Re: [geo] ...//... Assessment of Global Warming and of Mitigation Methods Using Albedo Enhancement from Algae, Cloud, and Land

[Ronal Larson]

Ken et al, adding Tom Goreau (who probably is well aware of DMS)

Thanks for the response, especially your below using the term “DMS”.

I spent much of the day chasing that word and found an amazing amount 
on the subject - much in the last few year..  There are clearly many things 
still to learn but climate modelers seem now able to pretty well predict the 
dozen or so chemical transformations that happen over a day or so as DMS 
changes to encourage clouds.

I never found a paper saying that DMS could be a practical method for 
increasing albedo, but I’m now pretty sure that’s on some minds.  Being 
natural, it should solve a lot of practical problems in carrying out simple 
cloud albedo experiments.

I have followed the Sargasso biomass possibility for several years.  
There are people doing something similar - even including biochar aspects - but 
I now have more interest in DMS.   Maybe can be coupled with biochar.

More coming, hopefully.

Ron


> On Dec 16, 2023, at 9:52 AM, Ken Lightburn  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ronal
> Thanks for your communication. Here is a wild idea or two.
> 
> If you look to the sea you might find sufficient plant material for your 
> biochar requirements which seem inadequate elsewhere and expensive to 
> transport. If we could inoculate other oceans successfully with Sargasso, 
> then it will wash onto new coastlines. If the Indian Ocean were inoculated 
> the Sagasso may wash onto the Somalia coast near the desert and be buried by 
> the surf thus rotting and yielding DMS and similar for cloud generation. 
> Clouds do sometimes form near deserts, near and if edged by, an ocean. 
> 
> Any washing ashore near habitation could be used for fertilizing crops thus 
> sequestering carbon and any surplus tonnage could be dried and burnt as 
> biochar.
> It may also be worth a study of the effects of Sagasso on microplastics. 
> Perhaps it will also help clean the oceans. Could it possibly engulf any of 
> it? Unlikely.
>   
> Stay cool,
> 
> 
> Ken Lightburn B.E. (Mech Eng) M.B.A.
> Founder/ President 914 428 8425
> Help Offset Global Warming Foundation
> 17 Hillcrest Vw, Hartsdale,New York 10530
> www.HelpOffset.org <http://www.helpoffset.org/>
> From: Ronal Larson 
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 11:44 PM
> To: Renaud de RICHTER ; Geoengineering 
> ; Ye Tao 
> Cc: Ken Lightburn 
> Subject: Re: [geo] ...//... Assessment of Global Warming and of Mitigation 
> Methods Using Albedo Enhancement from Algae, Cloud, and Land
>  
> Renaud , list,  Ken, adding Ye Tao
> 
> 1.  Thanks for bringing the Lightburn paper to our attention.
> 
> 2.  I have read the paper only moderately closely;  I find nothing wrong and 
> find some new ways to both explain the importance of albedo and to increase 
> it., Also, it seems to have the same general flavor as considerable similar 
> albedo correspondence on this list of Dr. Ye Tao.   So my first. question is 
> to Dr.  Tao - whether there is any part of the Lightburn paper with which you 
> would take exception?   
> And hoping then for further dialog between Ken and Dr.  Tao.
> 
> 3.   My interest in the topic comes mainly from the CDR approach called 
> “biochar” - which is generally not now considered part of “Geo”, but I think 
> can be supportive to albedo increase.  One way is emphasizing growth of 
> plants with higher albedo.  But I'm afraid there isn’t much to be gained 
> there.  Or, is there some hope?   I have seen one tree with almost white 
> leaves.
>  
> 4.  But there may be hope for a stronger biochar/albedo connection by 
> emphasizing the use of plants with both high growth rate AND that emit 
> particles that can increase the quality and quantity of clouds of the right 
> type.  Clearly there are almost no clouds with deserts - where there are no 
> plants.  I believe it is also well established that different types of trees 
> emit different particles (all emit water), and perhaps some plants are known 
> to encourage clouds.  We seem destined to have plenty of biochar growth in 
> the near future - and we might as well get as much new albedo as we can. 
> Where do I find literature on cloud-forming plants?
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On Dec 15, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Renaud de RICHTER  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Lightburn, Kenneth D. "Can a Symbolic Mega-Unit of Radiative Forcing (RF) 
>> Improve Understanding and Assessment of Global Warming and of Mitigation 
>> Methods Using Albedo Enhancement from Algae, Cloud, and Land (AEfACL)?." 
>> Climate 11.3 (2023): 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11030062
>> https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/3/62/pdf?version=1698835102
>> Abstract
>> 
>> By expressing radiative forcing (RF) in a symbolic mega

Re: [geo] ...//... Assessment of Global Warming and of Mitigation Methods Using Albedo Enhancement from Algae, Cloud, and Land

[Ronal Larson]

Renaud , list,  Ken, adding Ye Tao

1.  Thanks for bringing the Lightburn paper to our attention.

2.  I have read the paper only moderately closely;  I find nothing 
wrong and find some new ways to both explain the importance of albedo and to 
increase it., Also, it seems to have the same general flavor as considerable 
similar albedo correspondence on this list of Dr. Ye Tao.   So my first. 
question is to Dr.  Tao - whether there is any part of the Lightburn paper with 
which you would take exception?   
And hoping then for further dialog between Ken and Dr.  Tao.

