[geo] A popular Youtuber Physicist chimes in on SRM

[E Durbrow]

Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist and youtube commentator, 
summarizes two recent papers on climate engineering for the public. She has 
about 1.17 million subscribers. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZiEcx0F_CM

"Climate engineering is the cheapest way to get us out of this unfolding 
climate disaster, but how do we do it? Two new papers have recently been 
released - one discussing the need to start stratospheric aerosol injections 
soon and the other introducing a new method of climate engineering. What are 
the pros and cons of stratospheric aerosol injections? What is this new method? 
Let’s have a look. Paper 1: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c... Paper 2: 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s…

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL106132

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk0593

Then to she advocates for “nature restoration” which apparently is a safer 
alternative to considering climate geoengineering. I’m disappointed. 


 

-- 
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/372CE1FE-9180-4B60-AED7-1526F1ECE55E%40gmail.com.

IMPORTANT - changes to [geo] posting policy

[Andrew Lockley]

Members,

I'm very disappointed that my robustly worded message regarding frequent
and irrelevant cross posting from HPAC to the geo list has been widely
ignored, including by many otherwise reputable people in this community. As
a result I've had to take the entirely unprecedented step of shutting the
automatic posting down, so now no one can post without moderation.

I want to make the following very clear, so I'm going to spell it out
absolutely unambiguously. If you are a member of HPAC (or similar) and you
post irrelevant cc content to the geoengineering Google group you will be
immediately and permanently banned. No further warnings will be given.

I'm a volunteer doing this, and I have absolutely no obligation to wade
through pointless messages spammed over from other groups. I'm not manually
filtering messages out, just because posters are too lazy to check their CC
list before hitting send to 2,000 people.

I don't care if you've got a Nobel prize, if you behave badly on my list
you're going to get banned. I simply can't be more clear.

Andrew Lockley
Moderator
Geoengineering Google group.

-- 
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-05W2aSzRfcyudzCiusd%2BtXKsv1rQ-jhyR-hAxTxB404ew%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Re: FW: SCRI Meeting March 22 2024

[Andrew Lockley]

(source redacted for security reasons)

Considering how Silver Lining likes to share how concerned they are with
the governance of SRM
https://twitter.com/SilverLiningNGO/status/1764788454037028916, this group
might be interested to know that a new private meeting of the Silver Lining
science groups happened today after a hiatus.
In what was otherwise a pretty nondescript meeting with many absences of
teams that are trying to distance themselves from Silver Linings, one of
the remaining science PIs supported by Silver Lining (Alan Robock) mustered
the courage to ask for any kind of information or comments from Silver
Lining leadership about the shocking allegations such as the source and the
use of funding and was immediately stonewalled by leadership, in particular
the new Research Director Jean-Francois Lamarque, fresh out of a McKinsey
job.

Apparently, the transparent in the "Rigorous, transparent, and globally
inclusive research" that Silver Lining seems to believe in does not apply
to divulging either their funding sources nor the reasons behind the very
high salaries of their executive members.
This is, obviously, of particular concern for a field that is under
scrutiny from multiple sources, and perhaps the community should consider
how much influence such an organization should have or appear to have.


On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, 14:38 Solar Geoengineering, 
wrote:

