On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 8:58 AM John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ron, > > You've hit the nail on the head: > > By starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out (in > the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct > impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect > impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and polar > ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive. > > Cheers, John > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 2:27 AM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Herb, Mike, and Oswald, >> >> I think the issue right now is pervasively couched in far too general and >> absolutist terms that would make it very difficult/impossible to get >> universal (or even just Security Council) agreement for deployment from the >> UN. If pilot testing were started small-scale with willing actors >> consisting of countries with polar regional jurisdictions that are willing >> to try this in this from their territory (as probably not all polar >> jurisdictions or polar peoples will agree right away) and done carefully >> with maximum transparency, openness, etc. this could hopefully make it less >> of an abstract 'politicized and moralized' hot potato and more of a cooling >> method that is perceived as potentially valuable, useful, and (quite >> likely) indispensable to avoid climate catastrophe. >> >> I'm assuming here of course mostly measurable positive impacts from the >> pilot testing, and an ability to adjust to smaller and less significant >> undesirable impacts. My thinking is that this would be a way to make >> gradual polar SAI a more practical and tangible technique and less of a >> boogie man on which to project every manner of global geopolitical >> armageddon (per the Futerman talk and I'm guessing - from the abstract - in >> the Keith and Smith paper as well). At this point, my hope is that it >> would be easier to arrive at, at least, "tacit" and at some point "formal" >> consent by the Security Council, or a sufficient number of major world >> powers, for continued, slowly upscaled, global deployment without >> geopolitical disaster. >> >> *My thinking is that (as with the research/deployment dichotomy), the >> governance/deployment dichotomy should not be looked at as strictly >> separable. *My hope is that moving on both tracks simultaneously and >> trying to build confidence, trust, and knowledge with gradual deployment >> would hopefully change international perceptions and discussions of SAI and >> direct climate cooling more broadly in a positive way, and that this could >> then hopefully allow for global tacit, and at some point formal, political >> support. >> >> I should also note that countries are already currently engaging in large >> scale climate efforts 'on their own territory' that probably have cross >> boundary impacts. See for example discussion of China's large scale cloud >> seeding efforts (as I recall in the Himalayas to regenerate snow pack, >> discussed in this podcast: >> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cloud-seeding-law-simon/id1529459393?i=1000632950341 >> >> >> Also by starting SAI in the spring in the poles, as the aerosol falls out >> (in the poles) at the end of the polar summers, all, or most of, the direct >> impact will be on the poles, and hopefully if there is enough indirect >> impact on reducing polar amplification to affect the jet stream and polar >> ice melt - these global climate effects would be overwhelmingly positive. . >> >> Best, >> Ron >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:17 PM Oswald Petersen < >> oswald.peter...@hispeed.ch> wrote: >> >>> Dear Herb and Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> Prenotice >>> >>> >>> >>> Europeans like me are still quite unfimiliar with the new habit to >>> adress a community without an adressee. Adressees do have the advantage >>> that I can disregard everything I am not addressed for. So far for US >>> globalimsus. >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> The UN are our only hope. We cannot diverge from the UN. Let´s stick to >>> the UN! >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Oswald >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Oswald Petersen >>> >>> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG >>> >>> Lärchenstr. 5 >>> >>> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen >>> >>> Tel: +41-71-6887514 >>> >>> Mob: +49-177-2734245 >>> >>> https://amr.earth >>> >>> https://cool-planet.earth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Von:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com < >>> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *Im Auftrag von *Michael >>> MacCracken >>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 6. Februar 2024 23:03 >>> *An:* H simmens <hsimm...@gmail.com>; Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com> >>> *Cc:* robertgch...@gmail.com; Gregory Slater <tenk...