, many parts are not related to 
this article on permafrost.

I am the master advisor of Yating Chen from 2016.9 to 2019.3.  Since I left 
Beijing Normal University,  GCESS college assigned Yating Chen a new advisor Dr 
Fengming Hui in the remaining three months (2019.3-2019.6).

Below I show one proof to show that John Moore steal my research work:

our poster title in Swiss Conference Program, see the last page
The picture on our poster at the Swiss Conference, The lady in that pic is my 
master student Yating Chen




Sincerely
Zhihua Zhang

Taishan Distinguished Professor
Shandong University, China
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/tencent_5F63925D2E802A955149220B40E3864EDC06%40qq.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/CAJ3C-07varKn-_Uva0e4j%3DkHfY%2BSs-ESDLhzPH92ZM80ENd-5A%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/CH2PR04MB6936E9C0B43713F3AEB9DF1B8FBA0%40CH2PR04MB6936.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] SRM offset standards?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Tim – the difference between the 0.22% and 2% is (i) factor of 4 from ratio of 
projected area to surface area of a sphere, (ii) factor of 1/0.7 to account for 
the existing albedo of the Earth, (iii) factor of 3/3.7 since 2% is a rough 
estimate for 2xCO2, and (iv) efficacy of response to solar vs CO2 is not one 
(that is, the same radiative forcing doesn’t give the same warming for 
different mechanisms, see Hansen et al 2015).

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Tim Sippel
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 4:08 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] SRM offset standards?

Thanks for the feedback.  It was great to learn about a planned December 2020 
publication of ISO 14082, which is being drafted as a standard for radiative 
forcing accounting.  Now I am also aware of Andrew's 2016 'License to chill' 
paper (1).

Methane reductions qualify for carbon offsets, despite the fact that the 
methane breaks down in the atmosphere over about a decade.  So if the lifetime 
of a solar sail can be 20 years (not uncommon for many satellites), maybe it 
will be reasonable to qualify for some form of SRM offset standard.  It should 
be easier to make funding decisions once the benefits are quantified in a 
standard.

GeoShade is focused on a 1km radius design that deploys to sub-L1. A key metric 
is g/m^2, which determines the craft's solar acceleration.  L1 is 1.5M km from 
earth.  A new location farther sunward from L1 (maybe 2.4M km) will be an 
equilibrium position that accounts for the sail's solar acceleration.  Using 
its sail, active stationkeeping is possible without any fuel-based thrust.  The 
GeoShade design doesn't rely on any exotic technologies.  It uses existing 
materials that are manufactured terrestrially.  It doesn't rely on capturing an 
asteroid for building materials. The goal is to be able to manufacture and 
deploy in a relatively short amount of time.  So it is very different from a 
2006 proposal by Roger Angel (2).

A 1km radius disk at sub-L1 can cancel the radiative forcing of about 10M tons 
of CO2 emissions (based on calculations I mentioned previously).  I can't 
imagine trying to cancel out ALL anthropogenic RF with mirrors.  To cancel 
today's 3W of RF requires 3/1367 W/m^2 = 0.2% of earth's sunlight (although 
elsewhere I see a value of 2.0% being used).  The intent would be to supplement 
the primary ongoing efforts to replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy 
sources.  These sun shades are to help buy time since we are not progressing as 
quickly as needed to achieve the IPCC 1.5C target.

The cost for the GeoShade design is estimated to be about $10/ton equivalent.  
(Based on IPCC 2018 2.8.4, it seems sufficient to assume a linear relationship 
rather than logrithmic.)  My impression is that $10/ton is 10X to 100X the cost 
of other SRM options.  (Pointers to better estimates would be appreciated.)  
Hopefully the cost remains low enough to be affordable as a temporary offset.

Could a space-based solution be used to lead the way in achieving approval for 
SRM offsets?  Once in position, sun shades look like a small sunspot.  
Hopefully something people can easily wrap their heads around.  The RF benefits 
may be easier to quantify, track, and control compared to other SRM methods.  
The solar reduction is guaranteed to be small and uniform amount across the 
globe.  It can be quickly stoped by turning the sails sideways.  As long as RF 
reductions are a small fraction of RF increases due to greenhouse gas 
emissions, concerns about unintendended consequences should be minimal.

For those interested in more details, the GeoShade design is based on a 
reflective film with a 3.9 g/m^2 density plus a 1X mass overhead for the 
structure and controls.  A 1km radius disk produces a thrust of about 20N, 
resulting in a solar acceleration of about 1mm/s^2.  Attitude control at sub-L1 
involves very slow adjustments of the center of mass vs. the center of 
pressure.  This is accomplished by adjusting the position of a mass, or by 
tilting a subset of sail panels.  The more difficult problem to solve was more 
dramatic attitude changes that are required to support orbit raising from its 
start at a high LEO (enabling a significant reduction in cost).  It will take 
about 1 year to sail to sub-L1.

(1) Licence to chill: Building a legitimate authorisation process for 
commercial SRM operations, 2016, Andrew Lockley.  
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461452916630082
(2) Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the 
inner Lagrange point (L1), 2006, Roger Angel, Univ of Arizona.  
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/103/46/17184.full.pdf

Reference Textbooks:
  Space Sailing, 1992, Wright
  Solar Sailing, 2004, McInnes
  Solar Sails, 2008, Vulpetti, Johnson, Matloff
  Advances in Solar Sailing, 2014, Editor: Macdonald

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

RE: [geo] Re: SRM offset standards?

[Douglas MacMartin]

See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136648

This is straightforward to calculate, and wouldn’t be any more difficult to 
find than L1.  (That is, solar pressure is well known, so is gravity.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Russell Seitz
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 3:06 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: SRM offset standards?

" you just need to displace yourself sunward until the forces balance…"

How far  sunward do you calculate that to be, and howfar from Lagrange 1  :

It'cold out there , and there's no valet parking.

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:36:24 AM UTC-4, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
You don’t need a countervailing force, you just need to displace yourself 
sunward until the forces balance… (though how far depends on areal mass 
density, and displacing too far sunward will require greater area to shade the 
Earth if I recall right).

But even if the propellant requirement is zero, still neither cheap nor 
near-term.

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com 
> On Behalf Of Russell Seitz
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 10:49 PM
To: geoengineering >
Subject: [geo] Re: SRM offset standards?

If 0.25 m2  per tonne CO2 is correct as presumed  , ~  10 billion m2, or 10,000 
km2 of  relector area would be  required

At 1 micron thickness that translates into 1 cubic meter per  km2. assuming  
for example' sake a  film with a  density  of   1, 5 , like  graphene 
strengthened aluminized one micron mylar, that would mean delivering 15,000 
tonnes to L 1, not counting frame, deployment systems , thrusters and fuel.

As the solar sail force would be on the order of 8 newtons / km2,  a  
countervailing thrust of 80kN, or ~8,000 kg would  be required for station 
keeping.
Even with solar powered ion thrusters, that would entail a  considerable 
propellent mass

As   the ~ 500 kg Deep Space probe consumed oved 100kg of xenon in the course 
of three years of generating  at most 86 millinewtons of thrust a linear 
extrapolation would be on the order of a million times more for so large a 
solar shade--in  which case station keeping at the L1 would requiresending 
up the whole sail system's weight in propellant every few years.

It's hard to see how its proponents  could underbid  earth-based SRM

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 4:15:00 AM UTC-4, Tim Sippel wrote:
The transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources is not happening 
quickly enough, so it seems likely that we will need to supplement with SRM to 
buy time.

Is work being done towards standards to validate and quantify SRM offsets, 
similar to carbon offset standards (VCS, Gold Standard, etc.)?  This could 
reduce the dependency on strained government budgets to support approved SRM 
efforts.

I am also interested in feedback on the following rough calculations.  Sunlight 
energy reaching earth is 1367 W/m^2.  By eyeballing the slope on a graph here 
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html), I have estimated that worldwide 
annual CO2 emissions (~40G tons) is increasing radiative forcing by about 37 
mW/m^2.  From this, I estimate that the incremental radiative forcing of 1 ton 
of CO2 emissions can be canceled out with about 1/4 m^2 of sun shade near the 
Sun-Earth Lagrange 1 equilibrium point.  Using an estimate for the cost of 
deploying a space-based sunshade, I am able to compare the cost/ton equivalent 
of an SRM offset vs cost/ton of a carbon offset.  Does this approach seem valid?

Regards,
Tim Sippel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/2d993063-8375-45c4-a32e-10b2348ff94a%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/2d993063-8375-45c4-a32e-10b2348ff94a%40googlegroups.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/6e33d3f3-69c4-43f0-831a-139a03b82e19%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6e33d3f3-69c4-43f0-831a-139a03b82e19%40googlegroups.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/BL0PR04MB4707560C032135615B04AC398FA90%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] Re: SRM offset standards?

[Douglas MacMartin]

You don’t need a countervailing force, you just need to displace yourself 
sunward until the forces balance… (though how far depends on areal mass 
density, and displacing too far sunward will require greater area to shade the 
Earth if I recall right).

But even if the propellant requirement is zero, still neither cheap nor 
near-term.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Russell Seitz
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 10:49 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Re: SRM offset standards?

If 0.25 m2  per tonne CO2 is correct as presumed  , ~  10 billion m2, or 10,000 
km2 of  relector area would be  required

At 1 micron thickness that translates into 1 cubic meter per  km2. assuming  
for example' sake a  film with a  density  of   1, 5 , like  graphene 
strengthened aluminized one micron mylar, that would mean delivering 15,000 
tonnes to L 1, not counting frame, deployment systems , thrusters and fuel.

As the solar sail force would be on the order of 8 newtons / km2,  a  
countervailing thrust of 80kN, or ~8,000 kg would  be required for station 
keeping.
Even with solar powered ion thrusters, that would entail a  considerable 
propellent mass

As   the ~ 500 kg Deep Space probe consumed oved 100kg of xenon in the course 
of three years of generating  at most 86 millinewtons of thrust a linear 
extrapolation would be on the order of a million times more for so large a 
solar shade--in  which case station keeping at the L1 would requiresending 
up the whole sail system's weight in propellant every few years.

It's hard to see how its proponents  could underbid  earth-based SRM

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 4:15:00 AM UTC-4, Tim Sippel wrote:
The transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources is not happening 
quickly enough, so it seems likely that we will need to supplement with SRM to 
buy time.

Is work being done towards standards to validate and quantify SRM offsets, 
similar to carbon offset standards (VCS, Gold Standard, etc.)?  This could 
reduce the dependency on strained government budgets to support approved SRM 
efforts.

I am also interested in feedback on the following rough calculations.  Sunlight 
energy reaching earth is 1367 W/m^2.  By eyeballing the slope on a graph here 
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html), I have estimated that worldwide 
annual CO2 emissions (~40G tons) is increasing radiative forcing by about 37 
mW/m^2.  From this, I estimate that the incremental radiative forcing of 1 ton 
of CO2 emissions can be canceled out with about 1/4 m^2 of sun shade near the 
Sun-Earth Lagrange 1 equilibrium point.  Using an estimate for the cost of 
deploying a space-based sunshade, I am able to compare the cost/ton equivalent 
of an SRM offset vs cost/ton of a carbon offset.  Does this approach seem valid?

Regards,
Tim Sippel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/2d993063-8375-45c4-a32e-10b2348ff94a%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/BL0PR04MB4707E4EA0BB8E8433FF6D2C28FA90%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?

[Douglas MacMartin]

There’s one:
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/305/2016/acp-16-305-2016.pdf

Even if they don’t stop injecting when the volcano erupts, “the maximum 
increase in the global mean radiative forcing caused by the eruption is 
approximately 21 % lower compared to a case when the eruption occurs in an 
unperturbed atmosphere.”

And if they do: “On the other hand, if SRM is suspended immediately after the 
eruption, the peak increase in global forcing caused by the eruption is about 
32 % lower compared to a corresponding eruption into a clean background 
atmosphere.”

So the change in climate (including temperature and precipitation) caused by 
the eruption would be smaller if we were doing SRM when it erupted than if we 
weren’t.  Completely unsurprising; the main reason is due to nonlinearities in 
the aerosol microphysics.

doug


From: Francis Micheal Ludlow 
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:46 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin 
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER ; apark...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?

Dear Douglas, and All,

Thank you for the ongoing discussion, which is always very informative.

May I just ask in relation to the statement below, whether there has been any 
modelling yet done on scenarios in which one or more massive eruptions quickly 
inject large volumes of SO2 into the stratosphere at a time when SAI has 
already been "fully" enacted (recognizing that fully enacted could mean many 
things).
"I don’t agree that a 1-2 year return constitutes a “limited” reversibility to 
be terrified by.  If on day one of deployment you suddenly put in some massive 
amount of aerosols enough to get significant cooling, that would be a pretty 
stupid thing to do – as well as a pretty difficult thing to do from an 
engineering perspective.  If you’ve only gradually ramped the forcing up over a 
period of years, then it’s hard to imagine a scenario where you suddenly 
discover something so bad that you’d rather the forcing goes away in a week 
rather than a year"

Many thanks,

Francis Ludlow

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 21:25, Douglas MacMartin 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> wrote:
Agree that they aren’t equivalent in detailed impacts, but none of Andy’s 
concerns were with regards to those details.

Agree that Paulo is making a claim that I don’t think is supported by the 
modeling evidence for any approach, including for SAI.  (Agree that it is 
certain that any approach, whether it be SAI or MCB, will result in changes in 
the hydrological cycle, and therefore if the forcing is large enough, those 
changes will be large, but the changes from not having that forcing are likely 
to be much larger still, so his sentence is incorrect without a lot more 
caveats on what the large changes are with respect to… I think we can be 
certain that for any quantified definition of “large”, then one can define 
deployment scenarios in which his statement is unequivocally false.)

Agree that people – including yourself in the email you just typed – don’t 
generally appreciate that *any* of these approaches, whether it be MCB or SAI, 
aren’t just “one thing”, but have the potential for spatial tailoring and 
seasonal adaptation, albeit to different degrees.  Given the length of the 
responses here, though, it would seem that the ability to tune SAI or MCB isn’t 
the first-order thing to insist that they mention.

I don’t agree that a 1-2 year return constitutes a “limited” reversibility to 
be terrified by.  If on day one of deployment you suddenly put in some massive 
amount of aerosols enough to get significant cooling, that would be a pretty 
stupid thing to do – as well as a pretty difficult thing to do from an 
engineering perspective.  If you’ve only gradually ramped the forcing up over a 
period of years, then it’s hard to imagine a scenario where you suddenly 
discover something so bad that you’d rather the forcing goes away in a week 
rather than a year.  And, perhaps more relevant, the climate doesn’t respond 
instantly anyway, so the difference between turning the forcing off in a week 
and turning it off gradually over a year or two isn’t going to be so big.  
(Indeed, I’d suspect that ramping it down over a year or two would be much 
better than instantly turning it off, due to the different rates of warming of 
land vs sea and the ensuing impact on monsoonal flows if you impose an abrupt 
perturbation.  So personally, to the extent that it is possible to tell the 
difference, I suspect that the more gradual termination associated with SAI is 
better than the more sudden one from MCB.)

Localized forcing has some potential advantages (of limiting the influence over 
the rest of the planet and enabling some local impact reduction), but if, as 
Andy said, the question is one of affecting *global* temperatures, then a more 
spatially uniform forcing is likely to have better outcomes than a highly 
spatially heterogeneous forcing.  So localized f

RE: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Agree that they aren’t equivalent in detailed impacts, but none of Andy’s 
concerns were with regards to those details.

Agree that Paulo is making a claim that I don’t think is supported by the 
modeling evidence for any approach, including for SAI.  (Agree that it is 
certain that any approach, whether it be SAI or MCB, will result in changes in 
the hydrological cycle, and therefore if the forcing is large enough, those 
changes will be large, but the changes from not having that forcing are likely 
to be much larger still, so his sentence is incorrect without a lot more 
caveats on what the large changes are with respect to… I think we can be 
certain that for any quantified definition of “large”, then one can define 
deployment scenarios in which his statement is unequivocally false.)

Agree that people – including yourself in the email you just typed – don’t 
generally appreciate that *any* of these approaches, whether it be MCB or SAI, 
aren’t just “one thing”, but have the potential for spatial tailoring and 
seasonal adaptation, albeit to different degrees.  Given the length of the 
responses here, though, it would seem that the ability to tune SAI or MCB isn’t 
the first-order thing to insist that they mention.

I don’t agree that a 1-2 year return constitutes a “limited” reversibility to 
be terrified by.  If on day one of deployment you suddenly put in some massive 
amount of aerosols enough to get significant cooling, that would be a pretty 
stupid thing to do – as well as a pretty difficult thing to do from an 
engineering perspective.  If you’ve only gradually ramped the forcing up over a 
period of years, then it’s hard to imagine a scenario where you suddenly 
discover something so bad that you’d rather the forcing goes away in a week 
rather than a year.  And, perhaps more relevant, the climate doesn’t respond 
instantly anyway, so the difference between turning the forcing off in a week 
and turning it off gradually over a year or two isn’t going to be so big.  
(Indeed, I’d suspect that ramping it down over a year or two would be much 
better than instantly turning it off, due to the different rates of warming of 
land vs sea and the ensuing impact on monsoonal flows if you impose an abrupt 
perturbation.  So personally, to the extent that it is possible to tell the 
difference, I suspect that the more gradual termination associated with SAI is 
better than the more sudden one from MCB.)

Localized forcing has some potential advantages (of limiting the influence over 
the rest of the planet and enabling some local impact reduction), but if, as 
Andy said, the question is one of affecting *global* temperatures, then a more 
spatially uniform forcing is likely to have better outcomes than a highly 
spatially heterogeneous forcing.  So localized forcing could be much worse in 
that context.

So yes – at the high level, the sorts of concerns Andy mentioned apply to all 
of the methods, but as soon as you get into the details, there’s going to be 
lots of differences between methods, most of which we don’t know enough about 
right now.

From: Renaud de RICHTER 
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin 
Cc: apark...@gmail.com; geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?

I can't consider as equivalent, or as comparable a full portfolio of very very 
different technologies, and talk about them indistinctly.

Some are all over the entire world and show limited reversibility (SAI, 2 years 
to come back to initial if something unexpected and wrong happens), and others 
are localized and can be stopped in a couple of days if necessary. Some can be 
"fine tuned" in order not to induce " Large changes in the hydrological cycle 
and in the ecosystems functioning"

Why the studies showing the possibilities of "fine tuning" and seasonal 
adaptation of MCB and other technologies are never mentioned?
Paulo Artaxo

University of São Paulo Institute of Physics

Solar geoengineering poses major dangers in terms of climate impacts. Large 
changes in the hydrological cycle and in the ecosystems functioning will 
certain happen. Also governance is a nightmare. Who will implement and control 
the process? What will be the role of developing countries in the control of 
the possible deployment?

Le sam. 25 avr. 2020 à 18:47, Douglas MacMartin 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> a écrit :
I’d second Andy… why *wouldn’t* you be concerned about a global-scale 
deployment of other methods?  (Fair to not be concerned about those methods 
because you don’t think they’d do anything at all globally, e.g. cool roofs.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Andy Parker
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 12:45 PM
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?

Hi Renaud,
By 'S

RE: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?

[Douglas MacMartin]

I’d second Andy… why *wouldn’t* you be concerned about a global-scale 
deployment of other methods?  (Fair to not be concerned about those methods 
because you don’t think they’d do anything at all globally, e.g. cool roofs.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Andy Parker
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 12:45 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?

Hi Renaud,
By 'SRM' I meant any technique for quickly affecting global temperatures by 
reflecting away solar energy. That could include SAI, MCB, space-based methods 
or, theoretically, surface brightening. If any of these could be deployed to a 
scale where they could affect the global temperature, they would elicit the 
concerns I listed.
Andy


On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 5:18:46 PM UTC+1, renaud.derichter wrote:
Hi Andy,
Reading you, I do not recognize SRM by MCB (marine cloud brightening), SRM by 
cool roofs, SRM by micron-size bubbles in water, SRM by ... many other 
techniques.
I think you only speak about SRM by stratospheric aerosol injection. This 
should be clarified in the title and in the text.
"The answer is EVERYTHING. If you’re not unsettled by the prospect of 
sun-dimming, then you’ve not understood either what is being proposed or the 
reasons it’s being considered at all.

SRM would involve intervening in the climate system of the entire planet. Can 
we predict the impacts? And the side effects? Who would control it? What if a 
country uses it unilaterally? Could climate intervention lead to climate 
conflict?