> The group administrator encouraged me to provide some additional
> information.
>
> Silver Linings' board members are (as of 2022):
>
> > KELLY WANSER - PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
> She is both the president of the board and the executive director of the
> organization. Such arrangements of overlapping responsibilities and power
> are uncommon.
> https://www.silverlining.ngo/kelly-wanser
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kellywanser
>
> > ALEX WONG - RESEARCH DIRECTOR
> He is both a member of the board and the second-ranking staff member.
> Having half of the board from senior staff is rare. Whether it matters,
> Wong's previous job was at US's DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects
> Agency).
> https://www.silverlining.ngo/alex-wong
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-wong-613b03172
>
> > CLAY DUMAS
> He is a 'general partner' at Lowercarbon Capital, a funder of Silver
> Linings.
> https://lowercarboncapital.com/team/clay-dumas/
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/clay-dumas
>
> > CARLA HOLTZE
> She appears to be the Managing Director, Commerce for Sovrn, an "online
> advertising technology firm".
> https://www.sovrn.com/blog/press-release-carla-holtze-cell/
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/carla-holtze-cell-2639326/
>
> On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 11:39:26 PM UTC+1 Solar Geoengineering wrote:
>
>> Executive salaries at nonprofit organisations are set by the board of
>> directors.  According to the document you sent (page 7), the board of
>> Silver Linings is:
>>
>> (1) KELLY WANSER
>> PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
>>
>> (2) CARLA HOLTZE
>> BOARD MEMBER
>>
>> (3) CLAY DUMAS
>> BOARD MEMBER
>>
>> (4) ALEX WONG
>> RESEARCH DIRECTOR
>>
>> Silver Linings does not provide this information on its website.
>>
>> On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 4:59:50 PM UTC+1 Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>>> (source redacted for security reasons)
>>>
>>> *Subject: *SCRI Meeting March 22 2024
>>>
>>> *Where does the SCRI money go?*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a breakdown of their most recent filing, for 2022,
>>> highlighting how *no more than 20% of their revenues are regranted to
>>> research teams, while 16% goes to paying Kelly's salary and lifestyle.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The data is freely available here:
>>> https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/371908884
>>>
>>> And a PDF is attached.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fundraising:  *2,763,150*
>>> Grants given out:  *about 560,000*
>>> Salaries and benefits paid to employees:  *1,011,165, including 350,000
>>> to Kelly herself*
>>> Communications:  *351,975, including 176,950 for a website designer and
>>> 114,688 for an accounting firm*
>>> Policy research (in-house):  *226,019*
>>> Advertising and promotion:  *199,767*
>>> Travel:  252,157
>>> Purchases:  155,186
>>> Housing allowance (*Kelly's apartment in DC*):  *103,260*
>>> Funding to their 501(c)(4) lobbying organization:  641,018
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can figure out on your own how many good researchers could have been
>>> supported with similar numbers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
> 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/0ce16885-c21c-4c83-9a47-b23c32ad1728n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

[geo] Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

[Andrew Lockley]

Oswald

The group description now states solar geoengineering - but this hasn't
been raised as an issue before, as I believe members are generally clear on
the group's purpose.

Methane (arctic or otherwise) is greenhouse gas removal, normally grouped
with CDR. Just like cirrus cloud thinning is normally grouped with SRM.

As I explained before, in certain circumstances it may be relevant to post
specific CDR content to the (solar) geoengineering group - for example, if
people have questions about drone delivery of aerosols for ISA. In general,
posts should be kept strictly on topic and not cross posted from other
fora.

