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

[Ronal Larson]

Ron B. et al, adding the biochar.io list and one USBI staffer.

I support your letter  - as requested below

For easy comparison on style, I include your three proposed R foci 
with my proposed fourth.  Note one typo in #2

On the relative harm and benefit of partially relaxing the recently fully 
implemented IMO maritime bunker fuel sulfur emissions regulation for “high 
seas” maritime transport in ways that as much as possible, increase the human 
and natural global cooling benefits of sulfur aerosols, and decrease the human 
and natural harm of tropospheric sulfuric acid, from these maritime emissions.
On the possible inclusion of benign tropospheric aerosol precursors such as sea 
water, or other substances in  existing fuel, or future non-GHG, or net-zero 
GHG, emitting fuel, that  increase the human and natural global cooling 
benefits of sulfur aerosols, and decrease the human and natural harm of 
tropospheric sulfuric acid, from these maritime emissions.
On the possible injection of benign tropospheric aerosol precursors such as sea 
water, or other substances from ships, regardless of what fuel they use, that 
could provide direct climate cooling that would be as, or more effective, than 
“bunker fuel” sulfur in providing effective direct climate cooling with no or 
much less harm to human and natural health current efforts. 

4. On the possible replacement of fossil bunker fuels and existing combustion 
equipment with biomass pyrolysis systems that apparently can achieve the needed 
cost efficiency through solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), which may double the 
usual efficiencies by converting syngas to electricity for ship propulsion 
while also creating the income-generating carbon negative co-product: biochar.

Added explanatory notes:

I have discussed the above suggested fourth addition with a few fellow 
biochar advocates, but am not aware of it being proposed publicly prior to 
today.  SOFC R is quite well advanced and SOFC systems are commercially 
available.  
But R funding is certainly needed, especially for this (possibly new) 
application. 
Commonly associated with only hydrogen, SOFCs also work with carbon 
monoxide (CO), the other main component of syngas.  
Space now used for bunker fuel might be enough, but the huge 
multi-ocean cargo ships now using bunker fuels seem large enough to open up new 
space for biomass fuel.  
Generated biochar can be readily placed in the space first used for the 
needed biomass.  The amazingly high efficiency of SOFCs possibly means that 
space now needed for bunker fuel is sufficient for the less energy dense 
biomass.  
R can also focus on the many ways that the biomass and biochar stocks 
can be best configured at or near the many ports where they will be needed.  
R will also help determine if the normal exhaust CO2 might be somehow 
captured during each trip - as in all proposed CCS systems, again helping to 
lower shipping costs.  
Probably can add sulfur co-products as in Ron B’s three options.  Main 
rationale though is simply replacing the fuel now widely prohibited in ports 
world-wide.  Should be considerable economies in avoiding the present 
prohibitions.
These ships are regularly docked for service during which this 
relatively small modification can be accomplished.  

Bunker fuel use is not as necessary as routinely stated.

(The above 3 paragraphs moved up from the underlined cite below.)

Ron


> On Aug 15, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> I would greatly appreciate suggested edits and comments to this proposed open 
> letter: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true
> 
> Most importantly, does the text and the three requests (one inspired by a 
> comment from Stephen Salter) make sense, and is the overall descriptive 
> language accurate? 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Best,
> Ron Baiman
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

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

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

I would greatly appreciate suggested edits and comments to this proposed
open letter:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing=11646594195452408=true=true

Most importantly, does the text and the three requests (one inspired by a
comment from Stephen Salter) make sense, and is the overall descriptive
language accurate?

Thank you!

Best,
Ron Baiman

-- 
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/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Comments on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework due tomorrow 8/15/2023!

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,This is a response to a private communication related to my AGU comment regarding the problem with the term “climate intervention”.“The term could include anything that humans do that impacts the climate and implies that cooling techniques are aberrational emergency measures. I see it as analogous to Neoclassical economists calling any form of planning a “market intervention”, implying that markets are normal and “natural” and all other forms of public policy are “market interventions”.  I don’t doubt that they will not change terminology, but was hoping this terminology point would help focus attention on the more important point of the need to turn the table on the ethical question!”Best,Ron Sent from my iPhoneOn Aug 14, 2023, at 10:01 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:Dear Colleagues, If you're so inclined, please comment (2000 characters or less) on AGU Geoengineering Ethical Framework by tomorrow 8/15/2023See "Comment on the Draft Principles" to the right side of this link: https://www.agu.org/EthicalFramework  The principles are IMO overly defensive.  I submitted this comment (this version slightly fixed up!):



