Here you might be tempted to think “the risks are too big, we must and shall 
reject it.” But SRM is the only known way to quickly reduce global 
temperatures, and that might prove necessary. It might already be the only way 
to keep temperatures rises below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or to avoid any 
temperature-driven tipping points if they lurk between 1 degree Celsius and 2 
degrees Celsius.

So SRM is like chemotherapy. It’s horrible, it’s risky, no one in their right 
mind would consider it… unless the alternative might be worse. And the 
alternative might well be worse. Once you face up to the fact that we live in a 
world where deliberately dimming the ing sun might be less risky than not 
doing it, you will have found cause for a few sleepless nights."

Best,

Renaud

Le sam. 25 avr. 2020 à 13:16, Andy Parker > a 
écrit :
Hi folks,
If you want a change from feeling anxious about the global pandemic, how about 
feeling anxious about the prospect of sun-dimming?  Kate Marvel, Paulo Artaxo, 
Gernot Wagner and I told Earther what scares us most about SRM and they 
published it. Read here: 
https://earther.gizmodo.com/no-we-shouldnt-just-block-out-the-sun-1843043812.
Andy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4a47475f-6fb7-48b7-9672-0dbb51424cba%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/e89d94fd-7e2c-48f5-8b42-f7edf274a103%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/BL0PR04MB470761713325C86F70FC83C98FD10%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

RE: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate budget

[Douglas MacMartin]

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, 
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 into the stratosphere that you raise are 
greater than the alleviated risks from global warming that is cancelled out, 
and how this evaluation changes with amounts of warming and cooling and how the 
evaluation might vary as one considers near-term to long-term aspects (and 
including related aspects like sea level rise and ocean acidification impacts)?

Mike
On 4/10/20 12:31 PM, 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

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

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, 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 

[geo] 2020 GRC/GRS on Climate Engineering

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi all,

The program for the 2020 Gordon Research Conference on Climate Engineering is 
now online, here: https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2020/, the 
meeting is planned for June 28-July 3, 2020.

If you haven't yet applied, we encourage you to do so!  We are looking forward 
to what will be an exciting and valuable meeting.  If you are an early-career 
researcher, we also encourage you to apply to the associated Gordon Research 
Seminar held immediately before the GRC; see here: 
https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-grs-conference/2020/.  We expect to 
have some (very limited) funding available to assist in supporting early-career 
researchers in particular; if you would need funding please email me directly; 
our original goal was to make decisions regarding that by the end of March but 
given the current uncertainty that will likely be delayed until mid-April.

The GRC organization is, of course, monitoring the current rapidly evolving 
situation with the coronavirus.  If you already applied to the conference, you 
should have just received an email from them (I did, I presume everyone else 
did too).  As of today there has not been a decision by GRC as to whether we 
will go forward with the conference as scheduled.  The GRC organization will 
make a decision by mid-April as to whether it will be necessary to delay the 
conference - in which case any registration fees will be refunded, and we will 
wind up not meeting again until 2022.  While that would of course be 
disappointing, it is far more important to protect everyone's health.

Thanks, and hopefully will see many of you at the end of June!
doug


Douglas MacMartin
Senior Research Associate and Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace 
Engineering, and
Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
Cornell University
(650) 619-9341
macmar...@cornell.edu<mailto:macmar...@cornell.edu>
https://climate-engineering.mae.cornell.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/BL0PR04MB4707927FCD33DC96E1D462198FFD0%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

Agreed that the pattern of response isn’t as inhomogeneous as the forcing is, 
though it is still true that a uniform aerosol layer will overcool the tropics 
and undercool the poles, and that choosing your injection locations so that the 
aerosol layer is not perfectly uniform does actually maintain temperature 
gradients better.   (But the undercooling of the poles of course is still small 
compared to the warming that would be there without geoengineering.)

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Olivier Boucher
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 4:19 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] sulfate aerosol geoengineering modelled by solar dimming


Hi Stephen,

you're correct and I'd think the negative SW RF is more offset by the positive 
LW RF in the tropics than in the high latitudes (alike the pattern of RF by 
WMGHG). But again, the pattern of a not-too-inhomogeneous forcing is only 
moderately important.

Regards

Olivier

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 

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

No.  Every model that has ever simulated solar dimming shows that the poles 
would cool relative to not dimming the sun.  But, if you just turn the sun down 
then you “undercool” the poles.  The plot is G1 relative to pre-industrial, not 
G1 relative to 4xCO2.

(These are the exact same model simulations that you’ve asked the exact same 
question about before.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 4:43 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Weakening of the extratropical storm tracks in idealized 
solar geoengineering scenarios


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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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/BL0PR04MB4707DA9DD1516D1614A21D588F1E0%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

Not in the NOAA bill. That would be in the one written for DOE. (That I don’t 
recall the status of)

Douglas MacMartin
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Cornell University

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Stephen Salter 
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 1:38:13 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Re: [geo] A Small Provision in the FY20 Spending Package Deserves a 
Much Bigger Discussion SHUCHI TALATI


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<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 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 provid

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

Effect on the ozone layer will mostly be a function of the aerosol 
concentration (or rather, surface area), so scales similarly to the amount of 
reflected sunlight.  So injecting at lower altitude means (i) we need to put 
more in to get the same concentration, and (ii) we need a higher concentration 
to get the same cooling because we have to compensate for the higher 
stratospheric water vapour.  So if your goal is to maximize the ratio of 
cooling to ozone loss, we should probably still be injecting at higher altitude.

(More complicated than that due to transport, so it is true that you could 
inject at a low enough altitude that the aerosols never make it to high 
latitudes (and don’t need to go that low; 16km is way too low to do anything 
useful in the tropics since it’s below the tropopause) then there’s less impact 
on ozone, and, if you inject enough, you could still get some tropical cooling, 
but then you screw up meridional temperature gradients.  And need a lot of 
injection.)

More broad answer is that yes, this is a more complicated optimization of 
different metrics, but for altitude they’re mostly going to point in the same 
direction.

(Also, IMHO, ozone loss has been way over-emphasized in terms of downsides… a 
big problem if you did a lot of cooling today, but probably not a big problem 
if you do a moderate amount of cooling in 20 years.)

doug

From: john gorman 
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:39 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; Andrew Lockley 
; Govindasamy Bala 
Cc: geoengineering ; 
arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate 
aerosols:sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer

I am surprised that this conversation has not mentioned the negative effect on 
the ozone layer. This would seem to be a reason for injecting at lower altitude 
eg 16 km or 55,000feet.

I see the fairly minor increase in quantity needed at lower altitude to be a 
reason for injecting at lower altitude considering the massive extra difficulty 
in injecting at the higher altitudes.

John gorman


From: Douglas MacMartin<mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>
Sent: 17 December 2019 17:24
To: Andrew Lockley<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; Govindasamy 
Bala<mailto:bala@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate 
aerosols:sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer

I think it is clear that we don’t know that yet.  If you want my guess, it 
would be the same as Bala’s, that once you’re far enough from the tropopause 
there’s not that much benefit to going higher.  The answer will also depend on 
the latitude of injection.  One of a long list of questions that, if there were 
any appreciable funding, would not be fundamentally hard to answer.

From: Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:36 AM
To: Govindasamy Bala mailto:bala@gmail.com>>
Cc: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
Douglas MacMartin mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: 
sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer

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

Andrew
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 08:47 Govindasamy Bala, 
mailto:bala@gmail.com>> 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

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

I think it is clear that we don’t know that yet.  If you want my guess, it 
would be the same as Bala’s, that once you’re far enough from the tropopause 
there’s not that much benefit to going higher.  The answer will also depend on 
the latitude of injection.  One of a long list of questions that, if there were 
any appreciable funding, would not be fundamentally hard to answer.

From: Andrew Lockley 
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:36 AM
To: Govindasamy Bala 
Cc: geoengineering ; Douglas MacMartin 

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

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

Andrew
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 08:47 Govindasamy Bala, 
mailto:bala@gmail.com>> 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 out, the sedimentation effect would also lead to more cooling if 
aerosols are injected at higher altitudes...

Best,
Bala

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 9:05 PM Douglas MacMartin 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> wrote:
This is a great study to understand the effectiveness per unit mass *in the 
stratosphere*.  Also keep in mind that there’s an additional factor, that at 
lower altitudes it takes higher injection rates to achieve the same burden in 
the stratosphere (i.e., lower lifetime at lower injected altitude).

If the only thing you cared about was cost, then since there are existing 
studies demonstrating that you can design an aircraft to get to ~20-21km, we 
roughly know that it could be done, but higher altitude injection means less 
total sulfur injected and hence smaller side effects, and should be better 
understood both on the modeling and implementation cost as the trade may well 
be worth it.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Govindasamy Bala
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:38 PM
To: Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
Cc: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: 
sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer

Dear Andrew,
Thanks for the posting. The h

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

This is a great study to understand the effectiveness per unit mass *in the 
stratosphere*.  Also keep in mind that there’s an additional factor, that at 
lower altitudes it takes higher injection rates to achieve the same burden in 
the stratosphere (i.e., lower lifetime at lower injected altitude).

If the only thing you cared about was cost, then since there are existing 
studies demonstrating that you can design an aircraft to get to ~20-21km, we 
roughly know that it could be done, but higher altitude injection means less 
total sulfur injected and hence smaller side effects, and should be better 
understood both on the modeling and implementation cost as the trade may well 
be worth it.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Govindasamy Bala
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:38 PM
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: 
sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer

Dear Andrew,
Thanks for the posting. The heights studied were 16, 19 and 22 km, height that 
are relevant to solar radiation modification problem.. The final paragraph in 
the paper is worth reading to get more quantitative information from this 
modeling study.

"To summarize, for the same mass, the efficiency (defined
as changes in surface temperature per Tg S) of volcanic
aerosol is less when it is prescribed at lower altitudes in the
stratosphere (Fig. 9). For example, in our simulations, there is
a surface cooling of 0.44K for each teragram of sulfur placed
in the stratosphere at about 16 km altitude (100 hPa). There
is an additional surface cooling of 0.15K per Tg S when the
prescribed altitude is increased from about 16 km to about
22 km (37 hPa)."

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:55 AM Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Poster's note : this has significant implications for the engineering of 
delivery systems. I can't do the pressure altitude conversion in my head, but 
it's a lot higher than what's generally been planned for. We're gonna need a 
bigger boat.


https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/10/885/2019/

Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: sensitivity to 
altitude of aerosol layer
Krishna-Pillai Sukumara-Pillai Krishnamohan et al. Received: 01 May 2019 – 
Discussion started: 23 May 2019 – Revised: 24 Oct 2019 – Accepted: 08 Nov 2019 
– Published: 13 Dec 2019
Abstract
top

Reduction of surface temperatures of the planet by injecting sulfate aerosols 
in the stratosphere has been suggested as an option to reduce the amount of 
human-induced climate warming. Several previous studies have shown that for a 
specified amount of injection, aerosols injected at a higher altitude in the 
stratosphere would produce more cooling because aerosol sedimentation would 
take longer. In this study, we isolate and assess the sensitivity of 
stratospheric aerosol radiative forcing and the resulting climate change to the 
altitude of the aerosol layer. We study this by prescribing a specified amount 
of sulfate aerosols, of a size typical of what is produced by volcanoes, 
distributed uniformly at different levels in the stratosphere. We find that 
stratospheric sulfate aerosols are more effective in cooling climate when they 
reside higher in the stratosphere. We explain this sensitivity in terms of 
effective radiative forcing: volcanic aerosols heat the stratospheric layers 
where they reside, altering stratospheric water vapor content, tropospheric 
stability, and clouds, and consequently the effective radiative forcing. We 
show that the magnitude of the effective radiative forcing is larger when 
aerosols are prescribed at higher altitudes and the differences in radiative 
forcing due to fast adjustment processes can account for a substantial part of 
the dependence of the amount of cooling on aerosol altitude. These altitude 
effects would be additional to dependences on aerosol microphysics, transport, 
and sedimentation, which are outside the scope of this study. The cooling 
effectiveness of stratospheric sulfate aerosols likely increases with the 
altitude of the aerosol layer both because aerosols higher in the stratosphere 
have larger effective radiative forcing and because they have higher 
stratospheric residence time; these two effects are likely to be of comparable 
importance.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: [geo] Re: Media enquiry - Leaked IPCC report on land degradation/food security et alia

[Douglas MacMartin]

Personally I think it is inappropriate to comment on a rough draft that hasn’t 
gone through peer review, and would suggest waiting until the document has been 
released...

Douglas MacMartin
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Cornell University

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of lou del bello 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 7:14:47 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Media enquiry - Leaked IPCC report on land degradation/food 
security et alia

Upping this again as I am filing the story in 2 hours, so whoever wants to 
contribute now is most welcome.
I only need a quick Skype call or a written paragraph.

Cheers

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 12:40, lou del bello 
mailto:lou.delbe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
I am writing a news story for Bloomberg 
Environment<https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/> 
covering the report, with particular focus on food security. Would anyone like 
to see a copy and share a comment? Ideally someone with a special interest in 
the intersection of climate change and food security.

Many thanks!

Lou

--
Lou Del Bello

Environment correspondent Bloomberg BNA<https://www.bna.com/ehs/>
Delhi, India

Mobile India +91 9319387512
Mobile UK (WhatsApp) +44 7900632250
Twitter @loudelbello










--
Lou Del Bello

Environment correspondent Bloomberg BNA<https://www.bna.com/ehs/>
Delhi, India

Mobile India +91 9319387512
Mobile UK (WhatsApp) +44 7900632250
Twitter @loudelbello









--
You received this message because you are subscribed to 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEo1nkhyN%2Br%3DUVzCsUFsri%3DYP-BNzoZo_KfqksLjVyJaOTg%2Bzg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEo1nkhyN%2Br%3DUVzCsUFsri%3DYP-BNzoZo_KfqksLjVyJaOTg%2Bzg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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/DM5PR04MB0332B0390B9396EEF473D0FA8FC80%40DM5PR04MB0332.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

Just to point out (in response to Kevin, and agreeing with David) that

1)  We know, for example, that the surface ocean and biosphere have already 
absorbed about 50% of the CO2 that we’ve emitted, so you certainly can’t argue 
that the amount of permanent CO2 sequestration by the rest of the climate 
system is negligible – it’s unquestionably an enormous effect.

2)  There are a wide range of timescales for both the climate warming to a 
given radiative forcing, and for the uptake of CO2.  For both of those, if you 
vary the input slowly, the output roughly tracks the input.  So observing that 
if I put some slowly-varying signal u(t) into a system that the output y(t) is 
roughly proportional doesn’t tell me whether y(t) is in equilibrium with u(t) 
or not.  I could take Kevin’s arguments to *also* assert that the evidence is 
that there is no significant residual committed warming.  (Aside from point #4, 
which I don’t follow why the logarithmic dependence matters; you can always 
linearize that about the current point if you want, and you’ll find a non-zero 
slope, definitely not a zero slope.)

If we abruptly cease emissions today, then

a)   We lose the cooling from tropospheric aerosols (IPCC SR1.5 put that at 
0.3C, but I’ve seen estimates as high as 1.2C, it’s uncertain)

b)  The climate warms because the oceans (mainly) aren’t in equilibrium 
with the current forcing from increased CO2 (etc) concentrations

c)   The CO2 concentrations decrease because the oceans (mainly, I think) 
aren’t in equilibrium with the current CO2 concentrations

d)  And, also, if we stop all the rest of the SLCFs (methane, etc), then we 
lose some of the warming from them too, fairly quickly.

I don’t follow what the evidence is that argues that (b) is so much larger than 
(c) that we can completely ignore (c) in making future predictions.  Happy to 
have someone tell me otherwise, but only if they can provide some evidence for 
why IPCC AR5 and SR1.5 got everything so badly wrong…

And, agree with David that having not conducted the experiment, we don’t 
actually know, that is, regardless of what our best guesses are, we shouldn’t 
be gambling the future of the planet on our best guess, so agree 100% with your 
ultimate policy conclusion anyway.

(Also, I don’t know what the basis for asserting that we have passed tipping 
points, and will soon pass irreversibilities.  The latter we might well have 
already passed some, I don’t think we really know, and for  the former I’ve 
seen the term tipping point used in so many ways that I no longer have any clue 
what people mean by it.)

From: Hawkins, David 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 9:37 AM
To: kevin.lister2...@gmail.com
Cc: Douglas MacMartin ; Robert Tulip 
; Andrew Lockley ; Stephen 
Salter ; geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // 
Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération

To start, I agree completely with the bottom line that we must do as much as 
possible as fast as possible.
But my understanding of the carbon cycle is that the strength of the land and 
ocean sinks is driven by the cumulative amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, 
not the annual emissions.  Thus, if emissions dropped to zero, the current sink 
strength will decline slowly.  The result would be a multi-decadal period 
during which the land and ocean sink terms would be greater than the anthro 
additions, leading to a gradual decline in atmospheric carbon concentrations.
Of course, we have not run this thought experiment in the real world and we 
might be surprised.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 11, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Kevin Lister 
mailto:kevin.lister2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Doug et al,

On point 2 below, "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."

Let me come to John's defence.

1. The correlation between cumulative emissions and atmospheric CO2 is 
effectively perfect with r^2=0.999, which is quite extraordinary. This strongly 
 implies that all the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning  are still in the 
ecosystem. That obviously doesn't imply that all the CO2 from fossil fuel 
burning is in the atmosphere, but it does reasonably lead to the conclusion 
that all interconnected carbon sinks are filling equally, such as the the ocean 
surface, soils, and the atmosphere. Given that this perfect correlation has 
been unaffected by the rate of emissions, then it would further imply that the 
rate of permanent sequestration must been extremely slow, and effectively 
negligible compared to fossil fuel emissions.

2. The immediate upwards rise of atmospheric CO2 at the start of the industrial 
revolution further indicates that the rate of permanent CO2 sequestration is 
very slow. At this time emissions were a fraction of what they are today and 
the ecosystem was in a considera

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

[Douglas MacMartin]

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

• Firstly, the line was not about “net zero emissions” (which include 
CDR) but about emission reduction alone, so your “balancing” argument is not 
relevant

RE: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts

[Douglas MacMartin]

The main reason to put in the middle of the ocean (or the first range of 
mountains that the air mass encounters) is to have a very stable atmosphere 
above the observatory, though it is true that Mt. Wilson above Pasadena used to 
be a very good site before the aerosol and light pollution…

Laser guide stars are 589nm (sodium)… My guess would be that the main effect 
would simply be a loss of photons from scattering; both the upward laser and 
the downward light from the sodium layer at 90km, so a squared effect, but 
still, if one is talking about 5% or so loss of light (to get 1% reflected back 
to space), not a huge deal.  But I should ask…

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Russell Seitz
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 3:14 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts

Stephen

Some of the biggest telescopes have been atop tall islands in the middle of the 
ocean like Hawaii and Grand Canaria to get away from light pollution and dust 
and aerosol scattering on land.

Douglas

I mentioned the UV because the  medical concernns Andrew mentioned largely 
arise from short wavelength photons. Can you tell us how stratospheric aerosols 
might effect the preformance of  the laser guide stars on which deformable 
mirror correction systems depend-   would  ring images be a problem at the 
diffraction limit?

The  dimensionless aerosol scattering efficiency coefficient Ms is of the order 
of the Mie  integral of the number density over the range from  r max to r min-

Q Ms (r) πr2n (r) drQMs (r) π r2N (r) dr




On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 10:08:37 AM UTC-4, Stephen Salter wrote:

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.s...@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 geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts

[Douglas MacMartin]

There’s not that much ground-based astronomy in UV, relative to optical and IR 
astronomy.

Impact on optical astronomy is straightforward; if you lose 5% of the direct 
light, you need 5% longer integration time to get same number of photons.

Impact on IR astronomy is less obvious, as limited by the background from the 
sky, which depends on water vapour and temperature through the atmospheric 
column (with most telescopes being at 14000’ or so).  Shouldn’t be hard to 
estimate, I’ve never gotten someone interested enough to do the calculations 
but I could try again (my other job is being on the design team for the Thirty 
Meter Telescope).

I did ask people whether they noted anything after Pinatubo, and the answer I 
got was no… that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an effect, but it wasn’t something 
that the astronomy community by and large remembered.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Russell Seitz
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 9:31 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Re: SRM optical impacts

Why would  reductions  in the  downwelling tropospheric light flux increase any 
of the above?I'd instead  ask instrumental  astromomers what they think SO2 
scattering would do in the UV , as they have a lot to lose from  scattered 
light, which can  cost them contrast and  degrade the signal to noise ratio in 
interferometry and spectroscopy.