Andrew Lockley
Moderator
Geoengineering Google group

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 10:27 Oswald Petersen, 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> there is no need to get cross with me, I willingly oblige, that’s easy.
>
>
>
> My recommendation remains the same: Call your group something that
> reflects its content, then you will get a better targeting automatically.
> If the content is solar geoengineering, name it that way. If that was the
> case, AMR has no interest in that group, and we can easily forfeit the
> venue.
>
>
>
> BTW methane removal is neither SRM nor CDR… but that’s just a sidekick…
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 09:29
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* geoengineering ; Michael
> MacCracken ; healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> The Geoengineering Google Group covers SRM only (including CCT, etc). This
> has been true since Greg Rau forked off the CDR Google group.
>
>
>
> I - and doubtless many other list members - are heartily sick of HPAC
> cross posting. I've asked politely already. If you continue to break the
> rules you will just be banned.
>
>
>
> Andrew Lockley
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:19 Oswald Petersen, 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
>
>
> Re. Geoengineering
>
>
>
> *Geoengineering*, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process
> central to controlling Earth’s 
> climate  for the
> purpose of obtaining a specific benefit.
>
> Geoengineering | Definitions, Examples, & Technologies | Britannica
> 
>
>
>
> Our subject here is clearly a GeoEngineering subject. If you want to make
> the GeoEngineering group solely a Solar GeoEngineering group, please call
> it Solar GeoEngineering.
>
>
>
> Re. Dispersion
>
>
>
> The process we use for dispersion is called sublimation. We use the
> jet-engine for the purpose. The result is ultra-fine particles under 100
> nm. No drone can do this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 08:25
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* Michael MacCracken ;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> Chaps, this is seemingly nothing to do with the geoengineering Google
> group. Please stop cc us.
>
>
>
> The ISA aerosol can be dispersed with small drones for a lot less than
> 20m. A test project with existing equipment would be around 100k (I've been
> in supplier discussions for an MCB project) Pls see my recent paper on
> drones, noting this considers solids.
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71
>
>
>
> Your biggest issue is aerosol size. You can't assume high levels of
> surface reactivity in large aerosols; most of your material is isolated in
> the centre of the particle. So you need to concentrate on dispersing
> extraordinarily fine powders or sprays.
>
>
>
> I'm also unclear what altitude you need. Surely stratospheric dispersal
> would avoid particle rain out? There's a lot of methane in the atmosphere -
> 2000 ppb, ie 6Gt - so you have to inject a great deal of ISA to
> meaningfully clean it out, even with the high leverage you offer below
> (roughly 1 Mt for a one off, or 50ktpa for continuous). You'll have much
> longer aerosol lifetimes in the stratosphere. However, you also need to
> consider optical effects on SW / LW radiation. Alternatively, you can apply
> surface coatings to bare rock faces. If water isn't required then the
> Atacama desert or Antarctic dry valleys would be an 

[geo] Hemispherically symmetric strategies for stratospheric aerosol injection

[Geoengineering News]

*This item and others will be in the monthly “Solar Geoengineering Updates
Substack” newsletter:* https://solargeoengineeringupdates.substack.com/
---

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/15/191/2024/

*Authors*
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Ben
Kravitz

*Citations*: Zhang, Y., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., and
Kravitz, B.: Hemispherically symmetric strategies for stratospheric aerosol
injection, Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 191–213,
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024, 2024.

*Published: 13 Mar 2024*

*Abstract*
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) comes with a wide range of possible
design choices, such as the location and timing of the injection. Different
stratospheric aerosol injection strategies can yield different climate
responses; therefore, understanding the range of possible climate outcomes
is crucial to making informed future decisions on SAI, along with the
consideration of other factors. Yet, to date, there has been no systematic
exploration of a broad range of SAI strategies. This limits the ability to
determine which effects are robust across different strategies and which
depend on specific injection choices. This study systematically explores
how the choice of SAI strategy affects climate responses in one climate
model. Here, we introduce four hemispherically symmetric injection
strategies, all of which are designed to maintain the same global mean
surface temperature: an annual injection at the Equator (EQ), an annual
injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 15° N and 15° S (15N+15S), an annual
injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 30° N and 30° S (30N+30S), and a polar
injection strategy that injects equal amounts of SO2 at 60° N and 60° S
only during spring in each hemisphere (60N+60S). We compare these four
hemispherically symmetric SAI strategies with a more complex injection
strategy that injects different quantities of SO2 at 30° N, 15° N, 15° S,
and 30° S in order to maintain not only the global mean surface temperature
but also its large-scale horizontal gradients. All five strategies are
simulated using version 2 of the Community Earth System Model with the
middle atmosphere version of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate model,
version 6, as the atmospheric component, CESM2(WACCM6-MA), with the global
warming scenario, Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP)2-4.5. We find that the
choice of SAI strategy affects the spatial distribution of aerosol optical
depths, injection efficiency, and various surface climate responses. In
addition, injecting in the subtropics produces more global cooling per unit
injection, with the EQ and the 60N+60S cases requiring, respectively, 59 %
and 50 % more injection than the 30N+30S case to meet the same global mean
temperature target. Injecting at higher latitudes results in larger
Equator-to-pole temperature gradients. While all five strategies restore
Arctic September sea ice, the high-latitude injection strategy is more
effective due to the SAI-induced cooling occurring preferentially at higher
latitudes. These results suggest trade-offs wherein different strategies
appear better or worse, depending on which metrics are deemed important.