"These principles are a welcome development that I fully
support.  However, I believe that they
have an overly defensive frame: A) The term “climate intervention” suggests an
emergency application of measures on a system that hitherto has somehow not
been “intervened into”.  The truth of
course is that anything that affects the climate including GHG emissions,
reducing GHG emissions, and drawing down accumulated GHG, could all be termed
“climate interventions”.  I understand
the usefulness of not using the more common term “geoengineering” as this
connotes even more all-encompassing and hubristic human manipulation of nature,
and tends to point to an exclusive focus on SAI and other high-leverage SRM direct
climate cooling methods.  My own preference
(and that of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition of which I am a member) is for
the more positive, well-defined, but also general and inclusive term “direct
climate cooling”. B) Rather than seeking to explain and justify direct climate
cooling, it appears to me that it is long past time to put the ethical and
moral question the other way.  The truth is that: 1) climate change is
accelerating and will continue to cause increasingly catastrophic harm to
humans and other living species, 2) there exist multiple direct climate cooling
methods that have the potential to reduce this
harm 
(https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023), and 3) current global policy that relies exclusively on greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and removal to address climate change is incompatible with
responsible stewardship of the planet. C) Is there any feasible way forward other than a three-pronged strategy
that includes direct climate cooling along with emissions reduction and
drawdown (https://www.scribd.com/document/656516741/The-Case-for-Urgent-Direct-Climate-Cooling-Final-Version-6-19-2023)?"Thanks to the PRAG thread on this (with other examples of comments) for bringing this to my attention!Best,Ron









-- 
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/CAPhUB9CqA0mv4%2BMok0EK1FuUkgdKo4SGAi-tH7zD_PhZCF3KfA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/31095FB3-ADD7-4667-9674-8A4B97A7A41C%40gmail.com.

[geo] Weather Modification Project Reports

[Geoengineering News]

https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/Digital-Collections/Weather-Modification-Project-Reports

Publication History & Scope

In the late 1940's and 1950's many deemed "the deliberate or the
inadvertent alteration of atmospheric conditions by human activity", also
known as weather modification, as a promising science of the future.
Currently, the most common form of weather modification is cloud seeding,
which increases rain or snow, usually for the purpose of increasing the
local water supply. Weather modification can also have the goal of
preventing damaging weather, such as hail or hurricanes, from occurring.

As part of Public Law 92-205 (1972), all non-Federal weather modification
activities must be reported to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, via the NOAA
Weather Program Office.  Below is a list of these reports and is updated on
a quarterly basis.

As required by that law, NOAA submitted a Report to Congress

in
1979, available via the NOAA Library.
[image: Weather Bureau Forecast Office, DC 1926]

containcontainstart withend withare equal toSearch
Project DesignationProject NumberProject Date RangeActivity
NOAA final Six Creeks 2023UTSC-F

11/1/2022
- 4/15/2023 Increase precipitation
NOAA final Southern Utah 2023UTSCE-F

11/1/2022
- 4/15/2023 Increase precipitation
NOAA final St Vrain 2023COStV-F

12/1/2022
- 4/30/2023 Increase precipitation
NOAA final Western Uintas 2023UTNU-F

12/1/2022
- 12/31/2022 Increase precipitation
Central Colorado Mountain River Basins Program 2023COCCMRB-F

11/1/2022
- 4/30/2023
San Juan Mountains Program 2023COSJM-F

11/1/2022
- 4/15/2023
Clark County Cloud Seeding Operations, IDAHO 2023IDEI-F

1/1/2023
- 5/15/2023 Increase precipitation
Submission InformationPersons subject to reporting.

As stated in Vol. 83, No. 19 of the Federal Register dated Monday, January
29, 2018, the Department of Commerce and the National Atmospheric and
Administration requires that persons who engage in weather modification
activities in the United States shall provide reports prior to and after
the activity. This is Section 6(b) of Public Law 92–205

.

All non-Federal weather modification activities must be reported to the
U.S. Secretary of Commerce, via the NOAA Weather Program Office. All
reports submitted to NOAA are compiled and then posted on the NOAA Library
Website
Activities subject to reporting.

(a)The following, when conducted as weather modification activities, shall
be subject to reporting:

   1. Seeding or dispersing of any substance into clouds or fog, to alter
   drop size distribution, produce ice crystals or coagulation of droplets,
   alter the development of hail or lightning, or influence in any way the
   natural development cycle of clouds or their environment;
   2. Using fires or heat sources to influence convective circulation or to
   evaporate fog;
   3. Modifying the solar radiation exchange of the earth or clouds,
   through the release of gases, dusts, liquids, or aerosols into the
   atmosphere;
   4. Modifying the characteristics of land or water surfaces by dusting or
   treating with powders, liquid sprays, dyes, or other materials;
   5. Releasing electrically charged or radioactive particles, or ions,
   into the atmosphere;
   6. Applying shock waves, sonic energy sources, or other explosive or
   acoustic sources to the atmosphere;
   7. Using aircraft propeller downwash, jet wash, or other sources of
   artificial wind generation; or
   8. Using lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation.

(b)In addition to the activities listed above, other similar activities
falling within the definition of weather modification as set forth in §
908.1  are also
subject to reporting.
In addition to the