@gmail.com>; >>> healthy-planet-action-coalition < >>> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary >>> Restoration <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering < >>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance < >>> healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com> >>> *Betreff:* Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Solar geoengineering could start soon >>> if it starts small | MIT Technology Review >>> >>> >>> >>> It is really not clear to me why the United Nations could (and should) >>> not be the structure--or at least the designator of the structure, but >>> better yet, of the overall goal, namely to offset future warming and >>> gradually return the climate to something similar to its mid-20th century >>> situation (with allowances for those nations facing special needs to ask >>> for consideration of possible fine scale adjustments as knowledge >>> improves--or something similar). >>> >>> There is a UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), and if >>> there were ever anything that is impinging on their mandate, it is climate >>> change. The UN Secretary General, with concurrence I imagine of General >>> Assembly, could refer matter to them asking for a report on the matter and >>> to propose a recommendation to the General Assembly and Security Council. >>> I'd note that I was on a panel that prepared a report for the UN Commission >>> on Sustainable Development (see >>> https://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/critical-issues-in-science/un-sigma-xi-climate-change-report), >>> and I and other lead authors, courtesy of contacts made by former Senator >>> and UN Foundation lead Tim Wirth (the UN Foundation having provided some of >>> the funding for the effort), met with the UN Secretary General upon the >>> report's issuance. >>> >>> I'm not clear on how the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC might >>> mesh (or not) with the UNCSD, but this too could be outlined. The UNCSD I >>> think meets annually and so could well move things along, >>> >>> Mike MacCracken >>> >>> On 2/6/24 2:41 PM, H simmens wrote: >>> >>> Ron, >>> >>> >>> >>> It’s quite telling I think that a breakthrough article like this has >>> been released without essentially anyone noticing. >>> >>> >>> >>> The only mention of it I see is from the excellent Technology Review >>> reporter James Temple who posted it on X. >>> >>> >>> >>> The only comments the post received were from Andrew Lockley and someone >>> posting a vile obscenity. >>> >>> >>> >>> I was the only one who even retweeted the post to my loyal following of >>> bots, trolls, fake porn stars and a few Climate informed folks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is it fair to observe that most everyone laments the understandable and >>> very real challenges of developing a governance architecture but no one in >>> any kind of authority has yet to propose a serious effort to get such a >>> governance structure discussed and agreed to by the world community? >>> >>> >>> >>> If and until that happens the strategy you’re proposing while sound will >>> be very difficult to advance very far. >>> >>> >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> >>> >>> Herb Simmens >>> Author of *A Climate Vocabulary of the Future* >>> >>> “A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson >>> @herbsimmens >>> HerbSimmens.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:20 PM, Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com> >>> <rpbai...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Good catch Herb! Thanks for sharing. I haven't read the article yet, >>> but though acknowledging the feasibility and possible relevance gradual >>> polar SAI scenario would definitely be progress (that David Keith was very >>> critical of this in his HPAC talk), from skimming the abstract the article >>> appears to focus on SAI geopolitical concerns that echo Gideon Futerman's >>> recent HPAC talk. >>> >>> >>> >>> On this, needless to say, I agree with Robert C and Mike. Waiting for a >>> fully operational global governance regime (like hoping for a super >>> expidited emissions and drawdown only policy) is not realistic in the near >>> future - the only future that counts if humanity is going to have a >>> non-catastrophic immediate future, at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the alternative of starting slow by getting the consent of polar >>> jurisdictions and peoples for a 'Save the polar ecosystems' effort >>> (following current MCB 'save the Great Barrier Reef' efforts) and inviting >>> all nations who wish to contribute to contribute in a 'coalition of the >>> willing' model (as with the 'International Space Station') that would be >>> gradual (initially local SAI focused on polar summers), public, and >>> transparent, and hopefully successful in gradually reducing warming and >>> cooling the poles and helping to stabilize the global climate is an example >>> of a more realistic approach for urgent deployment. Waiting for 'global >>> governance' or 'absolute confidence from research that does not include >>> deployment pilot testing' before beginning deployment is not an urgently >>> workable option. At the risk of beating a dead horse I'm again attaching a >>> draft of this proposal that many of you may have seen: >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o5xQogx1kKgD-QlM4MVPdWeL2BzBtwUm/view?