Try the Magellan and OWL teams

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 7:47:35 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Has there been any investigation of SRM effects on vision? Eg perceived glare, 
macular degeneration, corneal sunburn, vision development in infants, object 
recognition when driving (and their equivalent in animals)?

Andrew Lockley
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] RE: [CDR] Governing Geoengineering at the United Nations?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Benoit, the answer to your question “Why are you on this list with 
geoengineering” is because the withdrawn UNEA resolution in question explicitly 
included CDR as well as SRM.  You might disagree with that lumping, I might 
disagree, Andrew might disagree, but lump they did…

From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Benoit Lambert
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:47 AM
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: geoengineering ; 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com  

Subject: Re: [CDR] Governing Geoengineering at the United Nations?

Andrew,
Thank you for the information. In most cases, geoengineering does not include 
CDR. Why are you on this list with geoengineering? It just does not qualify. 
Biogeotherapy is offering 10-15 CDR solutions that all beat geoengineering, on 
all criteria: agriculture soils of the word regain their carbon which makes 
them healthy which means food security, droughts and flood are avoided, 
chemical inputs and petroleum are down making farming profitable without 
subsidies, human health is gaining, carbon is being sequestered, etc… Biochar 
is avoiding organic waste emissions. Carbon from pyrolytic biomass can be used 
in numerous industries, including concrete as the price of sand goes up. Most 
of what I am referring to is proved, ready to be implemented. It really feels 
like geoengineering is being pushed down our throats. Sorry but... This is not 
about being radical ecologists or other smearing, it is about facts, 
efficientcy, social acceptability, economic realism. It is about urgent need 
for biosphere politic to solve urgent problems. This is about fantastic 
opportunities allowed thanks to new knowledge on the carbon cycle, new 
experiences of carbon farming, new carbon-based production. Opportunities we 
should embrace with enthusiasm and not get lost in what is mostly fantasies at 
this point. The future of this world is biology, biosphere intensification, and 
that is not against engineering. It is just new knowledge bringing new 
strategies. The revolution I am referring to has been called geotherapy. We now 
name it biogeotherapy. It includes the remediation of soils using rock-dust, 
the use of biochar in industrial processus, and, of course, carbon-farming to 
fight desertification: not-till ag. & cover crops, holistic grazing management, 
deep rooted new cereal as kernza, biochar, etc. It solves the carbon imbalance 
while building new prosperous carbon-based economies. Geoengineering deserves 
to be tested, but not to take central stage. What should be proposed to the UN, 
is a resolution to support broad biogeotherapy, and give credits to those 
sequestering excess carbon. It is safe, building organic wealth, making farmers 
prosperous, opening-up thousands of new industrial products with new jobs, all 
over the world. The question is: who can do better? At this stage, and from 
far, nobody!




Le 14 mars 2019 à 04:09, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> a écrit :


http://legal-planet.org/2019/03/13/governing-geoengineering-at-the-united-nations-no-at-least-not-now/

JESSE REYNOLDS   March 13, 2019
Governing Geoengineering at the United Nations? No, at Least Not Now
A proposed resolution falters at the UN Environment Assembly
[UN Environment Assembly]
At this week’s UN Environment 
Assembly, countries’ representatives 
debated a draft resolution regarding climate geoengineering. Unable to come to 
agreement, it was withdrawn 
Wednesday. This is not surprising to 
me, as — for the most part — leaders presently lack political incentives to 
take action. I am also not particularly disappointed, because a 
counter-productive resolution seemed fairly likely.
As background: in the face of continued insufficient cuts to greenhouse gas 
emissions, scientists and others are considering large scale interventions in 
natural systems to prevent dangerous climate change. The proposed 
geoengineering methods vary but for the most part would either remove carbon 
dioxide from the 
atmosphere
 or make the planet a bit more 
reflective.
 Some geoengineering methods have the potential to greatly reduce climate 
change but also pose physical risks and social challenges. Dedicated governance 
will eventually be warranted, and given the global stakes, some governance 
should be international.
The Swiss government, with the support of ten diverse 
countries,
 introduced a draft 
resolution 
[PDF] to the 
UN 

RE: [geo] Heinrich Boell evidence to UNEP

[Douglas MacMartin]

I agree completely with Anna-Maria that these are all serious potential issues 
(i.e., the potential for SRM to be enticing, and the potential for moral 
hazard), and I absolutely agree that Lili and HBF have important perspectives.  
I just think it would help the communication more if people were more clear 
about what they meant... as well as not muddying the waters with stuff that is 
highly misleading, as that simply distracts from the more challenging questions.

doug

From: Anna-Maria Hubert [mailto:annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 12:13 PM
To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; f...@boell.de; vorst...@boell.de; i...@boell.de; 
geoengineering ; 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com; Douglas MacMartin 
Subject: Re: [geo] Heinrich Boell evidence to UNEP

Greetings all

I think Lili's piece raises some important issues and I suspect that her 
concerns reflect her longstanding experience working in environmental advocacy 
and politics. It's important to distinguish that while SRM "ought not" stand in 
as an alternative to mitigation and adaptation it does not mean that politics 
will not take that trajectory in the future despite not being in accordance 
with prudent scientific advice (Why are we even in this mess despite the fact 
that the scientific evidence continues to pile up?). Indeed I participated in a 
meeting of an international treaty body where an major oil producing state was 
arguing that geoengineering should not be restricted, because such limitations 
would impair their right to develop and ability exploit their sovereign 
national resources in oil and gas. One should not be naive about how enticing 
SRM may be to those actors who have an interest in maintaining a business as 
usual scenario and the influence these actors have over climate politics. 
Legally, the relationship between SRM and mitigation and adaptation is somewhat 
ambiguous. Also, though more subtle, there are also "moral hazard" issues that 
arise in relation to the development of CDR vis a vis more conventional 
mitigation and adaptation.

All this to say that she offers a valid perspective that should be given some 
weight in the discussion of the development and governance of the science.

Have a great weekend,

Anna-Maria


Anna-Maria Hubert
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
Associate Fellow, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS), 
University of Oxford

MFH 3344, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB Canada T2N 1N4
T: 403.220.8762 | M: 587.586.3045
annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca<https://mail.ucalgary.ca/owa/14.3.266.1/scripts/premium/redir.aspx?SURL=JkKyJFCGUmOHPwnojHKF8mM2XVqQBlfBA_O8D5z0lPrEMxg9MX_TCG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAYQBuAG4AYQBtAGEAcgBpAGEALgBoAHUAYgBlAHIAdABAAHUAYwBhAGwAZwBhAHIAeQAuAGMAYQA.=mailto%3aannamaria.hubert%40ucalgary.ca>
www.law.ucalgary.ca<http://www.law.ucalgary.ca/> | 
www.insis.ox.ac.uk/people/associate-fellows/anna-maria-hubert<http://www.insis.ox.ac.uk/people/associate-fellows/anna-maria-hubert>


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Douglas MacMartin mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>>
Sent: March 9, 2019 6:46 AM
To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>; 
f...@boell.de<mailto:f...@boell.de>; 
vorst...@boell.de<mailto:vorst...@boell.de>; 
i...@boell.de<mailto:i...@boell.de>; geoengineering; 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [geo] Heinrich Boell evidence to UNEP


Hi Lili,



I'll also make a couple of comments... mainly, I think it would be helpful if 
you disambiguate concerns relative to CDR vs SRM, and indeed between different 
methods of CDR (where it is also unclear what falls into your personal 
definition of geoengineering, since planting a tree is different from BECCS 
which is different from DAC, etc.).  Many if not all of your concerns are only 
relevant to some form of geoengineering, but not others.  E.g., clear that 
large-scale BECCS has the potential to be in conflict with SDGs, but both 
research and common sense would suggest that SRM is unlikely to be in conflict 
(and while more research is clearly necessary, one's prior would be the 
opposite UNLESS you're assuming that the only context in which SRM is being 
suggested is as an alternative rather than supplement to mitigation - and if 
that's your assumption, then you ought to make that clear that that is the only 
context in which your concerns arise, otherwise you have the potential to 
confuse debate rather than advance it, and I'm sure that isn't your intention).



One could go on... e.g., you are of course quite well aware that the fossil 
fuel industry has not had any "long and ongoing influence" on anything related 
to SRM, nor significantly related to CDR either (though clearly f

[geo] Save the date: GRC 2020

[Douglas MacMartin]

Just to get it on everyone's calendar... we will have a second Gordon Research 
Conference on Climate Engineering in 2020, June 28-July 3, in Maine, at the 
same venue as the 2017 conference.  The 2017 meeting was excellent (see here 
for the program if you weren't there: 
https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2017/)  and we encourage 
everyone interested in the topic to put the meeting on their calendar and plan 
on attending.  The GRC is focused on radiation-management approaches (there is 
also a GRC this year that covers much, but not all, of CDR).

Conference website is here: 
https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-conference/2020/.  We will be 
developing the program over the next N months, so more info to follow.

In addition to the GRC, this year there will be a 2-day Gordon Research Seminar 
June 27-28, https://www.grc.org/climate-engineering-grs-conference/2020/, aimed 
at early-career participants.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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] Detection paper

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi all,

Our latest paper is out online here: 
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JD028906; 
“Timescale for Detecting the Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol 
Geoengineering”

This uses the GLENS simulations (see here: 
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/experiments/cesm1.2/GLE/ if you aren’t familiar with 
them), but

-Builds an emulator to allow us to project response to other scenarios 
(and in particular, to scenarios more moderate than the RCP8.5 one used in 
GLENS, which was great for signal-to-noise ratio but not the only case to 
consider for policy)

-Compares the projected response from geoengineering to natural 
variability

-Estimates how long it would take to detect changes, in a few 
variables, for a few scenarios.

Bottom line is that if we have a limited deployment scenario (e.g., only use 
SRM to go from 3C to 1.5C), then in many (not all) places, it will be difficult 
to tell the difference between the 1.5C climate obtained by using SRM and a 
1.5C climate due to lower CO2…


Abstract
Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could be used to maintain global mean 
temperature despite increased atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, 
for example, to meet a 1.5 or 2◦Ctarget. While this might reduce many climate 
change impacts, the resulting climate would not be the same as one with the 
same global mean temperature due to lower GHG concentrations. The primary 
question we consider is how long it would take to detect these differences in a 
hypothetical deployment. We use a20-member ensemble of stratospheric sulfate 
aerosol geoengineering simulations in which SO2is injected at four different 
latitudes to maintain not just the global mean temperature, but also the 
interhemispheric and equator-to-pole gradients. This multiple-latitude strategy 
better matches the climate changes from increased GHG, while the ensemble 
allows us both to estimate residual differences even when they are small 
compared to natural variability and to estimate the statistics of variability. 
We first construct a linear emulator to predict the model responses for 
different scenarios. Under an RCP4.5 scenario in which geoengineering maintains 
a 1.5◦C target (providing end-of-century cooling of 1.7◦C), the projected 
changes in temperature, precipitation, and precipitation minus evaporation 
(P−E) at a grid-scale are typically small enough that in many regions the 
signal-to-noise ratio is still less than one at the end of this century; for 
example, for P−E, only 30% of the land area reaches a signal-to-noise ratio of 
one. These results provide some context for the projected magnitude of climate 
changes associated with a limited deployment of stratospheric aerosol cooling

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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: Generative adversarial networks

[Douglas MacMartin]

The first two don’t require ANN.

I don’t get what your detection network is supposed to do.  We have simulations 
of the baseline climate and we know what it is.  If we generate simulations of 
a climate that is usefully different, that’ll be pretty clear.  If the 
differences are subtle, then it isn’t any meaningful concept of geoengineering.

From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 7:48 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin 
Cc: Boyang Jack Pan ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks

I can think of a couple of counterpoints

1) a cheap climate model may allow a neural network to learn some basic 
strategies pretty quickly - like mixing CCT with SAI to control precip
2) training AI on weird climates (8x CO2, anoxic oceans) might prepare us for 
weird stuff we'd otherwise miss
3) the role of the detection network isn't trivial. It has to learn to spot 
geoengineering, when it doesn't know what the baseline climate is supposed to 
be. This means
A) it learns to guesstimate model outputs (very useful)
B) it will probably get good at spotting covert geoengineering in the real world

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, 00:37 Douglas MacMartin 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
Thanks!

I was actually thinking of reinforcement learning in my previous response… 
agree that GAN is not at all applicable here.

I think a stronger statement is in order… this is NOT a problem where any 
ANN-based algorithm is likely to be of much value in the next 10+ years, and 
maybe never.  ANN’s learn by looking at vast amounts of training data.  We have 
zero training data, and we always will.  Training an ANN on vast amounts of 
climate model output may someday be an interesting way of learning about 
strategies that might work in the real world – and then figuring out what it is 
that the ANN figured out, so that one can generate an algorithm that is based 
on physical principles.  Climate models are not the same as the real world, and 
never will be, so unless the strategy can be related to some clear physical 
reasoning, there’s no reason to expect it to work in the real world… in that 
sense, the sole value of ANN-based approaches may be to identify possible 
interesting strategies, in a world in which we have insane amounts of CPU time 
to throw at the problem; that’s not the best use of our current CPU time.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>]
 On Behalf Of B. Jack Pan
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 1:46 PM
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks

Hi everyone, I asked a data scientist who works on deep learning -- Alex Orona 
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexorona/) -- about this. Here is his email:

"Can't comment on the climatological aspects of the question (it's well outside 
my domain), but here is my feedback on the machine learning/AI aspects.

This is likely a reinforcement learning problem, not a problem which can be 
easily solved with a generative adversarial network (GAN). GANs work by pitting 
two learners against each other. To simplify/summarize, here's how GANs work: 
one learner, called the 'discriminator', tries to distinguish between real data 
and fake data. A second, called the 'generator', ingests random information and 
tries to create fake data. That's not quite what the problem is looking to 
solve.

Instead, what you want is to make a decision (like what environmental 
interventions to make) given an environment. This is reinforcement learning, 
which is a way of creating a set of rules called 'the policy' that have been 
discovered by an algorithm after training for (in your case) probably millions 
and millions of iterations. This is the same technique that Google used to 
solve the AlphaGo challenge. It has been trending in the literature for a few 
years.

You want to know "this is the current climate environment in the world. What 
should I do?" In the language of reinforcement models, you are the agent and 
your environmental interventions are the decisions. The interesting thing I 
find about your proposal (from my limited understanding of climatology) is that 
the climate system has mathematically chaotic properties, so that predictions 
about the short-term (days) are comparatively accurate to predictions about the 
long-term (months, years, decades, etc.).

Reinforcement learning is good at creating a policy of micro decisions through 
a changing environmental space while avoiding rare but serious consequences. 
Think of it like creating an agent that plays chess. Each decision is a move 
that the player has to make. If they optimize for each turn without any 
consideration of the long-term, they may be winning up to the point where their 
opponent, having sacrificed for strategic position, checkm

RE: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks

[Douglas MacMartin]

Thanks!

I was actually thinking of reinforcement learning in my previous response… 
agree that GAN is not at all applicable here.

I think a stronger statement is in order… this is NOT a problem where any 
ANN-based algorithm is likely to be of much value in the next 10+ years, and 
maybe never.  ANN’s learn by looking at vast amounts of training data.  We have 
zero training data, and we always will.  Training an ANN on vast amounts of 
climate model output may someday be an interesting way of learning about 
strategies that might work in the real world – and then figuring out what it is 
that the ANN figured out, so that one can generate an algorithm that is based 
on physical principles.  Climate models are not the same as the real world, and 
never will be, so unless the strategy can be related to some clear physical 
reasoning, there’s no reason to expect it to work in the real world… in that 
sense, the sole value of ANN-based approaches may be to identify possible 
interesting strategies, in a world in which we have insane amounts of CPU time 
to throw at the problem; that’s not the best use of our current CPU time.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of B. Jack Pan
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 1:46 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks

Hi everyone, I asked a data scientist who works on deep learning -- Alex Orona 
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexorona/) -- about this. Here is his email:

"Can't comment on the climatological aspects of the question (it's well outside 
my domain), but here is my feedback on the machine learning/AI aspects.

This is likely a reinforcement learning problem, not a problem which can be 
easily solved with a generative adversarial network (GAN). GANs work by pitting 
two learners against each other. To simplify/summarize, here's how GANs work: 
one learner, called the 'discriminator', tries to distinguish between real data 
and fake data. A second, called the 'generator', ingests random information and 
tries to create fake data. That's not quite what the problem is looking to 
solve.

Instead, what you want is to make a decision (like what environmental 
interventions to make) given an environment. This is reinforcement learning, 
which is a way of creating a set of rules called 'the policy' that have been 
discovered by an algorithm after training for (in your case) probably millions 
and millions of iterations. This is the same technique that Google used to 
solve the AlphaGo challenge. It has been trending in the literature for a few 
years.

You want to know "this is the current climate environment in the world. What 
should I do?" In the language of reinforcement models, you are the agent and 
your environmental interventions are the decisions. The interesting thing I 
find about your proposal (from my limited understanding of climatology) is that 
the climate system has mathematically chaotic properties, so that predictions 
about the short-term (days) are comparatively accurate to predictions about the 
long-term (months, years, decades, etc.).

Reinforcement learning is good at creating a policy of micro decisions through 
a changing environmental space while avoiding rare but serious consequences. 
Think of it like creating an agent that plays chess. Each decision is a move 
that the player has to make. If they optimize for each turn without any 
consideration of the long-term, they may be winning up to the point where their 
opponent, having sacrificed for strategic position, checkmates them. They've 
won every battle and lost the war. Since your climate models only see 
accurately a short time in the future, you don't want to optimize across a 
short-term only to end up making a bunch of hurricanes. Provided you have the 
right data and you have set up the problem correctly, reinforcement learning is 
great at figuring out the short-term decisions in a simulated environment to 
avoid long-term negative consequences.

If you try to create a reinforcement problem, you will immediately arrive at 
the frontier of policy, science and our current knowledge. In reinforcement 
learning, the agent's decision are given an award or penalty based by an 
interpreter, whose job is to figure out whether these decisions are good or bad 
(and to what degree). In this problem, the interpreter will involve a climate 
model of one form or another. The climate model will need to be able to figure 
out the what the next stage of the system looks like given the agent's actions, 
and then interpret whether this is desirable. As you train through millions of 
iterations using historical climatological data, the interpreter refines the 
policy for large scale interventions. In my knowledge of climatology, there 
isn't a good model that can take a set of interventions and map out what will 
happen in the time horizon where weather predictions are accurate.

In other words, before you can 

RE: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks

[Douglas MacMartin]

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 between 
things like overall aerosol injection rate and global mean temperature (or 
extending to the 3x3 cases we’ve done of also controlling the first zonal-mean 
temperature gradients).  So for those control problems, doesn’t seem much to be 
added by introducing a fundamentally nonlinear learning algorithm.

However, at the opposite extreme, suppose MCB “works”, and one has thousands of 
decision variables on a weekly timescale, then are there ways of turning it 
on/off on relatively short spatial scales to do better management of the 
climate response?  (Short here would have to be long enough that the climate 
models being used are meaningful, but not so macroscopic that the behaviour is 
obvious).  In principle, an ANN could “learn” the detailed nonlinear dynamics 
of the system in such a way as to arrive at a “better” solution than could be 
obtained with the linear tools and sequential-loop-closure approaches we’ve 
tried so far.  This, of course, assumes that the models are good enough on 
capturing physics (i.e., that there’s something for the ANN to learn about the 
real climate, using models, that we can’t intuit as humans).  For what we’ve 
done to date, the sign of the response on each control loop is pretty clear 
from basic physics (e.g., if you put more aerosols in the northern hemisphere 
than the southern, you’ll cool the northern hemisphere more than the southern). 
 Absolutely 100% of the benefit of ANN would be on deducing possible strategies 
that aren’t clear from basic physics – but if that’s true, how do you trust 
that those strategies will be applicable in the real world?  The answer in 
other domains is to have lots of data from the real world, but for 
geoengineering we have zero, and always will.

So… without giving it tons of thought, my answer would be that there’s stuff 
here to explore, but at least my personal guess on prioritization is that this 
isn’t the near-term low-hanging fruit (that is, that we aren’t quite ready for 
it).  One might require vast amounts of computation time.  A related question 
would be, what’s the advantage of ANN relative to something like 
model-predictive (or receding-horizon) control?