*Source: EGU*

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh9-OWNOu-Ya0iFOazhbXkZum1o3m5ShxMYwvvLTfJ7yJ%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

[Andrew Lockley]

It's an interesting discussion, as it actually raises questions about Iron
Salt Aerosols more generally. My concern is they do too much - leading to
uncertain magnitude and sign of effects.

I'm happy to see ISA discussion on the geo list, if there's an obvious
content cross over with SRM - re optical effects, cloud nuclei, aircraft
distribution, etc. If it's general ISA discussion (ie methane removal),
best on the CDR list.

However, nit picking over edge cases isn't important. It's the thoughtless
spamming of the geoengineering Google group with completely irrelevant
content that has to stop.

Andrew
Geoengineering Google group moderator

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:53 Clive Elsworth, 
wrote:

> Andrew
>
>
>
> Part of the problem is that some interventions do more than one thing. For
> example, Iron Salt Aerosol and other Climate Catalyst Aerosols:
>
>- Remove Methane (CDR)
>- Act as Cloud Condensation Nuclei (SRM)
>- Fertilize the ocean (mCDR)
>
>
>
> So, should posts on this type of intervention be banned from both the CDR
> and SRM groups, or allowed in both?
>
>
>
> Clive
>
>
>
> *From:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Lockley
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2024 8:29 AM
> *To:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* geoengineering ; Michael
> MacCracken ; healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> The Geoengineering Google Group covers SRM only (including CCT, etc). This
> has been true since Greg Rau forked off the CDR Google group.
>
>
>
> I - and doubtless many other list members - are heartily sick of HPAC
> cross posting. I've asked politely already. If you continue to break the
> rules you will just be banned.
>
>
>
> Andrew Lockley
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:19 Oswald Petersen, 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
>
>
> Re. Geoengineering
>
>
>
> *Geoengineering*, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process
> central to controlling Earth’s 
> climate  for the
> purpose of obtaining a specific benefit.
>
> Geoengineering | Definitions, Examples, & Technologies | Britannica
> 
>
>
>
> Our subject here is clearly a GeoEngineering subject. If you want to make
> the GeoEngineering group solely a Solar GeoEngineering group, please call
> it Solar GeoEngineering.
>
>
>
> Re. Dispersion
>
>
>
> The process we use for dispersion is called sublimation. We use the
> jet-engine for the purpose. The result is ultra-fine particles under 100
> nm. No drone can do this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 08:25
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* Michael MacCracken ;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> Chaps, this is seemingly nothing to do with the geoengineering Google
> group. Please stop cc us.
>
>
>
> The ISA aerosol can be dispersed with small drones for a lot less than
> 20m. A test project with existing equipment would be around 100k (I've been
> in supplier discussions for an MCB project) Pls see my recent paper on
> drones, noting this considers solids.
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71
>
>
>
> Your biggest issue is aerosol size. You can't assume high levels of
> surface reactivity in large aerosols; most of your material is isolated in
> the centre of the particle. So you need to concentrate on dispersing
> extraordinarily fine powders or sprays.
>
>
>
> I'm also unclear what altitude you need. Surely stratospheric dispersal
> would avoid particle rain out? There's a lot of methane in the atmosphere -
> 2000 ppb, ie 6Gt - so you have to inject a great deal of ISA to
> meaningfully clean it out, even with the high leverage you offer below
> (roughly 1 Mt for a one off, or 50ktpa for continuous). You'll have much
> longer aerosol lifetimes in the stratosphere. However, you also need to
> consider optical effects on SW / LW radiation. Alternatively, you can apply
> surface coatings to bare rock faces. If water isn't required then the
> Atacama desert or Antarctic dry valleys would be an option.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 06:34 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action
> Coalition (HPAC), 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike,
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> I completely agree with all you say. We treat benefits from 

[geo] Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

[Andrew Lockley]

The Geoengineering Google Group covers SRM only (including CCT, etc). This
has been true since Greg Rau forked off the CDR Google group.

