Hi All Ye gives welcome and rare support for work on marine cloud brightening but it is not quite accurate to say ‘real-time hurricane management’. If you want to moderate a hurricane tomorrow you are much too late. You should have started last November and recorded the trajectory of sea surface temperatures along the path of the hurricane breeding oceans so as to get the pattern requested by Governments of hurricane affect countries in the spraying contract. You should aim to get this done by the start of the next hurricane season. Tropical storms provide useful rainfall so we should moderate rather than prevent. It would also be wise to avoid blame for the choice of temperature! Ye is quite right to identify spray generation as a key problem. Andreas Tsiamis has done a useful COMSOL multi-physics simulation of drop generation using the Stevenson sandwich nozzle design. He has numbers for pressure, drop frequency and drop diameter as a function of nozzle size. There were a small number of coalescence events leading to double-volume drops but these were removed with a one bar modulation at the drop frequency. The results are in close agreement with the paper by van Hoeve at https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3524533. Camelia Dunare has used contact printing to etch the sandwich nozzles down to twice the diameter we need and is confident that the higher resolution of optical printing will get to the smaller nozzles needed. Engineering drawings for the housing of 200 mm are complete except for the high-frequency pressure excitation needed for mono-disperse spray and avoidance of the Aitken mode. The remaining problem is that while silicon has sufficient tensile stress it is also extremely notch sensitive. The instrumentation needed to measure spray size in the laboratory is quite expensive but we may be able to get access to the life savings of a gullible old-age pensioner. Drawings and design calculations for much of the rest of the vessel have reached the stage where they could go to potential sub-contractors. Ye also mentions the intermittency of wind used for power generation. Data from the trade-wind regions and southern oceans are encouraging and the sea is an excellent heat integrator. We do not need exact day-by-day cooling. We want a low dose over a wide area so changes of wind direction are welcome. It might be desirable to spray under clear skies into air masses which will later move to regions with higher relative humidity. Being able to choose time and place (and stop at short notice) is welcome but cooling next week is soon enough. It is unfortunate that ignorance of a new field is so often used as an argument to prevent funding of research that might remove that ignorance. Perhaps this is the result of career anxiety by timid administrators.
Breathe safely Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3DW 0131 650 5704 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0h14RFq4M&t=155s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BBVTStBrhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8 From: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 9:30 AM To: Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com; 'pfieko' <pfi...@gmail.com>; 'Ron Baiman' <rpbai...@gmail.com>; SALTER Stephen <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>; 'Peter Wadhams' <peter.wadh...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Marine Cloud Brightening for the Southern Ocean 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. Dear Robert, Thanks for directing attention and effort to SRM, away from carbon capture fantasies that distract and harm. I support funding MCB research of the wind-powered type proposed by Stephen. This is because MCB using fossil-fuel ships is counterproductive due to unsustainable fuel consumption requirements. The chemically benign nature and better spatial resolution of sea salt MCB are a couple of the many important advantages over SAI. Another important application is real-time flood and hurricane management, something no other SRM approach seems capable of. A central challenge in the way to realizing Stephen's wind-powered proposal is the development of an energy-efficient system for seawater droplet production at the required monodispersity, sub-micron size, and flux. If these parameters cannot be simultaneously satisfied, several orders of magnitude increase in deployment energy and material costs would result. So there is substantial uncertainty, after what will certainly be a multi-decade research program, on if such a system could be invented and developed. Another challenge is wind intermittency and its high-frequency directional changes. Their impact on the achievable duty cycle of a single vessel and the resulting areal coverage efficiency have not been taken into account in existing calculations. In summary, MCB powered by the wind is conceptually elegant from a scientific point of view. When one goes into engineering details within the context of the real world, one realizes that multiple hurdles, some of which may not be amenable to be overcome even with R&D unlimted by resources, stand in the way. Cheers, Ye p.s. I visited Stephen in person in his home last year for two days and have come to this conclusion based on reviewing detailed design proposals Stephen kindly shared and explained, my professional specialization leading the field of nano and micromachining of silicon wafer and other semiconductor substrates, and detailed literature search on the topic of droplet generation during and after my visit. On 3/3/2022 5:24 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition wrote: Dear Ye, Peter, Ron, Stephen and all I would like to ask the Australian Government to investigate methods to increase planetary albedo. This is something the G20 should have on its agenda. My view is that cooling the Southern Ocean using Marine Cloud Brightening should be a first topic to discuss for international agreement. This would cool Antarctica, our planetary refrigerator, and appears likely to be able to mitigate sea ice melt, glacier collapse, the warming of ocean currents, extreme weather and biodiversity loss. Antarctica might be an easier place to start than the Arctic in view of the geopolitics. Ye, further to your comments below, it would be good for all methods to increase albedo to be studied. I agree somewhat with your doubts regarding stratospheric aerosol injection (atmospheric chemistry uncertainties, acid rain risks, ocean ecosystem impacts, and inhibition of renewable transition) and could add ozone and hydroxyl effects as specific atmospheric chemistry concerns. For marine cloud brightening my assessment is that all of these effects are likely to be overwhelmingly benign, with significant positive benefits. The atmospheric chemistry and rain distribution questions are likely to be primary. MCB could be the simplest and safest and cheapest initial way to produce rapid cooling and mitigation of extreme weather. I don’t accept that enabling a slower renewable transition is a big problem for the climate. The effect on radiative forcing of cutting fossil fuel use can only be far smaller than the effects of direct albedo increase. It is essential to use SRM to cut radiative forcing to buy time to mitigate extreme weather while CDR ramps up. Emission reduction is likely to remain marginal to planetary cooling compared to SRM and CDR. This is an important moral question regarding the strategic justification for geoengineering. Slowing the renewable transition is a good thing to bring on board communities and states who now support traditional energy sources. Sea salt is a safe natural product whose cooling effect can be cheaply optimised using the methods described by Stephen Salter. I would hope that only when NaCl is accepted as a good way to improve atmospheric chemistry should nations consider deploying atmospheric iron and sulphur, recognising that the scientific case for both is quite strong. Robert Tulip From: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Ye Tao Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 8:02 PM To: Robbie Tulip <robbietu...