Re model sophistication, a simple model may not contain any of the physics that 
an ANN could take advantage of, but would simply be a way of making sure one’s 
code was working and doing something sensible.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 2:29 PM
To: Russell Seitz ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks

The model here is not important. It's just a way of testing the artificial 
intelligence.

An AI that can successfully operate a dumb model is a good candidate to be 
tested on a more sophisticated model.

It's roughly equivalent of learning to drive a family hatchback before using a 
formula 1 car.

Andrew

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019, 19:20 Russell Seitz 
mailto:russellse...@gmail.com> wrote:
"it's best to use very simple models (eg slab ocean, low res, low top) to cut 
down on the grunt work "
Iterating better models is generally  more helpful than compounding bad ones-

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 10:30:31 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote:
I read the recent articles on control with interest (Kravitz, Tilmes, MacMartin)

Has anyone looked at using generative adversarial networks to design control 
algorithms for climate engineering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network

This works as follows
1) Run 2 models - one with pre-industrial climate, one with global warming
2) AI generates a pattern of climate engineering, potentially using multiple 
techniques and injection loci - applied to second model
3) Second AI tries to tell the difference between the two
4) Goto (1)

Over many iterations/models, the geoengineering AI gets better and better at 
controlling the climate.

This could work well but will require some serious computer time - so it's best 
to use very simple models (eg slab ocean, low res, low top) to cut down on the 
grunt work required.

Any thoughts?

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 

RE: Re[2]: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

[Douglas MacMartin]

Ummm…. Not filling a paper on aircraft design with every single statement that 
could conceivably be typed about SAI does not qualify as “obviously keeping 
secret”.  That’s a patently silly statement.

As for your comments, yes, reflecting of order 1% of sunlight (enough to reduce 
temperature by of order 1.5C, i.e., for context, of order enough to offset the 
difference between Paris agreement INDC’s and the Paris Agreement 1.5C target) 
will reduce sun radiation at the planet’s surface.  (Are you seriously 
suggesting that the authors of the paper are unaware of that fact?  Or that 
there is a single reader who might be confused and think that reflecting 
sunlight to space would have no effect on the amount of sunlight reaching the 
surface?)   Your arguments are a bit misleading by not putting that 1% number 
in context with the potential impacts of allowing the climate to warm.

Yes, 100% of plants on the planet experience both direct and diffuse light.  
Diffuse light exists everywhere, not just at the bottom of forests.  
Nonetheless, I do agree with you that the ecosystem and agricultural impacts of 
a shift in direct/diffuse light ratio is one of the research questions to be 
considered.  I don’t agree with you that it is the responsibility of every 
single author on every paper about SAI to list absolutely every single 
conceivable research question that anyone could ever ask.

Can you please calm down and recognize that the only context in which it makes 
any sense to talk about SAI is because of climate change, and so the concerns 
with it are only sensible in that context?  No-one would sit in their car and 
set off their airbag for fun.  No-one would take chemotherapy for fun.  Yet we 
accept that those, while imperfect, are useful.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Franz Dietrich Oeste
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 8:23 AM
To: Veli Albert Kallio ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re[2]: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the 
first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

Is the comment of this author cleaned from any mis-statements and fact 
uncertainties about SRM? Surely no. Contrary to that it is filled up with them 
and obviously keeping secret about some more problematic stratospheric SRM (SRM 
by SAI) properties listed below:

  *   SRM increases the albedo of the planet by mirroring parts of the sun 
radiation back into the space. Accordingly the sun radiation reaching the 
planet's surface is reduced whether or not the residual sun radiation reaching 
the surface is diffuse or not
  *   The plant ecosystems at the planets surface are adapted to undiffused 
sunlight since billions of years. Only those plants which live at places where 
natural diffused sunlight exists, like at the bottom of forests or in the 
shadow of plants or rocks are natural adapted to permanent diffuse sunlight
  *   All the other plants living not below these special shadow conditions are 
not adapted to permanent diffuse light. They will suffer from decreased CO2 
assimilation and water decreased evaporation
  *   All the plants adapted to special shadow conditions living for instance 
at the bottom of the rainforest ecosystem like ferns and mosses will even 
suffer from decreased CO2 assimilation and water evaporation and even die
  *   Atmospheric methane level increases because of the decreasing UV 
radiation dependent hydroxyl radical level which acts as a methane degradation 
tool
  *   Stratospheric ozone shield will weaken because of the decreasing UV 
radiation dependent hydroxyl radical level which acts as a depletion tool of 
the ozone layer depleting chloro and bromo methanes
  *   It is well known that the reaction of ozone with stratospheric cloud 
droplets or particles which consists of hydrated droplets of nitric acid and 
sulphuric acid which appear in spring time are mainly responsible for the ozone 
hole. Meanwhile no facts have been revealed ruling out such reactions with 
particle and/or droplet surfaces considered as SRM substance like sulfuric acid 
aerosol, calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide
Franz D. Oeste

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Veli Albert Kallio" 
mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com>>
An: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>; 
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
"oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" 
mailto:oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>>
Gesendet: 07.01.2019 11:13:00
Betreff: Re: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the 
first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

There appears to be a clear mis-statement here:

" Any reduction of the sun radiation at the surface decrease the assimilation 
by which plants transform CO2 into organic C and oxygen."


SO2 causes diffusion of 

RE: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

[Douglas MacMartin]

d you examine this 
firms technology? If so, what were your reasons for rejecting it?

Maclellan's paper considered gun launch, but did not consider obvious 
opportunities for costs savings. These include: reusable shells;  and 
converting the guns from specialised solid propellant bags, to natural gas / 
hydrogen fuel, with air as an oxidizer. Further , guns allow much higher 
altitudes than aircraft, which you advised is desirable for reasons of 
efficiency. Such modifications would imply a cost reduction of approaching one 
order. Is there a reason you have elected not to optimise gun designs, in your 
analysis?

Finally, you make no reference to any electrical launch technology. A cursory 
look at hyperloop suggests that it can be modified to attain approximately the 
launch velocities required. Did you consider this, or similar electrical 
launch? If so, why did you reject it?

I look forward to receiving any response you are able to send.

Andrew





On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, 14:35 Douglas MacMartin 
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
For context, the “huge expense” you refer to below, for the first 15 years of 
deployment, is about 1.5x the estimated cost of the Camp fire in California 
last week.

Or, 15 years of deployment (including development costs), are about 15% of the 
costs in the US alone from the 2017 hurricane season.  And certainly far 
cheaper than actually solving the problem by pulling out the CO2.

Lots of reasons to be concerned about SAI, but as far as costs are concerned, 
the appropriate concern should be that it is too cheap, and that cost won’t 
present enough of a barrier to deployment.

(And as I’ve pointed out before, saying this doesn’t “solve” the climate 
problem is like pointing out that air bags don’t “solve” the problem of having 
car accidents, or a million other analogies.  Of course it doesn’t.  No-one 
says it does.  But it could reduce impacts and prevent lots of climate damages. 
 Until we are certain that the climate problem can be “solved” by other means, 
it would be premature to dismiss something that has the potential to limit 
damages.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>]
 On Behalf Of Franz Dietrich Oeste
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 6:49 AM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the 
first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

Thanks to Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner for their work! Their paper may open our 
eyes to the probable unsuitability of the climate influencing tool 
Stratospheric Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or as named by the authors 
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI):

SRM shall act within the stratosphere 20 km above the ground. To gain a 
temperature reduction of 0.30 K in 2047 it needs a yearly uplift to this height 
of 1,5 million tons of sulfur. The sulfur shall be burned by new kind of 
aircrafts in situ to gain gaseous SO2 (boiling point -10 °C) which becomes 
transformed by oxidiation and hydration to about 6 million tons aerosol made of 
a rather concentrated sulfuric acid - per year. This aerosol shall spread 
around the globe and mirror parts of the sun radiation back into the space.

With the existing aircraft design sulfur lifting to these heights is 
impossible. A new kind of aircraft needs to be developed to do the job. This 
new aircraft should be able to lift a payload of 25 tons of liquid sulfur to 20 
km above the ground then keeping at this height and burn there the sulfur load 
which emits with the flue gas as SO2. About 60 000 flights per year are 
necessary to gain the global temperature reduction of 0,30 K.

Thankfully this article discusses very clearly within chapter 6 that such 
activities could not remain undetected. Their conclusion is that it would be 
rather impossible that those activities remain undetected or might kept as a 
secret.

According to this low result of 0,30 K global temperature decrease gained by 
this huge expense and 1,5 Million tons of sulfur burned in the stratosphere the 
SRM method seems completely unsuitable to solve our climate problem. Not only 
that the SRM method does not reduce any of the increasing levels of the 
essential greenhouse gases CO2 and methane, it surely increases the CO2 gas 
level. Any reduction of the sun radiation at the surface decrease the 
assimilation by which plants transform CO2 into organic C and oxygen. Further 
SRM would increase the methane level by decreasing the UV radiation dependent 
hydroxyl radical level which acts as a degradation tool to methane and further 
volatile organics because the sun radiation decrease by SRM concerns 
particularly the UV fraction.

It is my very hope that this article helps to reduce the hype about SRM.

F

RE: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

[Douglas MacMartin]

For context, the “huge expense” you refer to below, for the first 15 years of 
deployment, is about 1.5x the estimated cost of the Camp fire in California 
last week.

Or, 15 years of deployment (including development costs), are about 15% of the 
costs in the US alone from the 2017 hurricane season.  And certainly far 
cheaper than actually solving the problem by pulling out the CO2.

Lots of reasons to be concerned about SAI, but as far as costs are concerned, 
the appropriate concern should be that it is too cheap, and that cost won’t 
present enough of a barrier to deployment.

(And as I’ve pointed out before, saying this doesn’t “solve” the climate 
problem is like pointing out that air bags don’t “solve” the problem of having 
car accidents, or a million other analogies.  Of course it doesn’t.  No-one 
says it does.  But it could reduce impacts and prevent lots of climate damages. 
 Until we are certain that the climate problem can be “solved” by other means, 
it would be premature to dismiss something that has the potential to limit 
damages.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Franz Dietrich Oeste
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 6:49 AM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the 
first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

Thanks to Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner for their work! Their paper may open our 
eyes to the probable unsuitability of the climate influencing tool 
Stratospheric Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or as named by the authors 
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI):

SRM shall act within the stratosphere 20 km above the ground. To gain a 
temperature reduction of 0.30 K in 2047 it needs a yearly uplift to this height 
of 1,5 million tons of sulfur. The sulfur shall be burned by new kind of 
aircrafts in situ to gain gaseous SO2 (boiling point -10 °C) which becomes 
transformed by oxidiation and hydration to about 6 million tons aerosol made of 
a rather concentrated sulfuric acid - per year. This aerosol shall spread 
around the globe and mirror parts of the sun radiation back into the space.

With the existing aircraft design sulfur lifting to these heights is 
impossible. A new kind of aircraft needs to be developed to do the job. This 
new aircraft should be able to lift a payload of 25 tons of liquid sulfur to 20 
km above the ground then keeping at this height and burn there the sulfur load 
which emits with the flue gas as SO2. About 60 000 flights per year are 
necessary to gain the global temperature reduction of 0,30 K.

Thankfully this article discusses very clearly within chapter 6 that such 
activities could not remain undetected. Their conclusion is that it would be 
rather impossible that those activities remain undetected or might kept as a 
secret.

According to this low result of 0,30 K global temperature decrease gained by 
this huge expense and 1,5 Million tons of sulfur burned in the stratosphere the 
SRM method seems completely unsuitable to solve our climate problem. Not only 
that the SRM method does not reduce any of the increasing levels of the 
essential greenhouse gases CO2 and methane, it surely increases the CO2 gas 
level. Any reduction of the sun radiation at the surface decrease the 
assimilation by which plants transform CO2 into organic C and oxygen. Further 
SRM would increase the methane level by decreasing the UV radiation dependent 
hydroxyl radical level which acts as a degradation tool to methane and further 
volatile organics because the sun radiation decrease by SRM concerns 
particularly the UV fraction.

It is my very hope that this article helps to reduce the hype about SRM.

Franz D. Oeste



-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Andrew Lockley" 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
An: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Gesendet: 23.11.2018 16:36:27
Betreff: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 
15 years of deployment - IOPscience

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/meta

Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of 
deployment
Wake Smith1 and Gernot Wagner2

Published 23 November 2018 • © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing 
Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 13, Number 12
Download Article PDF DownloadArticle ePub
Article has an altmetric score of 157

Abstract
We review the capabilities and costs of various lofting methods intended to 
deliver sulfates into the lower stratosphere. We lay out a future solar 
geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic 
radiative forcing beginning 15 years hence, by deploying material to altitudes 
as high as ~20 km. After surveying an exhaustive list of potential deployment 
techniques, we settle upon an aircraft-based delivery system. Unlike the one 
prior comprehensive study on 

RE: [geo] Exploring accumulation-mode-H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol-chemistry-climate model

[Douglas MacMartin]

Oliver – do you think SOCOL has an error in its H2O concentrations?  As long as 
they have the right values in the model, then the effect should be taken into 
account already.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:06 PM
To: oliver.wingen...@nmt.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Exploring accumulation-mode-H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric 
sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol-chemistry-climate model

That's not necessarily true. By the time CE is rolled out, we could be looking 
at significantly more methane in the atmosphere, due to permafrost. Much 
ultimately ends up as strat H2O.

I vaguely remember more tropospheric folding, too, which also transports water 
up. Can't remember the reference, tho

Andrew Lockley

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, 21:02 Oliver Wingenter 
mailto:oliver.wingen...@nmt.edu> wrote:

Water in the high lat strat is limiting particle growth. H2O is in the ppm 
range.  See Hamil, Steele, Toon and Turco's work 1970-2000.

On 11/15/2018 1:51 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2018-1070/

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the 
journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Exploring accumulation-mode-H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate 
geoengineering in a sectional aerosol-chemistry-climate model
Sandro Vattioni et al.
Received: 07 Oct 2018 – Accepted for review: 02 Nov 2018 – Discussion started: 
15 Nov 2018
Abstract. Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering (SSG) could contribute to 
avoiding some of the adverse impacts of climate change. We used the global 
3D-aerosol-chemistry-climate model, SOCOL-AER, to investigate 21 different SSG 
scenarios, each with 1.83MtSyr−1 injected either in the form of 
accumulation-mode-H2SO4 droplets (AM-H2SO4), gas-phase SO2, or as combinations 
of both. For most scenarios, the sulfur was continuously emitted at 50hPa 
(≈20km) altitude in the tropics and subtropics, zonally and latitudinally 
symmetric about the equator (ranging from ±3.75° to ±30°). In the SO2 emission 
scenarios, continuous production of tiny nucleation mode particles results in 
increased coagulation, which together with condensation produces larger coarse 
mode particles. These larger particles are less effective for backscattering 
solar radiation and sedimentation out of the stratosphere is faster. On 
average, AM-H2SO4 injection increases stratospheric aerosol residence times by 
32% and stratospheric aerosol burdens 37–41% when comparing to SO2 injection. 
The modelled all-sky (clear-sky) short-wave radiative forcing for AM-H2SO4 
injection scenarios is up to 17–70% (44%–57%) larger than is the case for SO2. 
Aerosol burdens have a surprisingly week dependence on the latitudinal spread 
of emissions with emission in the stratospheric surf zone (>15°N–15°S) 
decreasing burdens by only about 10%. This is because the faster removal 
through stratosphere-to-troposphere transport via tropopause folds found when 
injection is spread farther from the equator is roughly balanced by a decrease 
in coagulation. Increasing injection altitude is also surprisingly ineffective 
because the increase in burden is compensated by an increase in large aerosols 
due to increased condensation. Increasing the local SO2 flux in the injection 
region by pulse or point emissions reduces the total global annual nucleation. 
Coagulation is also reduced due to the interruption of the continuous flow of 
freshly formed particles. The net effect of pulse or point emission of SO2 is 
to increase stratospheric aerosol residence time and radiative forcing. Pulse 
or point emissions of AM-H2SO4 has the opposite effect—decreasing stratospheric 
aerosol burden and radiative forcing by increasing coagulation. In summary, 
this study corroborates previous studies with uncoupled aerosol and radiation 
modules, suggesting that, compared to SO2 injection, the direct emission of 
AM-H2SO4 results in more radiative forcing for the same sulfur equivalent mass 
injection strength and that sensitivities to different injection strategies may 
vary for different forms of injected sulfur.

How to cite: Vattioni, S., Weisenstein, D., Keith, D., Feinberg, A., Peter, T., 
and Stenke, A.: Exploring accumulation-mode-H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric 
sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol-chemistry-climate model, Atmos. 
Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2018-1070, 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 

RE: [geo] Fwd: SRM ocean study

[Douglas MacMartin]

And to be clear (as a coauthor), the particular choice of how the aerosols were 
distributed in this model *did* cool the oceans, just not as much as it cooled 
the global mean (atmospheric) temperature.  So that (assuming one deployed this 
way, and that the model is correct) if one held global mean temperature 
constant, there would still be some parts of the ocean with some continued 
warming – though a lot less than if SAI were not deployed.

Not a panacea…

As always, one needs to be careful in whether one is comparing to a world with 
the same CO2 emissions without geoengineering, or comparing to a world with the 
same global mean temperature due to lower CO2 concentrations.

d

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Renaud de RICHTER
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:30 PM
To: geoengineering 
Cc: Stephen Salter ; daisy.du...@carbonbrief.org
Subject: [geo] Fwd: SRM ocean study

Thanks Leon!

Fasullo, J. T. et al. (2018) Persistent polar ocean warming in a strategically 
geoengineered climate, Nature Geoscience, 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0249-7
Again the title of the scientific article is misleading as it only concerns 
stratospheric aerosols, and not MCB or other SRM techniques.

At least in carbon brief 

 the author precises which type of geoengineering it is:
Spraying aerosols high in the stratosphere could dampen global warming over 
land, but may not prevent the oceans from heating up, new research says. :
The findings suggest that this type of “solar 
geoengineering”
 – a set of techniques that aim to tackle global warming by reflecting sunlight 
back into space – may not necessarily stem sea level rise or prevent damage to 
the world’s marine ecosystems.

-- Forwarded message -
From: LDM mailto:len2...@gmail.com>>
Date: lun. 29 oct. 2018 à 19:43
Subject: SRM ocean study
To: Renaud de RICHTER 
mailto:renaud.derich...@gmail.com>>

following what d macmartin was saying about specific injection of aerosols and 
showing the complexity of the problem
direct link to the paper at the bottom of this article

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-may-not-cool-the-oceans-study-says

GEOENGINEERING
29 October 2018  16:00
Solar geoengineering may not cool the oceans, study says
Spraying aerosols high in the stratosphere could dampen global warming over 
land, but may not prevent the oceans from heating up, new research says.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Against Geoengineering, ETC

[Douglas MacMartin]

Honesty has never been a particularly important concern of ETC…  your point 
isn’t only thing in here that is basically just made up.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:06 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Against Geoengineering, ETC

Poster's note: overlooks the evidence for a "no losers" solution, which has 
been postulated

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/geoengineering-climate-change-environmental-impacts-warming


JACOBIN

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
[  ][  ]
10.23.2018
·LAW
·SCIENCE AND 
TECHNOLOGY
·ENVIRONMENT
·
·
·
·
Against Geoengineering
BY
SILVIA RIBEIRO

Geoengineering is a risky business. It is so risky, in fact, that it should be 
banned.
[https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/23162632/36489052620_4ff99cb29e_k.jpg]

Haida Gwaii, Canada, where a private ocean-fertilization experiment was 
recently shut down. Christine Rondeau / Flickr

Our summer issue, “Childhood,” is out 
now! Subscribe or 
renew today.

Co-published with Science for the People.

According to the most recent IPCC report, we 
have only twelve years to drastically reduce emissions if we’re to keep the 
Earth’s temperature rise from surpassing 1.5º Celsius. The dire conclusions of 
the report and the daunting task we have before us might make some think that 
geoengineering — actively intervening in planetary systems to keep temperatures 
down — is the only 
option
 to prevent catastrophic climate 
change. But the risks that come 
with geoengineering are also huge and could even worsen the climate imbalance. 
They aren’t worth it.