I - and doubtless many other list members - are heartily sick of HPAC cross
posting. I've asked politely already. If you continue to break the rules
you will just be banned.

Andrew Lockley

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:19 Oswald Petersen, 
wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
>
>
> Re. Geoengineering
>
>
>
> *Geoengineering*, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process
> central to controlling Earth’s 
> climate  for the
> purpose of obtaining a specific benefit.
>
> Geoengineering | Definitions, Examples, & Technologies | Britannica
> 
>
>
>
> Our subject here is clearly a GeoEngineering subject. If you want to make
> the GeoEngineering group solely a Solar GeoEngineering group, please call
> it Solar GeoEngineering.
>
>
>
> Re. Dispersion
>
>
>
> The process we use for dispersion is called sublimation. We use the
> jet-engine for the purpose. The result is ultra-fine particles under 100
> nm. No drone can do this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 08:25
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* Michael MacCracken ;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> Chaps, this is seemingly nothing to do with the geoengineering Google
> group. Please stop cc us.
>
>
>
> The ISA aerosol can be dispersed with small drones for a lot less than
> 20m. A test project with existing equipment would be around 100k (I've been
> in supplier discussions for an MCB project) Pls see my recent paper on
> drones, noting this considers solids.
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71
>
>
>
> Your biggest issue is aerosol size. You can't assume high levels of
> surface reactivity in large aerosols; most of your material is isolated in
> the centre of the particle. So you need to concentrate on dispersing
> extraordinarily fine powders or sprays.
>
>
>
> I'm also unclear what altitude you need. Surely stratospheric dispersal
> would avoid particle rain out? There's a lot of methane in the atmosphere -
> 2000 ppb, ie 6Gt - so you have to inject a great deal of ISA to
> meaningfully clean it out, even with the high leverage you offer below
> (roughly 1 Mt for a one off, or 50ktpa for continuous). You'll have much
> longer aerosol lifetimes in the stratosphere. However, you also need to
> consider optical effects on SW / LW radiation. Alternatively, you can apply
> surface coatings to bare rock faces. If water isn't required then the
> Atacama desert or Antarctic dry valleys would be an option.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 06:34 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action
> Coalition (HPAC), 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike,
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> I completely agree with all you say. We treat benefits from OIF and MCB
> (the particles are also CCN) as freebies, benefits unknown in their
> efficiency. Bringing down methane levels alone would actually be sufficient
> to avert GW spiralling into the nevernever.
>
>
>
> So let us concentrate on CH4. As you say, there are a number of variables
> which influence the efficiency, and all our efforts in the last two years
> did indeed concentrate on that efficiency. The most important parameters
> are:
>
>
>
>- Height of dispersal point.
>- Location of dispersal point
>- Time of dispersal e.g. windspeed, weather conditions.
>- Size of particles
>- Dispersion method
>
>
>
> We have recently changed our dispersion technology from high, ocean-based
> steel-towers to planes. Those planes have jet-engines which we use for the
> dispersal of FeCl3 particles. Because of their speed and power jets are the
> best dispersion tool imaginable. Moving the dispersion point guarantees a
> large air room to be filled, plus, of course, planes are able to adapt
> their flight altitude to current weather conditions, which makes the model
> completely scalable. Today I wonder why it took us so long to understand
> this, but… there you go…
>
>
>
> With this dispersion technology we can basically decide ourselves what
> concentration of ISA we want on the ground. From our expert in toxicology
> we know that all concentrations below 1 ppm are harmless. Actually FeCl3 is
> quite harmless, non-toxic, so there is nothing to fear from that side. We
> work with much higher concentrations in our lab on a daily basis. The only
> small problem it poses is the fact that in