@gmail.com<mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com>>; Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>; Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>>; hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com<mailto:hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com>; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ? Hi Robert, Agreed that Low albedo is dangerous. Just wanted to point out that albedo restoration is not exclusive to oceanic and atmospheric technologies. Albedo can also be restored using surface, and especially land surface-based SRM, that are free of the atmospheric chemistry uncertainties, acid rain risks, ocean ecosystem impacts, and inhibition of renewable transition particular to SAI and MCB. Ye On 3/2/2022 10:21 PM, Robbie Tulip wrote: Low albedo is dangerous and can only be mitigated by oceanic and atmospheric technology. Solar radiation management systems are needed to increase planetary albedo and mitigate the economic and social and ecological harms of climate change by limiting extreme weather events. The benefits of regulating planetary weather far far outweigh the risks and costs of neglecting work to stabilise the climate. This is a major and serious moral problem regarding whether humanity can take action to prevent and reverse the worst effects of climate change in this decade. Robert Tulip On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 2:06 pm, Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Robert- SRM is a logical top priority. Who will pay for it? How will those doing it avoid assassination? (Moral or physical) Peter Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2022, at 6:50 PM, Robbie Tulip <robbietu...@gmail.com<mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com>> wrote: Peter To answer your question, carbon capture can collect CO2 to transform it into stable valuable commodities. But CO2 storage is wrong and useless for climate restoration. Chemical and photosynthetic use of CO2 as feedstock to produce biomass and materials needs to replace the CCS paradigm. First though we need to increase albedo as the emergency security response against extreme weather. Regards Robert 🌷 On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 1:54 am, Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Ye- What does carbon capture have to do with climate restoration? Carbon capture is for enhanced oil recovery and for selling expensive carbon offsets. We're interested in carbon sequestration at the 50 Gt/year scale, such as with synthetic limestone, plankton, kelp. Peter On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:59 AM Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu<mailto:t...@rowland.harvard.edu>> wrote: No Peter, this is not argument for restoring CO2 below 300ppm; lack of a logical connection notwithstanding, carbon capture at scale simply infeasible before we are all fried. Ye On 3/1/2022 9:15 PM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote: Interesting. I remember that Michael Mann wrote a Scientific American article about 1999, telling us to expect 0.5C warming when we eliminate the sulfates. We knew it would happen, and it's happening. Maybe it's not so shocking. Does anyone know how much sulfates still come from coal plants? Back in 1999 that was the big source, I think. This could be an argument to pursue climate restoration, restoring CO2 below 300 ppm, to cool the planet. Peter On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:39 PM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Peter. Unfortunately, the paper and podcast are referring to a termination shock that is potentially happening right now due to a well-intentioned regulation to cut the sulfur content of cargo ships from a prior average of 3.5% sulfur to 0.5% (https://www.joc.com/special-topics/low-sulfur-fuel-rule ) that became fully effective Jan. 2020. Using ocean water surface temperature measurement and satellite atmospheric albedo measurements, for the north atlantic and north pacific major shipping lanes, they estimate (still in process of verification) up to (at the maximal estimate) a 50% jump in global warming (as I recall from the podcast), from the time this regulation became fully effective compared to prior years, as a direct result of the loss of sulfur emissions across these (very large) ocean regions. Best, Ron On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:44 PM Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Ron- Just so you know-When looking through a climate restoration lens, with CO2 below 300 ppm by 2050, termination shock doesn't happen. This is because CO2 is back to pre-industrial levels by 2050, and therefore forcing is too. SRM or SAI would only be needed for 15 years between 2030 and 2045. It might be useful starting now, but politically, there is no justification for it because it doesn't benefit the UN net-zero goal. You can read more about climate restoration in my book coming out in April. The summary chapter is available for free now on my website: PeterFiekowsky.com<http://PeterFiekowsky.com> All the processes for climate restoration are now getting underway, and don't require government assistance. BR Peter On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> wrote: Colleagues This is the podcast I've been talking about to some of you recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ship-tracks-termination-shock-simons/id1529459393?i=1000550593731 Here's their draft paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356378673_Climate_Impact_of_Decreasing_Atmospheric_Sulphate_Aerosols_and_the_Risk_of_a_Termination_Shock When Simon et al (presumably) get some version of this paper published, it could be the centerpiece of, for example, strong support for MCB to offset the sulfur with benign sea salt aerosols, as it would provide direct evidence of the impact of warming/cooling effect of marine cloud brightening from aerosols. It also, needless to say, highlights the need for any and all other types of direct cooling intervention. Best, Ron -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8da5c1a6-c53b-f840-726a-2bc32f8e341f%40rowland.harvard.edu<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8da5c1a6-c53b-f840-726a-2bc32f8e341f%40rowland.harvard.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03ec01d82f4d%24750f64c0%245f2e2e40%24%40yahoo.com.au<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03ec01d82f4d%24750f64c0%245f2e2e40%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/VI1PR05MB56939A59A6C3F00EFD3C785AA7059%40VI1PR05MB5693.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.