Geoengineering is an umbrella term that refers to the deliberate large-scale 
technological manipulation of the Earth’s systems to counteract the symptoms of 
climate change. Different kinds of technologies are used to intervene in the 
land, oceans, or atmosphere. Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques aim to 
block or reflect back part of the sunlight that reaches the Earth, attempting 
to lower the temperature: for example, by injecting sulphates in the 
stratosphere to mimic the effect of volcano clouds, or brightening marine 
clouds.

Other proposals aim to technologically remove carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere. In a technique known as BECCS, large monoculture plantations are 
devoted to producing bioenergy, and the carbon is captured and stored. Ocean 
fertilization dumps iron into oceans to increase plankton blooms that would 
absorb more carbon. Enhanced weathering, which would dump tons of minerals into 
oceans, 
aims to 
change the chemistry of the oceans to make them absorb more carbon dioxide.

But despite these differences, all proposed geoengineering techniques, if 
deployed at the massive scale necessary to affect climate change, would have 
significant impacts on the 
environment, biodiversity, livelihoods, and food security. Some techniques, 
particularly those in the vein of solar radiation management, have military 
origins and could be 
weaponized as a way 
of controlling temperature and rain patterns.

Geoengineering techniques, particularly carbon capture and storage, are also 
actively promoted by the fossil fuel 
industry
 — the main culprits and the largest profiteers of climate change. If these 
techniques function, industry hope they would allow them to continue emitting 
greenhouse gases and keep 
profiting.

Proponents of geoengineering recognize that it will “create losers and winners” 
— some places may benefit from the intentional atmospheric changes, but others 
will suffer. But this is an overly glib euphemism. In some cases, there will be 
millions or billions of “losers.”

Injecting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere above the Arctic to mimic 
volcano clouds, for example, could 
disrupt the monsoons in 
Asia and increase droughts, particularly in Africa, endangering food and water 
sources for two billion people. And those are just the potential side effects 

[geo] RE: [CDR] Huh? Carbon Dioxide Emissions Raise Risk of Satellite Collisions - Scientific American

[Douglas MacMartin]

Of course, SRM with stratospheric aerosols would heat the stratosphere and more 
than offset the effect of CO2 on low-orbit atmospheric drag…



From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 9:14 AM
To: geoengineering ; Carbon Dioxide Removal 

Subject: [CDR] Huh? Carbon Dioxide Emissions Raise Risk of Satellite Collisions 
- Scientific American

Poster's note: none of the CDR / SRM papers I've seen have assessed this risk.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/huh-carbon-dioxide-emissions-raise-risk-of-satellite-collisions/

Scientific American
SUBSCRIBE
Close
Search
·THE SCIENCES
·MIND
·HEALTH
·TECH
·SUSTAINABILITY
·EDUCATION
·VIDEO
·PODCASTS
·BLOGS
·STORE
·
Subscribe
·Current 
Issue
·Cart
·Sign In
·Register
[Climatewire]
SPACE
Huh? Carbon Dioxide Emissions Raise Risk of Satellite Collisions

European agency might actively remove space junk to reduce costly crashes
·By John 
Fialka, E 
News on October 4, 2018
[Huh? Carbon Dioxide Emissions Raise Risk of Satellite Collisions]
Credit: Jose Luis Stephens Getty 
Images
ADVERTISEMENT

In February 2009, two space satellites orbiting at speeds of almost 17,000 mph 
collided at a height of 482 miles over Siberia.

One was an operational U.S. communications satellite, Iridium-33. The other was 
a heavier, obsolete Russian military satellite called Cosmos-2251. For space 
scientists, the collision was a rude awakening to a worrisome kind of new math.

The ultra-high-speed collision turned two space orbiters in a cloud of debris 
with 2,300 objects. That made other scientists—climate scientists—take note, 
because changes in the upper atmosphere stand to increase the risk of space 
collisions. There are currently 21,000 pieces of trackable space debris, 
ranging in size from upper stages of old rockets to dime-sized chunks of metal.
ADVERTISEMENT

As Martin Mlynczak, a senior scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in 
Hampton, Va., recently described it, the buildup of carbon dioxide emissions 
aloft is gradually cooling a layer of the upper atmosphere where satellites 
frequently orbit. The good news is that the cooling will make the air there 
less dense, and that could prolong the life of existing satellites. The bad 
news is that it will preserve rapidly accumulating space junk that might 
otherwise sink into the lower atmosphere and burn up.

A study by the European Space Agency (ESA) has described the problem more 
bluntly: “A ‘business as usual scenario’ will lead to a progressive, 
uncontrolled increase of object numbers in LEO (low earth orbit), with 
collisions becoming the primary debris source.”

The agency proposes to begin to avoid this problem in 2023 by removing 
potential pieces of debris from its space vehicles.

“The [upper] atmosphere is cooling. We know that,” Mlynczak explained in an 
interview. “We need to know the density change over the next 50 to 100 years to 
keep space habitable for people and satellites.”

The United States has become highly dependent on space satellites for 
communications, Earth observations, military needs, navigation, weather 
forecasting and a host of other uses. That’s why satellite launches, especially 
those carrying recent clusters of “cubesat” vehicles, roughly the size of 
half-gallon milk cartons, are proliferating every year.
ADVERTISEMENT

An Indian-made rocket called PSLV-C37 launched 104 of these satellites in 
February 2017, spitting them out rapidly from vents in both sides. It was a 
world record for India and a milestone for U.S. companies and institutions, 
which built 96 of the orbiters 

RE: [geo] Can We Use Linear Response Theory to Assess Geoengineering Strategies?

[Douglas MacMartin]

“Relatively recent” as in at least 4 years ago... the question posed in the 
title seems straightforward to answer, since it’s been done already a number of 
times!


MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Keith, D. W., and Jarvis, A., “Dynamics of the 
coupled human-climate system resulting from closed-loop control of solar 
geoengineering”, Climate Dynamics, 43(1-2): 243-258, 2014. (doi: 
10.1007/s00382-013-1822-9)
And about a dozen other papers.

(I should read the posted paper, though, before commenting on anything other 
than the inappropriateness of the title.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 5:48 PM
To: geoengineering 
Cc: t.bo...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: [geo] Can We Use Linear Response Theory to Assess Geoengineering 
Strategies?

Poster's note: a primer on linear response theory is available at 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_response_function - I hope that the 
corresponding author will be available to join the group and post a plain 
English summary. The application of control theory to geoengineering is IMO an 
important advance, and apparently a relatively recent one.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2018-30/esd-2018-30-AC1-supplement.pdf=en=X=8709275723963611654=AAGBfm1hG13oxCRJ0QzTgJdX4Jg-35qpxg=1=scholaralrt=tDjNe6QJ:15126857386591841230:AAGBfm3hgOHpwz-gQp1d_Wc583FiI4qafA

Can We Use Linear Response Theory to Assess Geoengineering
Strategies?

Tamás Bódai1,2, Valerio Lucarini1,2,3, and Frank Lunkeit3
1Centre for the Mathematics of Planet Earth, University of Reading, UK
2Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, UK
3CEN, Meteorological Institute, University of Hamburg, Germany
Correspondence: T. Bódai (t.bo...@reading.ac.uk)

Abstract. Geoengineering can control only some variables but not others, 
resulting in side-effects. We investigate in an
intermediate-complexity climate model the applicability of linear response 
theory to assessing a geoengineering method. The
application of response theory for the assessment methodology that we are 
proposing is two-fold. First, as a new ap-
proach, (I) we wish to assess only the best possible geoengineering scenario 
for any given circumstances. This requires
5 solving the following inverse problem. A given rise in carbon dioxide 
concentration [CO2] would result in a global climate
change with respect to an appropriate ensemble average of the surface air 
temperature ∆h[Ts]i. We are looking for a suit-
able modulation of solar forcing which can cancel out the said global change – 
the only case that we will analyse here –
or modulate it in some other desired fashion. It is rather straightforward to 
predict this solar forcing, considering an infinite
time period, by linear response theory in frequency-domain as: fs(ω) = 
(∆h[Ts]i(ω)−χg(ω)fg(ω))/χs(ω), where the χ’s are
10 linear susceptibilities; and we will spell out an iterative procedure 
suitable for numerical implementation that applies to finite
time periods too. Second, (II) to quantify side-effects using response theory, 
the response with respect to uncontreolled
observables, such as regional averages hTsi, must of course be approximately 
linear.
We find that under geoengineering in the sense of (I), i.e. the combined 
greenhouse and required solar forcing, the response
∆h[Ts]i asymptotically is actually not zero. This turns out to be not due to 
nonlinearity of the response under geoengi-
15 neering, but that the linear susceptibilities χ are not determined 
correctly. The error is in fact due to a significant quadratic
nonlinearity of the response under system identification achieved by a forced 
experiment. This nonlinear contribution can be
easily removed, which results in much better estimates of the linear 
susceptibility, and, in turn, in a five-fold reduction in
∆h[Ts]i under geoengineering. This correction improves dramatically the 
agreement of the spatial patterns of the pre-
dicted linear and true model responses (that are actually consistent with the 
findings of previous studies). However, (II)
20 due to the nonlinearity of the response with respect to local quantities, 
e.g. hTsi, even under goengineering, the linear
prediction is still erroneous. We find that in the examined model 
nonlinearities are stronger for precipitation compared
to surface air temperature.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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 

RE: [geo] Scaling

[Douglas MacMartin]

"Although the classical model implied that successive million year global 
temperature averages
would differ by mere micro Kelvins, the implausibility had not been noticed."

Uh... I thought it was pretty well known that the variance tends to continue to 
increase on longer and longer time-scales (in virtually 100% of all paleo 
climate papers), so that's a rather bizarre assertion for a paper to make.

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Adrian Tuck
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 7:31 AM
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Scaling

I suggest all modelling and experimental efforts would benefit from considering 
the implications of the attached paper.

Adrian Tuck
a.t...@imperial.ac.uk
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/atmospheric-turbulence-9780199236534?cc=gb=en;

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions

[Douglas MacMartin]

And to add to Anthony,

-Data is too limited to do what they want (really only one major 
volcanic eruption, which is confounded by an El Nino, which they try to 
subtract off of the signal by assuming that every El Nino has an identical 
effect)

-The solar dimming and many precipitation changes from an eruption are 
fast, but the temperature effect is not, so a sustained aerosol layer will have 
different effects


I and many other people told the authors about these challenges before they 
even wrote the paper, and suggested that they be more cautious in their 
description.

Reading the paper won’t help, because they don’t really tell the reader all of 
the problems with the approach; the problems aren’t in the methodology per se, 
they are in the interpretation of the results.

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2018 5:44 PM
To: RAU greg 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering 
using volcanic eruptions

Really good critique of this paper from Ant Jones on this thread 
https://twitter.com/antcjones/status/1027474182681108480?s=19

There's a series of various, severe shortcomings (adaptation deficit, no CO2 
fertilisation, no hydro cycle transients, etc.). Pretty surprising to hear this 
level of criticism on a regular paper, let alone in Nature.

Media coverage was an absolute car crash - with UK left wing newspapers 
Independent and Guardian giving coverage that was pretty much the opposite of 
the paper's (disputed) findings (no net effect became negative effect).

This very much backs up my arguments on pay walls - even I've not seen the full 
paper. The public has little hope of getting to the truth on this.

Andrew Lockley

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018, 17:15 Greg Rau, 
mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
Further discussion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/08/08/this-climate-change-hack-would-reflect-more-sunlight-not-such-a-bright-idea-study-says/?noredirect=on_term=.ca7f63bc40ba




From: Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 12:44 AM
Subject: [geo] Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using 
volcanic eruptions

Poster's note: can't read full paper but I'm interested to see how much 
adaptation it assumed

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3


[Nature]
Letter | Published: 08 August 
2018
Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic 
eruptions
·Jonathan 
Proctor,
·Solomon 
Hsiang,
·[…]
·Wolfram 
Schlenker
Nature (2018) | Download 
Citation
Abstract
Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for 
managing global 
temperatures1,2,
 yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering 
sunlight back to space remain largely 
unknown3. Although 
solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat 
stress4, the effects 
of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically 
estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar 
radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first 
estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created 
by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and 
quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global 
crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate 
aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) 
crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based 
on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first 
century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management 
are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that 
solar radiation management—if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols 
similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on 
net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. 
Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation 
management on other global 

Re: [geo] paywalls

[Douglas MacMartin]

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  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 
> 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 

RE: [geo] Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5°C Paris target

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Stephen,

The first number I found when I re-googled this was 13%, Table 1 of 
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI3972.1.  But regardless, 
since the statistics are not uniform across the ocean, the patchiness doesn’t 
average out, and I think it is fair to say that the radiative forcing from MCB 
will be more spatially heterogeneous than that from SAI, and hence there is 
more potential for the response to also be.  If the goal is to keep the climate 
as close as possible to the climate one would have had with the same global 
mean temperature but lower CO2 (certainly a plausible goal, not the only 
plausible goal), then not obvious without actually conducting research which 
method leads to better compensation; presumably a combination of MCB and SAI 
would do better than either alone (obviously).  I think we would both agree 
that it would be nice to have research so that we can start answering questions 
like this instead of just guessing.  

Agree completely that there are many more advantages and disadvantages than 
could possibly be listed in a table (we were considerably over-length as it 
was, so I wound up having to condense the table, only listing one key advantage 
or disadvantage relative to stratospheric sulfate). We were trying to keep this 
high-level and not get in to a lengthy discussion of pros and cons that is, 
unfortunately, almost entirely hypothetical at this point.  

Two major advantages of MCB that you didn’t list are:

1)  More likely to be societally acceptable (this is related to your first 
point, but different in that the perceived risk might be much more important 
than any actual risk), and

2)  More testable; as an engineer I would view that as a pretty major plus. 
 (That is, for MCB you can do a full-scale radiative forcing over a small area, 
whereas for SAI the time constants involved mean that any test that is 
“full-scale” in radiative forcing is also global, and hence not acceptable 
pre-deployment; this has implications for research strategy (paper currently 
being drafted so don’t expect to see it soon).)

Insofar as both techniques would lead to less of a temperature drop in the 
event of a volcanic eruption than would have happened absent any deployment, I 
don’t really think that’s a big advantage compared to the open question about 
how well either technique can compensate for climate change.  I also doubt that 
the fossil fuel usage to bring material to the stratosphere is a significant 
factor in choosing between them (assuming we ever are in a position to choose 
between them).  

 

doug

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 9:46 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for 
meeting the 1.5°C Paris target

 

 

Hi All

In the recent Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. special issue on Solar Geoengineering to 
meet Paris the Paris target  at
 
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/376/2119/20160454  table 1 
lists, as a disadvantage relative to stratospheric sulphur,  that marine 
stratospheric clouds cover 10% of the Earth which means that marine cloud 
brightening is ‘patchy’.  No reference to this number is given and it 
contradicts the 18% ‘low not high clouds’ mentioned by Charlson and Lovelock in 
their 1987 paper about the CLAW hypothesis and the effects of dimethyl-sulphide 
from phytoplankton.   There is also the Jones Hayward Boucher paper of 2009 
which concluded that marine cloud brightening over the best 3% of the oceans 
would offset about half the thermal damage since preindustrial times. 

However as clouds move the patchiness is smoothed out.  Furthermore the life of 
condensation nuclei will be approximately half the mean time between rain 
showers so clear skies mean longer nuclei lifetimes.  The Twomey effect is 
logarithmic so it is better to have half the dose over double the area and 
spraying under clear skies gives nuclei a chance to spread.  I argue that some 
short-term patchiness is much less serious if the patches are our patches.  
Finally the recent paper by Ahlm et al.  at doi:10.5194/aco-2107-484 suggests 
that marine cloud brightening works much better than I would have expected with 
no clouds.

The Royal Society table did not have any space for the disadvantages of 
stratospheric sulphur relative to marine cloud brightening and I am reluctant 
to knock any technology about which I am not an expert.  However if I was 
forced to suggest entries for the contents of a disadvantage table they would 
be as follows:

Nasty acid everywhere compared with medicinally beneficial salt mainly over sea.

Very little control over the areas affected.

Very long shut-down times in the event of a volcanic eruption leading to 
over-cooling.

Reflection of outgoing 

RE: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Andrew,

 

On the first one, yes, there are potentially regional applications of MCB, so 
agree with you on that.  (I don’t think there are hemispheric applications of 
SAI; that would screw a lot of people with ITCZ shift, so SAI is only global.)

 

Re the aircraft bit, no, I disagree that SAI can be done stealthily.  The 
aircraft will be different, their flight paths will be different, their 
altitude will be different, and you’d need enough flights that it would be 
pretty easy to spot the flights.  Plus, pretty easy to spot the change in 
stratospheric aerosol concentrations (though that alone wouldn’t give you the 
attribution as to who was doing it, but seeing dozens of airplanes flying up to 
the stratosphere and then landing again might be a hint…)

 

The US was able to keep stealth fighters hidden for a short while because they 
were only flown in very limited locales for limited duration; I don’t think you 
could keep aircraft that you’re constantly flying up to the 20-25km hidden.

 

So the only thing you could do stealthily is a stunt that you subsequently 
reveal for political reasons, rather than a meaningful amount of cooling.  And 
you could do that with MCB if you wanted too.

 

d

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:26 PM
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?

 

Doug

 

The governance challenges are not identical. MCB is local to regional in its 
immediate impact, potentially of use for regional climate modifications. SAI is 
hemispheric. 

 

>From an accountability point of view, MCB is more traceable. The ships are 
>slow-moving and easy to spot. They don't look like any other ships.

 

By contrast: SAI can be done stealthily, mixed up with regular air traffic, and 
with no visible plume if SO2 used. 

 

A 

 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, 20:45 Stephen Salter,  > wrote:

Andrew

I must object to your claim that the rapid control of marine cloud brightening 
is risky.

Control engineers will tell you that they like systems with a single, dominant 
phase lag. You are right in saying that the effects of marine cloud brightening 
fade quickly but the world's response is set by the very large thermal inertia 
of the oceans acting as a heat store.   This may be a bit slower than the 
effects of stratospheric sulphur on land.

An attractive feature is that we can stop the input signal very quickly 
following an unpredicted volcanic eruption or a new ice age.  We have a degree 
of local and seasonal adjustment.  We can aslo taper off in a controlled way as 
carbon removal technologies ramp up.

People who are worried about termination effects should ask whether they would 
prefer a process which was irreversible.  That would really scare me. 

May I repeat my previous observation that the loss of power generation is 
catastrophic in 20 milliseconds, the internet in two seconds, air traffic 
control in two minutes, water and sewage and food distribution in about two 
days.

Compared with these, ten years is a long time to fix or replace spray vessels.

Stephen

 

On 13/03/2018 18:43, Andrew Lockley wrote:

It's complicated to answer. The MCB fade out period is days not years, so the 
simple answer is that MCB is more risky. But the real answer depends in system 
vulnerability, which in turn depends on a complex interacting network of 
social, political and technical risks 

 

Andrew 

 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, 18:30 E Durbrow,  > wrote:

Would some kind person tell me if I got these claims wrong? 

 

Marine Cloud Brightening and Stratospheric Aerosol SRM are *not* equivalently 
risky.

 

While both have the possibility of termination shock and regional variation, 
these two risks are lower in MCB. 

 

I’m worried that the discussion on termination shock is treating all SRM 
methods as equivalent…

 

Thanks for pointing me to a publication indicating that MCB and 
Stratospheric/High Altitude SRM are roughly equally risky.

 

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

RE: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?

[Douglas MacMartin]

I partly disagree; the physical aspects of termination shock for both are 
probably to first order nearly identical.

In both cases the speed of the “shock” will be dominated by the time it takes 
for the climate to warm up (measured in years), though the change in radiative 
forcing will certainly be slower with stratospheric aerosols, that’s likely a 
second order effect (mostly gone in a year, so much shorter than the climate 
response time, though I might be wrong when it comes to thinking about 
adjustments to regional precipitation patterns.  Also does mean that one could 
probably more easily tolerate short-term disruptions with strat aer).  I 
completely agree that the really inportant differences will be in the actual 
sociotechnical deployment system (which might be more naturally distributed for 
MCB, which might mean lower probability of completely stopping but higher 
probability of regional disruptions leading to possibly serious regional 
consequences, but that’s pretty much pure off-the-cuff speculation).

More broadly, to first order I think the physical-climate challenges from the 
two approaches are fairly distinct (we shouldn’t lump them) while the 
societal/governance challenges are almost completely identical (we should lump 
them).