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:38 PM <robertgch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Herb and Greg and all >>> >>> Working on something else, the other day I chanced upon the dedication >>> for my PhD thesis written in 2012/13. It was addressed to my then two >>> year-old and newborn grandchildren expressing the hope that as adults they >>> would come to be awestruck by humanity's achievements, yet forgive it its >>> failings, and all the while see the funny side of both. This piece by >>> Keith and Smith definitely requires one to see the funny side. >>> >>> First, they're playing a great game of dissimulation, straining to >>> present their 'we're the good guys' credentials by espousing caution and >>> concern, while also chomping at the bit to get some serious sulphates into >>> the sky. Their greatest fear is clearly being dubbed the Dr. Strangelove >>> of climate change. >>> >>> But what's even funnier is the bizarre cognitive dissonance displayed by >>> those opposed to SAI. On the one hand the global shipping industry can >>> with no serious public debate whatsoever force changes to bunker fuel that >>> will greatly accelerate global warming, with who knows what consequences >>> for both human and other life, on the grounds that the pollution it will >>> reduce will save the lives of a much smaller number of people. No need to >>> consider the negative climate consequences of reducing the sulphur content >>> of the fuel because, quite obviously, no one really cares about that. If >>> they did, there would at least have been some public conversation about the >>> relative merits of changing the fuel. They didn't, so there wasn't. 30 >>> years of IPCC really has changed things, hasn't it! >>> >>> Other amusing bits from this article are the implications that it'll >>> take decades to scale SAI to make a significant difference to global >>> warming and that this requires long-term anticipatory action by governments >>> both in relation to the technology and its governance. That completely >>> knocks on the head the idea that some maverick Greenfinger or national >>> leader is going to go off and do their own thing. The rogue geoengineer is >>> shown to be the joke it always has been. >>> >>> Similarly, Keith and Smith's highlighting of the social licence issues >>> that have hitherto delayed, and are likely going forward to continue >>> delaying, if not totally frustrating any move to deploy SAI, or even do the >>> research and small scale deployment that they're proposing, completely >>> kills off the equally nonsensical moral hazard argument that the mere >>> prospect of SAI is sufficient reason for the climate baddies to continue >>> being baddies. The climate baddies can relax, their foes are going to make >>> sure we need all the oil and gas they can produce for as long as they can >>> so dutifully provide it. >>> >>> For those of us on this list, it is hard to fathom how humanity has >>> boxed itself into this paralysis. For some us, it has become clear that >>> the basic rules of neoclassical economics are unfolding according to plan. >>> Boom and bust. Boom and bust. As the excesses destabilise the system, the >>> system reacts. This is euphemistically called a correction. The greater >>> the excess. The more severe the correction. The corrections are a form of >>> catharsis. But at some point the excess becomes sufficient to provoke a >>> correction that collapses the system. That happens when the system's >>> resilience is sufficiently compromised that it can't adapt fast enough to >>> the changed circumstances it is then facing. >>> >>> 1.5C, 2C, 2.5C, 3C and beyond, here we come! >>> >>> There's little I can do to protect my grandchildren from what will >>> confront them decades hence. Maybe they'll be among the lucky ones. Some >>> people will make it through, why shouldn't it be them? However it unfolds, >>> I'm sure they'll find it easier if they can retain the ability to see the >>> funny side. >>> >>> Thanks David and Wake. I needed reminding how tragic this comedy is. >>> Or is it, how comic this tragedy is? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> On 05/02/2024 17:17, Gregory Slater wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello Herb, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for this link. >>> >>> >>> >>> ( >>> https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/ >>> ) >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this is more evidence of the (glacially) slow progression of the >>> scientific and engineering community (such as Keith and Smith) beyond their >>> (completely disingenuous) *"SAI is the most insane idea in the history >>> of the Multiverse, but we should fund numerical simulations (etc.) of it >>> for the next fifty years just in case things get 'really bad' (for me >>> personally)"* and toward (the inevitable) acceptance and eventual >>> advocacy for deployment of SAI, without wating for a unanimous vote in >>> favor of it by the entire population of the earth (all 8 billion) before >>> the deployment of even a single molecule of any aerosol for the stated >>> intent of cooling the earth is allowed to be released, which is the current >>> (psychotic) demand of SJWs. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, it is still riddled with disclaimers (for example, last >>> paragraph) and they coyly seem to be pitching the *'small scale SAI'* >>> scenario not as a scientific test of the physical effects of SAI's on the >>> atmosphere and climate, but rather as a 'political or sociological science' >>> test of the political reaction of the world to such a test (that is, dump a >>> little SO2 in the stratosphere and measure the blood pressure of the >>> anti-SAI crowd). >>> >>> >>> >>> It is actually difficult for me to tell, at first reading, whether they >>> are "fer or agin;" such a test. And I think that ambiguity was carefully >>> crafted. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course, it's not like Keith and Smith (and other *'ultra-cautious >>> geoengineers'* just 'discovered' the possibility of 'small-scale SAI'. >>> It's straightforward and obvious, and they certainly know that this has >>> been outlined and advocated for a long time, including by members of this >>> group. I mean, when Keith spoke on the HPAC zoom just last year, in answer >>> to my question about low level tests, he directly said that he saw no >>> usefulness in small scale tests. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think they are starting to put the tip of their toes in the side of >>> advocacy, while describing it as 'cautionary'. I think the proper response >>> is, "thanks for stating the obvious about the possibilities for 'low-scale >>> SAI' tests". But point out their timidity and disingenuousness in not >>> advocating for the scenario they describe is uncompelling. They describe >>> one variant of) a first obvious small scale SAI test, but at the end say >>> they still say they are against it until we get a unanimous vote in favor >>> by the entire population of the planet. >>> >>> >>> >>> They still seem to be trying to maintain their increasingly precarious >>> and wobbly perch on the fence between denouncement and advocacy of SAI, >>> while requesting lots more money for numerical simulations of SAI and >>> studies of the 'sociological' effects of its deployment. >>> >>> >>> >>> Those who support immediate measures to stabilize global mean >>> temperature should double down and press for actual tests and not be >>> satisfied with 'cautionary notes' like this about the potential dangers of >>> not starting tests. >>> >>> >>> >>> When will they find the testicles to actually advocate? >>> >>> >>> >>> Greg Slater >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 5, 2024, at 5:29 AM, H simmens <hsimm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> This article published this morning by David Keith and Wake Smith argues >>> that it is entirely feasible that SAI could begin to be deployed at small >>> scale within five years by launching aerosols at higher latitudes where the >>> lower stratospheric boundary is easily accessible by current aircraft. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears that their proposal is consistent with what Mike Maccracken >>> has long been advocating - start small and learn by doing testing. >>> >>> >>> >>> They also argue that such testing should be subject to a formal >>> moratorium - absent the development of a viable governance structure - >>> consistent with the recommendations of the Climate Overshoot Commission. >>> >>> >>> >>> The risks of igniting a geopolitical free for all, particularly if >>> testing were only done by one country and not by a coalition, are >>> substantial they argue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is this proposal something that those on these lists should get behind? >>> >>> >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/05/1087587/solar-geoengineering-could-start-soon-if-it-starts-small/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Herb Simmens >>> Author of *A Climate Vocabulary of the Future* >>> >>> “A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson >>> @herbsimmens >>> HerbSimmens.com >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> . >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/086AD4FC-0128-4F76-9E06-11B5A46D3FD1%40gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/086AD4FC-0128-4F76-9E06-11B5A46D3FD1%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Planetary Restoration" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/aabf34ae-6529-4e39-968d-e3e1159b7ffc%40gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/aabf34ae-6529-4e39-968d-e3e1159b7ffc%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> . >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CDF4D93B-504F-4532-A2EA-64DF65DBB237%40gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CDF4D93B-504F-4532-A2EA-64DF65DBB237%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> . >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/329c7a99-85d3-4b94-99dc-3b22c495a783%40comcast.net >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/329c7a99-85d3-4b94-99dc-3b22c495a783%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DJ3WcyEYcPQMvn6xSixYQA0fZwEQ51wCoKevkjs8-rGw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9DJ3WcyEYcPQMvn6xSixYQA0fZwEQ51wCoKevkjs8-rGw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_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/CAPhUB9B0C%3DT88ZfT-PR8tNBpX%2Bgax3HneSaaZj71ahnzq3q21A%40mail.gmail.com.