(Though before Steven Salter chimes in, both the societal acceptance questions 
and the fact that they’ll likely lead to different regional climate impacts 
will impact the ease or difficulty of governance, though while I can guess 
which of the two would be more socially acceptable in principle, my guess on 
which will lead to more significant regional differences that lead to 
governance challenges would be MCB, but that’s a much less confident guess.)

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:44 PM
To: durbrow 
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?

It's complicated to answer. The MCB fade out period is days not years, so the 
simple answer is that MCB is more risky. But the real answer depends in system 
vulnerability, which in turn depends on a complex interacting network of 
social, political and technical risks

Andrew

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, 18:30 E Durbrow, 
> wrote:
Would some kind person tell me if I got these claims wrong?

Marine Cloud Brightening and Stratospheric Aerosol SRM are *not* equivalently 
risky.

While both have the possibility of termination shock and regional variation, 
these two risks are lower in MCB.

I’m worried that the discussion on termination shock is treating all SRM 
methods as equivalent…

Thanks for pointing me to a publication indicating that MCB and 
Stratospheric/High Altitude SRM are roughly equally risky.

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?

[Douglas MacMartin]

 

I partly disagree; the physical aspects of termination shock for both are 
probably to first order nearly identical.  

 

In both cases the speed of the “shock” will be dominated by the time it takes 
for the climate to warm up (measured in years), though the change in radiative 
forcing will certainly be slower with stratospheric aerosols, that’s likely a 
second order effect (mostly gone in a year, so much shorter than the climate 
response time, though I might be wrong when it comes to thinking about 
adjustments to regional precipitation patterns.  Also does mean that one could 
probably more easily tolerate short-term disruptions with strat aer).  I 
completely agree that the really inportant differences will be in the actual 
sociotechnical deployment system (which might be more naturally distributed for 
MCB, which might mean lower probability of completely stopping but higher 
probability of regional disruptions leading to possibly serious regional 
consequences, but that’s pretty much pure off-the-cuff speculation).

 

More broadly, to first order I think the physical-climate challenges from the 
two approaches are fairly distinct (we shouldn’t lump them) while the 
societal/governance challenges are almost completely identical (we should lump 
them).  

 

(Though before Steven Salter chimes in, both the societal acceptance questions 
and the fact that they’ll likely lead to different regional climate impacts 
will impact the ease or difficulty of governance, though while I can guess 
which of the two would be more socially acceptable in principle, my guess on 
which will lead to more significant regional differences that lead to 
governance challenges would be MCB, but that’s a much less confident guess.)

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com   
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:44 PM
To: durbrow  >
Cc: geoengineering  >
Subject: Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?

 

It's complicated to answer. The MCB fade out period is days not years, so the 
simple answer is that MCB is more risky. But the real answer depends in system 
vulnerability, which in turn depends on a complex interacting network of 
social, political and technical risks

 

Andrew 

 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, 18:30 E Durbrow,  > wrote:

Would some kind person tell me if I got these claims wrong? 

 

Marine Cloud Brightening and Stratospheric Aerosol SRM are *not* equivalently 
risky.

 

While both have the possibility of termination shock and regional variation, 
these two risks are lower in MCB. 

 

I’m worried that the discussion on termination shock is treating all SRM 
methods as equivalent…

 

Thanks for pointing me to a publication indicating that MCB and 
Stratospheric/High Altitude SRM are roughly equally risky.

 

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] RE: Having to decide

[Douglas MacMartin]

Apologies for being too quick and conciliatory in my attempt to find common 
ground with Wil.  

 

Also realize, for the record, I meant to agree with Wil in acknowledging that 
those advocating for SRM research can inadvertently come across at times as 
painting a future story in which non-SRM is unacceptable, and therefore come 
across as biased, I did not mean to suggest in any way that Andy or Pete were 
guilty of that, I was just agreeing that the discourse can at times come across 
that way (and I might point out that Wil is doing exactly the same thing, just 
with the opposite sign).   Specific to Andy and Pete’s work, I don’t get how 
recognizing that a risk can be reduced constitutes advocacy of SRM.  Ultimately 
we need to think seriously about all of the risks on both sides. 

 

Regarding my turn of phrase, best is probably to just delete it rather than 
over-think it.  

1.  I don’t think that the climate changes similar to what we are 
experiencing today being likely to trigger anyone justifying deploying SRM, no 
matter how much we know about SRM.  That is, I don’t see anyone being faced 
with feeling pressure to decide today, or ever if climate change doesn’t get 
worse (which, of course, it will).

2.  Yes, it is plausible that some mix of luck and a vast immediate change 
in policy then climate changes might be kept to a point where at least for my 
lifetime they won’t be too bad.  I happen to think this is pretty unlikely, but 
my assessment of probability is irrelevant.  If it becomes clear that we will 
stay below 2C without SRM, then maybe (depending on what a 2C world actually 
looks like) no-one ever thinks seriously about deploying SRM.

3.  What I think is more likely is that some mix of (i) it is clear we 
won’t keep CO2 levels sufficiently low and (ii) climate damages are going to be 
much more substantial than they are today, is the trigger that causes “people” 
to take SRM more seriously.   

4.  So my guess would be “having to decide” has far more to do with what 
not-doing-SRM looks like than what doing-SRM looks like.

5.  And, like 100% of other things in the world, there is no one actor who 
decides things.  Maybe it goes through UNFCCC.  Maybe it’s more analogous to 
multiple developed countries agreeing to put sanctions on Iran.  

 

Sure, it would be great if there was some nice consensus based approach where 
everyone in the world had their voice and participated and everyone came to a 
rational evidence-based agreement on how much to do and how, but I don’t think 
that’s the way much of anything gets done in the world, and don’t see why this 
would be any different.  Or, for that matter, why we should wring our hands 
about that and say that if we can’t imagine a perfect governance system then we 
should throw out SRM.  

 

Bottom line, as Andy pointed out to me a few weeks ago, is that we try (or some 
of us do) on the physical-climate-impacts side to be clear about whether we’re 
comparing climate impacts with SRM to (i) the same temperature achieved with 
lower atmospheric CO2 or (ii) the same atmospheric CO2 with higher temperature. 
 Both are interesting, but ONLY doing (i) suggests a framing of SRM as an 
alternative rather than a supplement.  Same holds on the governance side.  
Sure, SRM governance looks really hard compared to current climate situation, 
but that isn’t necessarily the right comparison.  Governance of climate changes 
*without* SRM might be even harder still, indeed, it may be that the easiest 
way to govern climate risks is to agree to use SRM.  Which, ultimately, is what 
I suspect is most likely to trigger a decision to use SRM (rather than some dry 
drawn-out international discussion of 1.5 or 2C targets).  Once one has passed 
the binary question of deploying or not deploying, then there’s more detail on 
how and what target, but at least we already have international experience on 
that sort of thing.  (See, e.g., Paris agreement targets.)

 

(Sorry for the long answer, but my last one was too short.)

 

doug

 

From: Oliver Morton [mailto:olivermor...@economist.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 3:42 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org>
Subject: Having to decide

 

In his response to Wil Burns's post over the CDR group (which I hope is now 
being cross posted here) Doug MacMartin writes:

 

>>>>we really need to mitigate and develop/deploy CDR at scale, and then if we 
>>>>work hard enough and we’re also lucky then we won’t be faced with having to 
>>>>decide about this. 

 

which is a turn of phrase I was interested by. What do people think it means, 
in this case, to "have to decide". if people, or states party, or the UN, or 
some other entity does not  have to decide now, what change would mean that it 
would have to decide. 

 

(Note that this is separate from &qu

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Douglas MacMartin]

Well, yes, no-one would deploy any form of SRM based on today’s knowledge, 
that’s why we need more research.  

 

But I don’t get why people have to make this all into some competition.  CDR 
and SRM are different.  They don’t do the same thing to the climate.  Words 
like “best” only make sense when comparing things that are at some level 
substitutable.  We may well need both, just like you don’t choose between 
ambulances and fire trucks and label one of them “by far the best approach”

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Leon Di Marco
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 5:48 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Im afraid that both of these replies illustrate the problems associated with 
SRM in the form of MCB.We simply dont know what the effect of the large 
scale (ie sufficient to have noticeable effect) implementation of any SRM 
technique will be and the public will not be impressed by these arguments.  I 
agree with the thrust of Renaud's comment on the hierarchy of response with CDR 
being by far the best approach.  What constitutes an emergency sufficient to 
employ SRM remains to be seen.

LDM 

 

 

 

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd wrote:

Hi all, 

 

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.   
With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.  

 

Best, 

Dan 




--
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 

 
Albany, NY 12210 

 

518-434-0873

 

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gunderson, Ryan 
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff 
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart , Brian Craig Petersen 




Hi Dan,

 

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st century. 
Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself from 
research too much.

 

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly consistent: 
economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that there are moral 
cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re pushing catches on: 
GE-is-a 
tool-for-climate-justice-and-opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. 
Biotech pushes the same narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems 
that the fossil fuel industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE 
supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE scientists 
are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction between subjective 
intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and unintended outcomes and 
social structure on the other. For example, in the unlikely case that every 
current GE scientist that reads our paper were convinced that GE is a tool for 
the reproduction of capitalism and detrimental to mitigation (though from your 
review of the listserv's reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other 
bodies and minds will fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may 
be a fringe science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of 
fossil fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost 
fated if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the 
intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I 
teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass on 
facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the world in 
new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these intentions, 
is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are punished if they 
don’t show up on time and follow directions.

 

Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the paper 
was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear as 
possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of nearly 
all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence and 
appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form since 
Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and committed to the 
goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap so I’m going to read 
further” doesn’t fit. Historically, scientists have 

RE: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Ryan, and all,

 

Thanks for all of this.  I agree (and I think everyone is aware of the concern) 
that there is the potential for vested fossil fuel interests to seize on SRM as 
an excuse to avoid regulation – we saw that in Lamar Smith’s comments before 
the hearing last year (I don’t recall that he actually stayed to listen to the 
hearing, since all 4 of us repeated the fact that you can’t do that anyway, but 
I doubt that would have mattered).

 

There were certainly a few connections people mentioned that I was unaware of 
(Shell funding some CDR) or had forgotten about (like Steve Koonin, my former 
provost, who had some passing interest and also had a brief stint at BP).  But 
all incredibly minor contributors to the subject.  I was simply reacting, as is 
Jesse, to the assertion in the email thread that they “fund many GE supporters” 
in the present tense.  Indeed, I think it is far more striking observation that 
the precise opposite is true – that at least as far as SRM is concerned, within 
a rounding error 100% of the interest, and even without a rounding error 100% 
of the research funding comes from people committed to mitigation.  Indeed, 
given that history, that might give some of us more hope for the future 
interests as well.

 

As a minor point, Jesse already pointed out that Tillerson’s comment wasn’t 
about GE, but I’d also point out that you can’t use the fact that Ken and Bala 
used to work at Livermore as some mysterious connection to vested interests; 
Livermore has a great climate group that has been instrumental in CMIP and 
hence in IPCC, so by that argument you’d also have to assert that fossil fuel 
interests support climate science. 

 

doug

 

From: Gunderson, Ryan [mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 7:29 AM
To: Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>
Cc: m...@clivehamilton.com; Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>; Douglas 
MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Dear Jesse,

I assume and hope that the majority GE scientists also support mitigation.  
Certainly the most prominent do. 

Regarding the comment about GE as a "project of the right": As I mentioned in 
one of the emails with Dan, the concrete intentions (and I'd include political 
priorities here) of GE scientists may be relatively unimportant. What is more 
consequential, in my opinion, is what happens to GE in social, political, and 
economic context.  And why GE will likely pick up steam due to this context.  
Our paper tries to highlight these social conditions as well as the types of 
justifications that appeal to powerful interests.  If the fossil fuel industry, 
climate change denialists like the Heartland Institute, and the GOP embrace GE, 
for example, it's worth asking why this is the case. (This does not mean that 
only the right supports GE research or deployment, or that something is "bad" 
just because the right supports it.  The right here is just meant to signify a 
group that best represents captial's interest in $ > burn fossil fuels > $$ > 
burn fossil fuels > $$$.)  I assume that the majority of GE scientists would 
argue that GE without mitigation is a problematic way forward (ocean 
acidification etc.).  Despite this, one should still try to understand the 
large appeal GE has to those who have a vested interest in burning fossil fuels 
to accumulate capital.  To me, the issue is "structural" - our paper is not an 
attempt to blame GE scientists for the prospects of deployment.

 

Take care,

Ryan 




--
Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology & Gerontology
Miami University

rgsoc.blogspot.com <http://rgsoc.blogspot.com> 

 

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl 
<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uu.nl> > wrote:

Folks:

 

That “infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson” was about adaptation, not 
geoengineering: “And as human beings as a — as a — as a species, that’s why 
we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we 
will adapt to this.  Changes to weather patterns that move crop production 
areas around -- we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it has 
engineering solutions.” 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/rex-tillersons-view-of-climate-change-its-just-an-engineering-problem/
 

To my knowledge, Tillerson has never said a single word about geoengineering. 

 

The other purported connections – including those in the 2014 Hamilton essay 
that Ryan posted – are generally old, tenuous, and with CDR.

 

Anyone familiar with the geoengineering discourse could make a list of who have 
moved it substantially forward. Off the top of my head, I’d suggest Paul 
Crutzen, the US N

RE: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Douglas MacMartin]

Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:

 

The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry is 
supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE is 
that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone 
actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there any 
support for that assertion?

 

I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever met 
one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific community).  I 
really do wish people would distinguish between “supports doing research so we 
can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.  

 

doug

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
To: geoengineering ; gunde...@miamioh.edu; 
brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
Subject: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Hi all, 

 

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.   
With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.  

 

Best, 

Dan 




--
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 

 
Albany, NY 12210 

 

518-434-0873  

 

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gunderson, Ryan  >
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff  >
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart  >, 
Brian Craig Petersen  >



Hi Dan,

 

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st century. 
Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself from 
research too much.

 

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly consistent: 
economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that there are moral 
cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re pushing catches on: 
GE-is-a 
tool-for-climate-justice-and-opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. 
Biotech pushes the same narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems 
that the fossil fuel industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE 
supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE scientists 
are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction between subjective 
intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and unintended outcomes and 
social structure on the other. For example, in the unlikely case that every 
current GE scientist that reads our paper were convinced that GE is a tool for 
the reproduction of capitalism and detrimental to mitigation (though from your 
review of the listserv's reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other 
bodies and minds will fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may 
be a fringe science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of 
fossil fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost 
fated if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the 
intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I 
teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass on 
facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the world in 
new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these intentions, 
is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are punished if they 
don’t show up on time and follow directions.

 

Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the paper 
was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear as 
possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of nearly 
all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence and 
appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form since 
Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and committed to the 
goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap so I’m going to read 
further” doesn’t fit. Historically, scientists have read philosophy closely. If 
Einstein could 

RE: [geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Peter – you should replace every use of the words “can” and “will” below with 
something like “have been projected to” and “may”.

 

If you do that, I’ll agree with you.  As written, I disagree.  Neither you nor 
anyone else has proven that DAC *will* have costs below $50/ton, and I don’t 
think it helps make risk-balanced decisions to suggest that we know with 
certainty that this will be possible.  

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:10 AM
To: Andrew Lockley 
Cc: Leon Di Marco ; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

 

As I have written frequently our company Global Thermostat  has developed a DAC 
technology that can at scale have costs under $50 per tonne and which can be 
converted into carbon intensive products like carbon fiber , plastics and 
cement at a profit whch will drive their costs down like solar and will replace 
oil as a feedstock.

An example of this is New Light Plastics and many other startups are working on 
using CO2 as a feedsock . Another interesting technology is OPUS 12 . 

Like solar the market place will decide. At $50 dollars per tonne the carbon 
content is equivalent to $23 dollars a barrel of oil.   

 

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Andrew Lockley  > wrote:

Respectfully, the facts contradict these assertions.

 

Swanson's law has predicted the falling costs of solar energy for decades. It 
is broadly reliable in the face of any individual government initiatives - most 
of which are very limited in scope.

 

Likewise, gas uptake has been driven largely by market forces - such as the US 
fracking boom (supply side), and the use of central heating systems (demand 
side). Gas, more generally, is a sticking-plaster solution. Unless rising 
population, industrialisation and per-capita energy demand are addressed, it 
doesn't amount to a sustainable solution.

 

My personal opinion remains that CDR is wholly impractical for use at scale, 
for historical emissions. I'd say we're 40+ years off it being affordable - but 
I'm open to challenge. 

 

A 

 

On 17 Jan 2018 02:12, "Leon Di Marco"  > wrote:

AL says above-

 

"Firstly, there has been no meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions, as a result 
of government policies. Almost all the reduction in the developed world has 
come from a switch to gas, and from offshoring heavy industries. 

 

Unless we have a wholesale shift in the taxation system, from income/profit to 
carbon, government will remain irrelevant in the global warming debate (other 
than a funder of basic research)."

 

The switch from coal to gas in Europe was as a direct result of govt policy, 
such as the EU Large Plant Directive, a specifically designed regulation.   
Similarly the Chinese govt is mandating coal plants to shut down

 

Govt is key to the advance of CDR through the IPCC process.  Both tailored 
regulation and some sort of incremental carbon price are an inevitable 
intergovernmental response to the Paris Agreement NDCs and the new Special 
Report on the effect of 1.5C.  Govts will undoubtedly have to intervene with 
support for early state development and implementation

 

We are already seeing nascent approaches to CDR policy by the California State 
govt through the proposed new CAFE car emissions standard, and by Rhode Island 
in its putative "Climate Change Moonshot Initiative".

 

There is no reasonable likelihood that Free Enterprise will get the job on the 
road without intervention.  And CDR is essential to stabilise temperature, 
lower ocean temperature and acidification etc.  Low carbon energy sources such 
as solar and wind will not do this on their own.  And it will take a long time 
to shut down currently operating fossil power plants.

 

While I agree that the price reductions in solar and wind will eventually kill 
of coal and gas, it should be remembered that the solar revolution was based on 
3 govt initiatives-

1German Feed In Tariffs

3 Prof Martin Green at the Uni of New South Wales Australia who trained 
Chinese graduates in advanced solar manufacturing 

2Chinese Local govt investment in large integrated solar plants run by 
Martin Green's students

 

Martin Green describes the process in his youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09CHkqQIA-A


 Martin Green - 40 years of PV research at UNSW


So  AL may be right that  - "Accordingly, GHG emissions will be minimal 
mid-century"  , but the damage will have been done

 

 

Leon Di Marco

FSK Technology Research

LONDON UK

 

  

 

 


On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 6:51:01 PM UTC, lou.delbello wrote:

Dear all

 

As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a selected 

RE: [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

[Douglas MacMartin]

I don’t see this as “secretive”.  Peer review has its problems, but on the 
whole I’d rather see stuff peer reviewed before being made public, at least 
when there is likely to be public attention.

 

The first order draft had no shortage of factual errors; wouldn’t you rather 
make sure that things are correct before being released to the public and media 
(who don’t necessarily have the perspective to judge for themselves)?

 

I think it is generally the norm in science that you wait for the peer review 
before you publicly declare results (remember cold fusion anyone?)  I’ve never 
heard anyone accuse that process of secrecy before.

 

doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of lou del bello
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 10:38 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

 

Dear all

 

As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a selected 
group of scientists and policymakers, has been leaked to the press 
 .

I was wondering what you make of the story: I am writing an article about it 
and looking for an expert take.

 

Mainly from a media point of view I think it would be interesting to explain 
why the IPCC is quite secretive about this report, which is an opportunity to 
introduce its political relevance, as well as scientific.

 

 

Best,

 

 

Lou

 

-- 

Lou Del Bello

 

Mobile UK +44 (0)7900632250

 

 

Multimedia journalist 

@loudelbello








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [CDR] Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

[Douglas MacMartin]

Actually it’s much simpler than that.  Most of the people running IAMs don’t 
have DAC in their models at all, or if they do, at a price that would lead to 
it’s being used.  Don’t forget that the current set of publications pointing 
out the problems with BECCS are essentially criticizing IAM simulations from 
5-10 years ago.  I suspect that there’s a lot more research dollars going into 
DAC than into BECCS (insofar as I’m not aware of anyone funding the latter).  

 

And please don’t insult people that you don’t know.  Jennifer is a wonderful 
and very intelligent and competent and knowledgeable person.  If you were 
responding directly to her, that sort of unnecessary ad hominem attack of 
putting “specialist” in quotes should get you blocked from posting to these 
groups.  Would you have insulted her if she was still at Stanford?  Would you 
be willing to insult her to her face?

 

d

 

From: 'Maggie Zhou' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
[mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 2:27 AM
To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; len2...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering ; Carbon Dioxide Removal 

Subject: [CDR] Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and 
grazing on global vegetation biomass.

 

Responsing to Peter Eisenberger's question as to why the obvious necessity of 
DAC, and the superiority of DAC over BECCS has been so long obfuscated (and 
continues to be), I point to the obvious link of BECCS to the coal industry - 
as I understand it, biomass is expected to be only part of the feedstock in 
BECCS, the rest is fossil fuel.

 

I note that this "specialist" Jennifer Wilcox for example, whom Leon quoted 
with frustration, is of Colorado School of Mines.

 

Generally, if you look at all the "climate solutions" that have received 
prominent attention by congress and the large, foundation funded NGO groups 
that lobbied intensively for them, they're all pseudo solutions peddled to 
profit some industry or other.  The much better alternatives that have been 
ignored are the ones that benefits the climate, the planet, but not some 
industry waiting to make a big buck.  Cap-and-trade (profiting Wall Street 
traders among others) vs. carbon tax is one such example.

 

Maggie

 

On Friday, January 5, 2018 4:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger 
 > wrote:

 

Leon 

 I really appreciate your statement and would like your and others views why 
these straighforward truths are having so much difficulty being adopted. I feel 
helpless watching us waste valuable time and knowing the risk of severe 
consequences for our children caused by our delay. What will our children say 
about the scientific community that knew or should have known better to avoid 
the destruction. Will there fairly or unfairly be trials for experts who 
misinformed the institutions that rely on them . As I have written before I 
wish I was not involved in DAC so that I could effectively argue for its 
important (necessary ) role in our response.  To soften this depressing view it 
is true that CDR is gaining markedly increased support and there are an 
increasing group of people like you who have 

made a sound analysis and recognize the need for DAC and its ability to be 
affordable. I must also admit to some discomfort as a scientist to making such 
definitive statements on a subject of this complexity.  But I feel justified 
because  I have taught a course at Columbia for over 10 years on Closing the 
Carbon Cycle . In preparing the course the need for CDR (then called negative 
carbon) became very clear even in 2009 -see attached paper. It is that 
analysis, which infact underestimates the oveshoot and need for CDR ,  that led 
me to attempt to develop a DAC technology. 

 

In spite of these intense feelings Iam not interested in recriminations and 
blame but rather can our understanding of the failure to date to communicate 
the need for DAC help us develop an approach that will get our planet on a 
scientifically defensible path for addressing the climate change threat . The 
National Academy study is one such opportunity, the Pacala statement is 
welcomed ,   as are as you mention upcoming meetings. The Virgin Prize is a 
potential opportunity but it has yet to be shown that their experts are 
different than those in the APS study or IPCC.  Some have suggested to me in 
hearing my concern that we should go directly to the young people and try and 
create pressure from the people because of the apparent failure of the 
scientific establishment to provide effective leadership. . 

 

I am open to all suggestions and will commit personal effort to ideas that 
might be effective.  Just remember if those who have the capacity to understand 
do not act nothing will happen and the one thing we do not have is time to 
waste.  . 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 

RE: [geo] SAI engineering costs - Aurora 2?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Andrew,

 

The only person I know looking at any of this is Wake, whom you know.

 

Re altitude and latitude, short answer is that we don’t know, but seems pretty 
likely that (a) should inject away from the equator (15-30 degrees, and 
essential to be both NH and SH) and (b) not right above the tropopause but a 
few km above it (to get into the upper branch of the BDC).  

 

doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 6:04 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] SAI engineering costs - Aurora 2?

 

List, 

 

It's been a while since the Aurora report on SAI costs, and it's really time 
for an update. Is anyone working on this? It needs to be done. I might publish 
a short qualitative review, if nobody is doing it properly. 

 

Here's how I see the technology landscape :

 

Aircraft : the favoured short term option of new engines for business jets has 
been shown to be non viable. This means a new aircraft design is needed. Some 
undergraduates from Delft came up with a design, but projected engineering 
costs are high (100m). Distribution using airliners has been shown to be 
non-viable, as expected. 

 

Rockets : SpaceX and blue origin have shown that reusable rockets are far more 
affordable than was previously acknowledged. Their use has never been formally 
considered for geoengineering. 

 

Airships : hybrid air vehicles and NG have got next generation airships 
working. The technology is maturing, but effects on projected costs for 
high-flying craft is unknown

 

Guns : aurora's report ignored gas guns and reusable shells. Utron built a 
technology demonstration of a gas gun, but folded AFAIK. Railgun technology 
proceeds apace, but there is no sign that wear issues are surmountable for 
frequent use. 

 

Maglev & Coil guns : no direct development has proceeded to my knowledge. 
However, development of Hyperloop technologies show this technology to be a 
potential wild card. 

 

Static Balloons : research into appropriate active ingredients and carrier 
fluids have shown significant restrictions on the viability of the approach. 
I'm not sure sure it's a show stopper, but it's not good news.

 

In general, I'm unclear on the current state-of-the-art regarding injection 
loci, but AFAIK it's believed that Brewer Dobson distribution is not favoured - 
meaning more varied, and higher altitude injections are needed.

 

The engineering of geoengineering has been overlooked for too long and it's 
time to start serious study. 

 

A

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] bill proposing NAS study on geoengineering

[Douglas MacMartin]

FYI; McNerney (D-CA) was the main person pushing for the US house hearing last 
month; this bill asks the National Academies to look at governance and research 
needs.  (This would be purely on the solar geoengineering side, to complement 
the existing NAS study on CDR.)

 


 

 Rep. McNerney Introduces Groundbreaking Geoengineering Bill 

EastCountyToday (press release) (blog) 

The legislation, cosponsored by SST Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, would 
commission the National Academies of Science (NAS) to produce two reports 
recommending a geoengineering research strategy and oversight principles for 
such research. These reports would build on two ...


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Flag as irrelevant 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Douglas MacMartin]

Peter, 

 

I’d just add to Mike’s point that the specific wording of yours that I 
explicitly disagree with is the word “priority”.  To me, that suggests, well, a 
prioritization… that is, we should focus on DAC to the exclusion of other 
approaches.  If you think we should consider all of the available options, and 
invest in all of them, then you shouldn’t use the word priority, nor say things 
like “The BEST  path to address the threat of catastrophic climate change 
involves DAC with permeant storage”

 

Personally, I think we need a portfolio of options, and we shouldn’t ignore any 
of them (and if you said we could only prioritize one thing, I would rather 
strongly vote for mitigation).  DAC and SRM are different tools in the toolbox, 
and as Mike points out, the “best” solution quite possibly involves both of 
them, along with aggressive mitigation, and maybe along with other methods for 
CDR.  That is quite a different statement from stating that one particular 
approach is the best, and that one particular approach should be prioritized.

 

Two other comments: 

 

Right now the sum total US federal research on SRM is, within a rounding error, 
zero.  So no, it is not only DAC that is receiving no funding.  Funding right 
now for DAC I suspect outweighs funding for SRM if you include philanthropic.

 

Also note that you attribute to me “So the only reason I am writing about this 
is because I do not think we should delay investing in DAC till as you say Once 
we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and proven it to be 
low cost with no side effects”.  I don’t think it is possible to demonstrate 
DAC at Gt scale without investing in it, so I don’t know how you could read my 
email and conclude that I believe we should delay investing in DAC.

 

doug

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; Michael Hayes 
<voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; David 
Keith <david_ke...@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate 
Change - Scientific American

 

Dear Peter--The IPCC FOD (first order draft) of the 1.5 C special report is 
what is really concerning me. 

First, they label their emissions pathways by the end point temperature that 
they are aiming for a century or so in the future; thus a 1.5 C pathway is 
aiming at 1.5 C, but there is wide recognition and apparent acceptance that the 
temperature path will overshoot not just 1.5 or 2 C, but could well go a good 
bit over 3 C before the forcings are brought back down enough (via negative 
emissions, etc.) to get back to 1.5 C. Well, right now, simulations by Climate 
Interactive etc. have the world exceeding 2 C by 2050 and headed up a good bit 
further. So, we'll be having all this talk about being on 1.5 pathways when in 
reality the impacts will be primarily determined by the peak temperature, say 3 
or 3.5 C, and some, like biodiversity loss and acceleration of ice sheet loss 
(and perhaps ocean acidification effects) are not really going to be 
reversible. Well, I just don't see emissions as likely to be cut fast enough or 
DAC as being phased up fast enough to prevent this, and I think the 
temperature/climate induced impacts are only likely to be able to be avoided 
with SRM, so it is needed in the near-term, and until emissions cuts and DAC 
can take over.

My second problem with the IPCC FOD 1.5 report is that it basically accepts 
(based on no scientific evidence--only that negotiators chose that value as an 
aspirational goal) as the agreed upon long-term equilibrium temperature for 
society. In my view (not to mention the views of others), that is just too high 
a value. As Hansen et al. have argued, some long-term impacts like accelerating 
glacial ice loss and intensifying climate extremes, for example, started once 
we passed 0.5 C, so what we really need to do is get to below this value for 
the long-term (and some argue 0.5 C would be too high if one wants to really 
freeze stop the glacial loss (if that is possible). Well, while SRM could get 
us that cool, we really have to be working to phase out SRM, and so DAC is 
critical and is, as you suggest, the way to really not be creating other 
impacts in the long-term. But, it is going to take time to get there, and 
during this time, SRM has the potential to, with I think what might well be 
pretty modest negative impacts, to be holding down the climate change impacts 
until DAC is adequately phased up.

What I think about your response that might rub those of us responding to you 
is the implication that DAC can do everything needed--well, with really 
tremendous cost, it could (starting now, to keep the temperature from not go

RE: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Douglas MacMartin]

Peter,

 

Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and proven it 
to be low cost with no side effects, then I would agree that we can stop 
researching other options.  Until then I think it is premature to declare that 
we have found the solution and can ignore every other option.  I know you 
disagree with me, but I do not think that we know what the costs of a 
technology are going to be when we haven’t implemented it at even a tiny 
fraction of a meaningful scale.  I’m not convinced that it will be as cheap as 
you believe it to be, but furthermore, it is not possible for you to convince 
me without demonstrating both removal and storage at Gt scale; sorry, but I’ve 
been an engineer all my life and have seen my share of overconfident 
predictions (and probably safe to say zero accurate predictions at this stage 
of technology development), and I simply don’t believe that it is theoretically 
possible to accurately predict costs and issues to sufficient accuracy without 
actually doing something.

 

Therefore I don’t understand why you insist on picking the right solution today 
and stopping all research on all other solutions.  I don’t view this as a 
competition.

 

At any rate, if you have any concern about nonlinearities and tipping points, 
you should strongly support research into SRM, as that’s a pretty strong 
argument in favour of it.  We don’t know what would happen if we allowed the 
planet to keep warming, but we’re a lot less likely to pass major earth system 
tipping points if we keep the system “closer” to the current state.  That is, 
of course it is almost trivially true that a world that is say 1.5C (just to 
use the Paris number, not endorsing it) due only to CO2 is less risky than a 
world that would have been 3C due to CO2 but is brought back to 1.5C with SRM.  
But that second scenario is quite likely to be less risky than allowing a 3C 
world.  Although we don’t actually know that today, not without further 
research.  So I’m not sure why you’re so vehemently opposed to any further 
research into SRM… which is how I interpret your comments.

 

doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:48 AM
To: Michael Hayes 
Cc: geoengineering ; David Keith 

Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate 
Change - Scientific American

 

Vocanic euptions have impacts that are much more imporant than their transitory 
impact on climate. Their most significant role is in replenishing critcal 
elements to preserve the fertiliity of the soil. 

This in turn of course raises the issue of what the impact will be of human 
efforts to do SRM on the rest of the ecosystems. This in turn is the cause for 
concern about unexpected consequences and a concern that cannot be addressed 

by theory or experiment because complex systems evolution is not predictable 
and we only have one planet. The important aspect of climate change from a risk 
perspective  is not the first order linear responses but rather whether one 
crosses some tipping point where the internal feedbacks drive the system to a 
very different and usually catastrophic state. Such tipping points are an 
inherent property of both the climate and the ecosystems and ala the butterfly 
effect are inherently unpredictable. 

Thus the real issue is not how SRM is like volcanoes but rather what are the 
unintended feedback from SRM.  As a physicist ,and not a DAC advocate,  the 
fact is that DAC with permanent storage is the path to address the risk of 
catastrophic climate change that has the lowest risk of triggering adverse 
impacts compared to alternatives when  implemented at a global scale for any 
signiifcant period of time. 

 

It is clear to that all of us share the goal of wanting to prevent the 
consequences of catastrophic climate change. So in the positive spirit of 
tryimg to develop a consencus ageneda  I assert 

 

The BEST  path to address the threat of catastrophic climate change involves 
DAC with permeant storage -it is necessary .

 

 I respectfully ask for resposes to this assertion and that we  have a 
constructive dialoque to see if if stands up to scrutiny.   I do not want to be 
asserting an incorect postion but I do want our community 

to develop a clear science based consencus for the best actions to take. 

 

Again to be  clear I personally support R on SRM but in the context that DAC 
with permanent storage is the clear priority. If my assertion is wrong and in 
fact we have no low risk and cost path to addressing the risk than of course 
SRM would have a high priority and I would want us  to be asserting that . 

 

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Michael Hayes  > wrote:

Sentinel-SP5 feed:

[geo] Chemtrailers...

[Douglas MacMartin]

I don't know if this was a good idea or not to respond bluntly to Dane.  The
right answer is probably to just delete all of the garbage emails, since
responding generally only brings more.  Though my inbox is kind of filled
with crap from these folks anyway, so can't get worse, right?  I guess some
people thought that congress holding a hearing was proof that the US
government was deploying geoengineering.

 

(Last time I interacted with Dane, he edited my emails to remove my answers
to his questions, then posted them on his website to show that I refused to
answer his questions.  And he also edited out all the hate-spewing nonsense
from his own emails to make it look like he was charming and I was a jerk.
Which is why my conclusion is that he knows full well that he's making stuff
up.)

 

From: Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
To: Dane Wigington <da...@frontier.com>; ShadowsFall1
<shadowsfa...@protonmail.com>
Cc: macma...@caltech.edu; i...@garynull.com
Subject: RE: Geoengineering

 

Ah, Dane.  You are an odd character.  

 

Anyway, you have precisely the same odds of exposing me for a climate
engineering coverup as I do of exposing you for starting world war one, and
for precisely the same reason.

 

So, if you have any integrity left in you at all, you should actually post
this on your website this time, unlike the last time where you deliberately
removed any information from my emails that would expose you for what you
are, and blocked me from commenting on your website to correct the
information there.

 

1.  All aircraft exhaust contains water vapour (a byproduct of
combusting hydrocarbons) and particulates.  In the right conditions these
form contrails, as anyone with access to the internet can learn quickly (I
think persistent ones are about 15% of the time, if I recall right).  Anyone
who thinks that high bypass ratio engines are somehow immune to this doesn't
understand contrail formation (it's about the same as saying red cars don't
need gasoline).  So, hypothesis #1 is that clouds are made of water, and
hypothesis #2 is that there is some vast conspiracy involving a few hundred
thousand people; I'll let you judge for yourself which is more likely.
Further, taking pictures of contrails doesn't prove that they aren't
contrails any more than taking pictures of a tree proves it isn't a tree.
So. zero evidence presented here, lets move on.

2.  People have found contaminants in soil.  Ok. and the connection is?
If you claim that anything found in soil could only have come from a
deliberate coverup and no other cause, you should apply your own logic to
acorns.  I don't know where things like barium come from, my guess would be
industrial pollution, but I don't know.  So. zero evidence presented here
(and I'm not sure what this has to do with anything else anyway), lets move
on.

3.  There are patents and previous programs in weather modification,
which Dane has successfully found (they are all public, after all, so it
doesn't take much research to find them).  Yup, we all agree.  I have no
idea if any of it still goes on in the US or not, I know China still does.
(Spraying things like silver iodide to seed clouds and make it rain, I've
been told it doesn't really work.)  So. nothing new here, and zero evidence
presented that this has anything to do with climate engineering.  I'm not
sure what the connection is supposed to be here, or what the point of
finding these patents was supposed to be, since there's never any connection
made with climate engineering.  So lets move on.

4.  So finally, climate engineering.  The idea you appear to be trying
to connect is the idea that you could put aerosols (most likely sulfate)
into the stratosphere (say 6 feet, where the lifetime of aerosols is
years instead of weeks) to cool the global climate.  Yup, I do research in
climate models to better understand that.  As do a number of other people.
It's all publicly available on my website.  Some great papers came out last
week, in fact, anyone can go read them and learn what I do.  Not obviously a
good idea, but depending on what happens with climate change, maybe it might
help.  And the connection with the aforementioned weather modification is. ?
Unfortunately, Dane presents zero information on this and hopes his readers
never notice.  Doesn't comment on the fact that the low-lying clouds in
weather modification aren't at the same altitude as contrails and sure
aren't at the altitude of the stratosphere.  Doesn't comment on how we could
get things to the stratosphere (technically I think it is feasible, but no
aircraft today can get there and deliver a payload, so no-one needs to worry
that this is even feasible.)  Doesn't comment on the fact that contrails
actually warm the planet, and don't persist very long (nothing in the
troposphere does), so that would be a stupid way to do climate engineering,
so he must presum

RE: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’

[Douglas MacMartin]

A few comments:

1.  That’s a great way to get started on CDR, but don’t expect that as a 
cost model for 10’s of Gt per year… I suspect you’d run out of a market for CO2 
at rather negligible fraction of the amount you need.

2.  If you store CO2 as carbon fibre, then your storage cost is basically 
the cost of converting CO2 to carbon… what’s that cost per ton?  You aren’t 
going to substitute carbon fibre for steel in any climate-relevant quantity 
unless the costs are essentially the same; I’m not sure this is even plausible 
since even if you gave people the fibres themselves, building something out of 
carbon fibre is going to be way more expensive than steel (the fibres just 
aren’t where the costs are coming from).  And even if you solve that problem, 
you’d need to assume a vast increase in demand relative to today, and I’d still 
be skeptical because quite frankly, steel is a better material than carbon 
fibre in a lot of applications where weight doesn’t matter (it isn’t 
hygroscopic, for one thing, and it’s a lot easier to repair).  So you might 
still have to pay people to take carbon fibre off of your hands if you’re 
making Gt of it per year.

 

Basically, if you can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, you have to put it 
somewhere.  That isn’t going to be free, so to assess cost of DAC, one needs to 
estimate costs of storage.  

 

d

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:58 AM
To: Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth 
exploring.’

 

Hi Mike,

 

The most important part of a plan to be verified by an assessment  is the 
following  :  .

1  Because CO2 is a very valuable molecule  one can develop the technology 
while the costs are higher and capacity is low and like solar today make money 
, stimulate the economy , create jobs . Mining our carbon from the sky is a 
vaible economic option that should be assessed - even if there was no climate 
threat - people today pay between $30 and $1600 a tonne for carbon dioxide 

2 On going efforts to convert CO2 into building materials like cement and most 
important carbon fiber should be assessed of how their costs to convert will  
come down . Carbon fiber is really a great structural material and the capacity 
to store alot of carbon via converting to it over steel and aluminum and even 
in cement replacing rebar is very large . My analysis say it can be large 
enough if the global economy grows in the developing countires so they need 
like china alot of new infrastructure . The fact that carbon fiber is actually 
preferable on an economic basis should be assessed (note energy of production  
per mechanical strenght is less for Co2 based carbon fiber than for steel and 
aluminum ) 

3 The most important step for mitigation is passing limits on carbon emissions 
. I have been infomed that China is going to announce a serious carbon market , 
and that other countries are moving to constrain the use of fossil fuels.

   This by far the most effective way to reduce our rate of fossil fuels - 
perhaps the china, canada and german examples could be assessed to see if this 
assertion is correct 

4 I think locally for the most vulnerable places one  should spend resources to 
mitigate the impact of climate change to address the risk of social 
destabilzation -these may happen naturally and the division of resources 
between CDR/DAC  and mitigation will vary accordingly

5 Finally there needs to be a study of manufacturing - verifying the ability to 
use mass production and to determine scenarios for rate of scaleup achievable - 
 supply chains , capital investment , training etc 

6 I would suggest an on going effort to improve cost/assessment of underground 
sequestration(note DAC removes to some extent the damage of release ) but 
believe in the end we will find ways to use the CO2 so it adds value 

and is not just a cost -as part of this I would assess enhanced mineralization  

7 No regret CDR approaches that do not produce CO2 that can be transformed into 
a product  but add value such as in agriculture should  be evaluated in terms 
of scalability as should improved agriculture practices generally 

8 To connect to our previous discussions I would assess the hedging strategy of 
protection for vulnerable places and underground or mineral sequestration 
versus SRM . 

 

Now it is my belief that since the mining CO2 from the sky approach will 
stimulate the global economy (eg just like fossil fuels did ) the political and 
social feedbacks will be positive and most importantly when verified by an 
asessment 

would provide a basis for moving forward that all could endorse ( I 

RE: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’

[Douglas MacMartin]

Peter - I think that the risks of future climate change are sufficiently 
concerning that it would be premature to stop all research on some options on 
the assumption that other options are 100% guaranteed to suffice.   I think 
that pretty much everyone who thinks we need to research SRM also thinks we 
need to research CDR quite aggressively. So when you try to set things up as an 
“us vs them” framing, I don’t think you are doing justice to anyone’s 
perspective that I know (and I think I can safely say that I know pretty much 
everyone who works on SRM).  Relax; we’re all on the same team, and this isn’t 
a competition.  

 

Doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:46 PM
To: Greg Rau 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth 
exploring.’

 

The sophisticated opposition to climate change initiated by George Bush Senior 
is to appease by supporting imcreased knowledge 

and thus avoid the need to act. This is just the most awkward and least 
nunanced of this pattern -or may I say another example of how far from 
knowledge based  our political dialoque has become . 

 

I  have stated my view that those who make the case for SRM by diminishing the 
status and potential for CDR to address the challenge of climate change are 
unwittingly 

playing into the hands of those opposed to action.  A coordinated community 
focussed on the threat and not their individual idea would insist that CDR be 
funded and aggressively pursued 

before pursuing SRM - or at least would begin every interaction with the 
statement that CDR is a much higher priority.   

 

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Greg Rau  > wrote:


>
> http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-smith-says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/
>
>
“Despite Smith’s endorsement of geoengineering, his opening statement made it 
clear that he’s still unwilling to talk about the reasons why the technology is 
being researched in the first place: “The purpose of this hearing is to discuss 
the viability of geoengineering … The hearing is not a platform to further the 
debate about climate change.”

GR Just in case the climate change hoax is a hoax?

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





 

-- 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain 
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the 
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the 
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Summary of House Science Hearing on climate and geo-eng: not so bad?

[Douglas MacMartin]

You can listen to the whole thing here if you want; if you click on each of our 
names you’ll get our written testimony.  (Which at least in my case hardly says 
anything surprising; this didn’t seem like the place to go into depth.)

 

https://democrats-science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/geoengineering-innovation

 

I don’t know when transcripts will be available.

 

EEnews also did a piece: 
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060066081/search?keyword=arianna

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Eric Durbrow
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 3:02 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Summary of House Science Hearing on climate and geo-eng: not so 
bad?

 

 

 

Summary is here:

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-house-science-committee-just-had-a-rational-hearing-about-climate/

 

Does anyone have a link to the transcript?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] RE: On when it might make sense for intervention to begin

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Mike,

I agree that the situation is far from black and white.  Ultimately it's a bit 
of a judgment call, weighing the risks of what we don't know about solar geo 
against what we don't know about climate change, and more importantly perhaps, 
what we don't know about how people will behave differently.  I admit that my 
"20 years" might have more to do with my perceived timeframe for when (a) the 
impacts of climate change will be much more obvious and (b) where we're headed 
in terms of stabilizing the climate through mitigation will be much more 
obvious, and less to do with what we actually learn about solar geoengineering 
- but given that I think (a) and (b) could easily push "us" (who "us" is is a 
separate conversation) into wanting to do it in ~20 years, I'd rather be 
prepared.  We'd better make a lot more progress over the next 10 years than we 
have over the last 10 (that isn't a dig against the research, but against the 
funding levels).

My hesitation with telling the House Science Committee on Wednesday that they 
should urgently fund a goal-oriented strategic research program is primarily 
that I don't trust them not to use this as an excuse not to mitigate, and IMHO 
not mitigating is even worse than not pursuing research urgently.  (And a fair 
argument to make would be that nothing I say is likely to influence how much 
mitigation the US does, but might influence how much research is done.)

doug

-Original Message-
From: Michael MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:46 PM
To: macma...@cds.caltech.edu; voglerl...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: On when it might make sense for intervention to begin

Hi Doug--In response to your Nov 4 post below, I am all for learning, but the 
problem with waiting and waiting is that the Earth will keep warming and 
warming and impacts will keep growing and growing--including especially ones 
that are or near irreversible, such as to biodiversity and commitment to sea 
level rise.

If the goal were, during this 20-year learning time, only to reduce or offset 
year-by-year warming as might be done, based on our understanding of volcanic 
effects, using quite small annual increments to the stratospheric sulfur 
loading, and basically iterating as we go on something like 5-year running 
averages, we would very likely be in a much more favorable situation to 
evaluate how to proceed, both having better model analyses and having some 
experience to work with. If we find the 20-year accumulation is worse than 
ongoing global warming with GHGs or that mitigation is working particularly 
well, the stratospheric injection level could be gradually reduced instead of 
continuing with ongoing augmentation. While there would of course be 
uncertainties, it is not really clear that they would be more serious than the 
increasing changes and impacts that are occurring. It just seems to me that to 
do nothing while continuing with research just lets the situation get worse and 
then the cure having to be so much stronger than deployment itself could be 
problematic.

If, as Santer et al suggest, early 21st century rate of warming was slowed by 
the cooling influences of small volcanic eruptions that injected amounts that 
were barely noticeable even with advanced instruments and really not at all 
noticeable by the general public, I'd suggest that we actually have a natural 
analog of the type of influence that I am suggesting be pursued. And, in that 
we will be learning along the way through the 20-year research program (let's 
assume that the research is funded), so it just seems, as noted above, that the 
uncertainties associated with such an approach would not be less than the 
impacts and uncertainties of deferring all intervention efforts until some 
probably pretty arbitrary level of understanding in the future.

Regarding my favoring of regionally focused alterations, I would make that a 
research priority, but I'd suggest that the earlier one started injecting 
enough sulfur to offset each year's forcing increment or so, the better--just 
thinking that, in the type of relative risk framing that I view as appropriate 
to the situation given where we are, that, with mitigation ramping up virtually 
everywhere (and the US doing somewhat well despite the Administration's 
mistaken actions), starting very modestly with stratospheric aerosol climate 
intervention could really help in making sure that the situation is not so bad 
by the time we learn enough to "make reasonably informed decisions" (whatever 
that
means) that we will be unable to avoid significant overshoot of the global 
average temperature without such aggressive intervention that we'll be 
suffering from both the growing impacts and then the supposed cure.

At the very least, I would think a good case could be made for such an effort.

Best regards, Mike MacCrac

RE: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Both SAI and MCB probably need of order of 20 years of research before we could 
make reasonably informed decisions; both have a long list of unknowns.  (In the 
case of MCB, we don't even really know if it "works" in any meaningful sense of 
the word, because cloud-aerosol interactions are too uncertain today, so we 
really don't know whether there is a useful fraction of cloud meteorological 
conditions in which the albedo is significantly enhanced.  We should all really 
really hope that it doesn't work very well, because if it doesn't, that means 
the indirect aerosol effect is smaller than current best guess and climate 
sensitivity will be on the low end...)

(And, of course, at the current level of worldwide funding, that "20" above is 
probably off by a few orders of magnitude.)

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:00 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article?

Holly and List,

The use of sulfur needs proper polar field level testing. Testing is planned 
yet may not be done in areas prone to Polar Stratospheric Cloud formation. Time 
of the season is also of the essence for testing. 

Until that is done, SAI has a large question to answer; in general terms.

MCB, used in key areas, is a critical first step. There should be no deflection 
at that engineering level. Once MCB paves the way, other marine capable systems 
can gain traction.

What marine engineering minded person or institution would not give Steven's 
word heavy weight? This is a marine issue.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Whether one uses stratospheric aerosols or marine cloud brightening, it seems 
pretty safe to assume that lower temperatures at high latitudes will have a net 
benefit on both sea ice and SLR.

 

Independent of CE, we have no useful capability to predict the most important 
part of SLR (that due to Antarctic and Greenland melt; the part due to thermal 
expansion is straightforward to calculate and clearly reversible by CE; it’s 
the Antarctic part that is most potentially scary and least well understood).  
We won’t likely have a useful capability to estimate SLR for at least a decade 
IMHO.  

 

Furthermore, all of the studies to date have been idealized in one way or 
another, been in a limited set of models, and have represented some specific 
strategy (e.g. injecting aerosols at the equator, which we now know is not 
likely the best place to inject them).  So until we have robust conclusions 
from more models that include the important physics and can evaluate whether 
specific impacts are due to any possible deployment strategy or are simply a 
result of a specific deployment strategy (e.g. where to put aerosols), then 
pretty much any statement of impacts from any paper should be interpreted quite 
cautiously.  (And I could point to specific issues in any of the papers you 
list, I could do the same for papers I’ve written too; the modeling simply 
isn’t mature enough yet, and until we’ve done some proper studies in a bunch of 
models, I don’t think we know whether the uncertainties are likely to be 
resolvable or not.)

 

Bottom line – yes, I suspect with $5-10M of modeling we could start making some 
reasonably defensible statements about some impacts and our confidence in them, 
including sea ice, but with the exception of a few things like SLR that we need 
to wait for people to figure out how to model Antarctica.  (And caveat that 
it’s pretty hard to predict what one might learn from $10M of modeling when one 
has only spent about a tenth of that.)

 

doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of SALTER Stephen
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 3:13 PM
To: holly.jean.b...@gmail.com
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article?

 

Hi All 

 

My suggestion is based on the idea that more precipitation and lower 
temperature will produce more ice.  With marine cloud brightening in the 
troposphere we have some control of where this will form. I think that the 
papers Holly mentions may have been about stratospheric sulphur.

 

Stephen

 

Sent from my iPad


On 3 Nov 2017, at 18:12, Holly J  > wrote:

Hi, 

 

It would be very helpful if someone could weigh in on what the latest research 
on CE and SLR actually indicates.  

 

It seems as if early research on sunshade geoengineering found it promising for 
reducing ice melt.

  

-  But as Applegate and Keller (2015) wrote, with regards to Greenland, these 
groundbreaking earlier studies neglect feedbacks that may be vital for proper 
assessment of SRM's ability to reduce SLR.  

-  Again in the Arctic, it seems that Jackson et al (2015) found that it was 
possible to remediate ice loss, but it would take a lot of SO2.  

-  Looking at Antarctica, McCusker et al (2015) found that SRM could not 
preserve the West Antarctic ice sheet (because of upwelling of warm water, as I 
understand it). 

-  Finally, Irvine et al’s review paper (2016) says that "While sunshade 
geoengineering could reduce sea-level rise, simulations employing more 
sophisticated models suggest that hysteresis in the response of the Greenland 
and Antarctic ice sheets to climate change could mean that there may be a 
limited ability to reverse some of the contribution to sea- level rise from the 
ice-sheets if deployment of solar geoengineering is delayed.”

 

Attempting to read & assess this body of work leaves me with three outstanding 
questions:

 

1.  Is preventing ice loss / ice restoration just one of those areas where we 
still don’t know how well SRM works?  Or is there kind of an informal consensus 
about it?

 

2.  If it’s still an unknown, is it even possible to better understand it — or 
will it always be relatively uncertain?  About how much research (in years or 
papers) would we need to better understand it with some degree of consensus / 
certainty?  Are there new approaches coming online to get a better handle on 
it?  (I know these are hard questions).

 

3.   Furthermore, I assume that SRM would help with the SLR from warming water 
and ocean expansion (?), but is the amount of expected SLR from ocean expansion 
low compared to the amount we get from melting ice?

 

Thanks so much,

Holly “not-a-climate-scientist" Buck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Nov 3, 2017, at 08:21, Andrew Lockley 

RE: [geo] Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing - Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology

[Douglas MacMartin]

You can infer something of the expected focus from the people they chose to 
invite, though I haven’t been told to restrict my comments to SRM.

 

doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 5:40 PM
To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy 
Hearing - Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology

 

Thanks, Alan. Is it safe to assume that this is an SRM hearing?

Greg

 

  _  

From: Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> 
>
To: Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 2:05 PM
Subject: [geo] Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing - 
Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology

 

Should be interesting:




Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing - 
Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology


Date: 

Wednesday, November 8, 2017 - 10:00am

   Subcommittees: 

* 
<https://science.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee-energy-115th-congress> 
Subcommittee on Energy (115th Congress)

* 
<https://science.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee-environment-115th-congress>
 Subcommittee on Environment (115th Congress)

 

 

Witnesses:

*   Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow, 
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
*   Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy, Niskanen Center
*   Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University
*   Ms. Kelly Wanser, principal director, Marine Cloud Brightening Project, 
Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of 
Washington

115th Congress

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-environment-and-subcommittee-energy-hearing-geoengineering

-- 
Alan
 
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> 
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54

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

 

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 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] Engineering drama, post CEC

[Douglas MacMartin]

Ok, I should have said “these materials don’t naturally exist in large 
quantities in the stratosphere”.  (Note in the link you sent, it includes the 
following: “Interactions between the atmosphere and ocean are generally limited 
to the lowest levels of the atmosphere, particularly the troposphere” so your 
own link contradicts your argument.)  Also note that whether you inject over 
land or over the ocean has negligible influence on where the material will come 
down; the whole reason we’re talking about putting stuff into the stratosphere 
is because the lifetime is long (relative to horizontal transport in particular 
regarding this point).

 

I agree that it is possible that it is benign.  However, as a general rule, 
when you’re talking about a massive change in the quantity of something, one 
shouldn’t resort to an assertion that its effects are unimportant.  These are 
open research questions that would need to be studied.

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of David Sevier
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:00 AM
To: macma...@cds.caltech.edu; 'Andrew Lockley' <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

 

 

The upper atmosphere has had an abundance of chloride and calcium ions present 
for millions and possibly billions of years. These chemicals do exist 
naturally. This comes about because sea water contains these ions. The typical 
composition of sea water is broken down on page 9 of ATMOSPHERE OCEAN  
INTERACTIONS, LECTURE  NOTES:  Structure and Composition of the Atmosphere and 
Ocean, J. S. Wright . This can be found at 

 

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/jw660/pdf/ao/notes/notes02.pdf 

 

Further references to  the transport of calcium and chloride ions through the 
atmosphere from the ocean to the land can be found in the following papers:

 

The geographic variation of salt precipitated over Western Australia

FJ Hingston and V Gailitis, Australian Journal of Soil Research 14(3) 319 - 335

Published: 1976

 

The Atmosphere During the Younger Dryas

P. A. Mayewski, L. D. Meeker, S. Whitlow, M. S. Twickler, M. C. Morrison, R. B. 
Alley, P. Bloomfield and K. Taylor

Science,  New Series, Vol. 261, No. 5118 (Jul. 9, 1993), pp. 195-197

 

Sea spray transports a lot of sea water salts into the upper atmosphere. I 
suspect that there are those in this group who will be able to define exactly 
what this number is. Ultimately, spraying a slurry of chalk and dissolved 
calcium chloride in the high atmosphere, if the solution is kept in the neutral 
band, will not cause pollution. This will be especially so if done over a 
region that is covered by ocean.

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas MacMartin
Sent: 19 October 2017 12:25
To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk <mailto:david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> ; 
'Andrew Lockley'; geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

 

I don’t know how you support the claim that any particular material does not 
cause pollution at large scale, when these materials don’t naturally exist in 
the stratosphere.  They might be fine, they might not be, but I don’t think one 
can simply assert it.

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Sevier
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:21 AM
To: 'Andrew Lockley' <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >; geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

 

Dear Andrew,

 

Neither calcium chloride or calcium carbonate are going to cause pollution if 
dispersed at large scale.  I suspect that you have no concerns about calcium 
carbonate (chalk) but are thinking about calcium chloride. Calcium chloride has 
been widely used as a de-icer for the last hundred years in very large 
quantities. Millions of tons per year are applied to roads. When it dries and 
powders, it creates dusts that have not been linked any environmental problems 
as far as I know. Above oceans, dusts containing chloride and calcium ions are 
common as sea water contains both of these ions in large quantities. Calcium 
chlorides have been used as refrigerator brines for more than my lifetime. Any 
text book on this will cover calcium chloride brines. I don't think paper 
references are need for this.

 

Regarding the creation of fine particle aerosols using spinning disks, this 
came out of discussion with Adrian Faulkner, one of the owners of PNR UK 
Limited which produces and distributes spray nozzles for making fine particle 
sprays. The conversation came about because we were trying

RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

[Douglas MacMartin]

g a balloon tether. I am assuming the antifreeze properties should be 
enough but I don’t know the height. 2 microns or less particles in a high 
density fluid like calcium chloride solution won’t settle out at any speed that 
is likely to give you problems.  If you need greater freeze protection, there 
are other salts that can be used to reduce the freeze point further. The 
engineering challenges on this don’t seem all that bad and a lot easier and 
cheaper than liquid nitrogen. 

 

A number of carbon capture processes can also produce precipitated calcium 
carbonate, so this could be a useful double kick.

 

 

David Sevier

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=248+Sutton+Common+Road+Sutton,+Surrey+SM3+9PW+England=gmail=g>
 

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=248+Sutton+Common+Road+Sutton,+Surrey+SM3+9PW+England=gmail=g>
 

England 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=248+Sutton+Common+Road+Sutton,+Surrey+SM3+9PW+England=gmail=g>
 

Tel 44 (0)208 288 0128

Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129

 

This email is private and confidential 

 



 



 

 

 

From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: 16 October 2017 21:18
To: Doug MacMynowski
Cc: geoengineering; David Sevier; Hugh Hunt
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

 

To reply specifically with likely issues :

 

AFAIK the liquid/gas column behaviour in the balloon pipe is problematic. Hugh 
Hunt (cc) has, I believe, worked on this aspect of the viability. The adiabatic 
cooling causes a temperature reduction, as the hydrostatic pressure drops. This 
requires heating to a problematic temperature. 

 

Rail guns are problematic for a range of reasons, not least their lack of 
development. They are highly prone to wear, and aren't particularly suited to 
launching large payloads. I've worked on gas guns, which have more suitable 
performance characteristics.

 

Generally, I don't take the view that engineering is trivial. I think we should 
engineer early, and with the same enthusiasm as we apply to other aspects. 
Engineering is trivial when it's done, not when it isn't. 

 

A

 

On 16 Oct 2017 18:53, "Douglas MacMartin" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu 
<mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu> > wrote:

The start was Andrew’s email, which was based on a presentation given at CEC17 
(sorry, there weren’t any viewgraphs, but you’ve already got the summary).

 

There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with any approach.  Eventually we’ll need a 
more serious engineering analysis of different options (i.e., beyond 
speculation).  IMHO that day isn’t now, I’m satisfied with knowing that it is a 
solvable problem.

 

Re material, yes, various other materials have definite advantages with respect 
to either stratospheric heating or ozone loss.  But there’s also a big 
advantage with using something that exists naturally in the stratosphere, as 
that at least gives an argument for bounding uncertainty.  I think it is rather 
premature to say one makes “more sense” than another right now, as there are 
different (and somewhat non-commensurate) concerns.

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ] On Behalf Of David Sevier
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 1:46 PM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> 
Cc: 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

 

I am struggling to find the beginning of this thread. What are you guys talking 
about exactly. What is wrong with pumping up a tube as so many have suggested 
or using rail guns to launch packages into the higher atmosphere. In the latter 
case, fine particles of chalk (such a PCC) make more sense than sulphuric acid.

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: 16 October 2017 17:23
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> 
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

 

But as to the pile of papers, just think of the carbon storage!

G

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 15, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote:

>From what I gather, it seems we have a bit of engineering drama. Apparently, 
>you can't just swap aircraft engines and do SRM, because the wings aren't 
>right on any aircraft with even a vaguely adequate payload.

 

This is A Problem. 

 

We've either got to 

A) engineer a new aircraft, like the Delft team did (with a $100m expected 
development cost)

B) work out a way to make new wings for an existing jet