3.   My interest in the topic comes mainly from the CDR approach called 
“biochar” - which is generally not now considered part of “Geo”, but I think 
can be supportive to albedo increase.  One way is emphasizing growth of plants 
with higher albedo.  But I'm afraid there isn’t much to be gained there.  Or, 
is there some hope?   I have seen one tree with almost white leaves.
 
4.  But there may be hope for a stronger biochar/albedo connection by 
emphasizing the use of plants with both high growth rate AND that emit 
particles that can increase the quality and quantity of clouds of the right 
type.  Clearly there are almost no clouds with deserts - where there are no 
plants.  I believe it is also well established that different types of trees 
emit different particles (all emit water), and perhaps some plants are known to 
encourage clouds.  We seem destined to have plenty of biochar growth in the 
near future - and we might as well get as much new albedo as we can. 
Where do I find literature on cloud-forming plants?

Ron


> On Dec 15, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Renaud de RICHTER  
> wrote:
> 
> Lightburn, Kenneth D. "Can a Symbolic Mega-Unit of Radiative Forcing (RF) 
> Improve Understanding and Assessment of Global Warming and of Mitigation 
> Methods Using Albedo Enhancement from Algae, Cloud, and Land (AEfACL)?." 
> Climate 11.3 (2023): 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11030062
> https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/3/62/pdf?version=1698835102
> Abstract
> 
> By expressing radiative forcing (RF) in a symbolic mega-unit we better 
> communicate, to governing organizations and the public, the extent of global 
> warming (GW) and the potency of mitigation methods while also ‘translating’ 
> different GW measures to better explain their interrelationship. An easily 
> visualized symbol that has been suggested is the net shading, or mega-unit, 
> of RF of a “standard 1 km2 cumulus cloud over one day of −25 W/m2” (ScCd). As 
> defined, ScCd is equal to 600,000 kWh and equivalent to Temporary heat 
> radiation Equivalent Carbon (ThrEC) of 18,400 tons of carbon heat effect, or 
> 67,300 tons of CO2 and an approximately 0.136 albedo increase, over 1 km2. 
> Shading over the whole earth caused by clouds is estimated by NASA as −13 
> W/m2. The excess of solar radiation or Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) striking 
> the earth was + 1.12 W/m2 in mid-2019 and has been continually increasing. 
> Offsetting this requires the creation of additional reflective surfaces 
> equivalent to 22.848 million square kilometers of ScCd. Such an increase 
> could be provided by albedo enhancement from algae on the ocean surface, 
> marine cloud brightening (MCB) or new marine cloud creation, or land area use 
> that rejuvenates salt flats and similar locations (AEfACL). These are 
> potentially politically acceptable and eventually could be achieved at large 
> enough scale to be effective globally.
> 
> Keywords:
> albedo enhancement ; 
> artificial upwelling ; 
> albedo ; ocean fertilization 
> ; radiative forcing 
> ; global warming 
> ; mitigation 
> ; climate change 
> ; standard cloud 
> ; regenerative agriculture 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAHodn9_FJQZWP9XTLHEzQ_aLBtLrJ7Nu76PNEP32p_jwMfoD8Q%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

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

[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 

Re: [geo] A Heat Shield for the Most Important Ice on Earth (from April 2023)

[Ronal Larson]

Renaud and list:

Thanks for this short squib, presumably from a New Yorker site I 
couldn’t find.

Dr. Seitz was a regular on this list (maybe a predecessor list - around 
2010).  Googling shows him today associated with a small DC firm supplying 
micro-bubble equipment.  

It would be great if a list member who knows him could encourage him to 
give a little more of his and others current activities on this bubble and 
reflectivity topic.

Ron


> On Jun 17, 2023, at 4:34 AM, Renaud de RICHTER  
> wrote:
> 
> Comment
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> www.newyorker.com 
> /news/the-control-of-nature/a-heat-shield-for-the-most-important-ice-on-earth 
> 
>  
> 
> A Heat Shield for the Most Important Ice on Earth
> 
> Rachel Riederer 25/04/2023
> On a clear morning in late March, in rural Lake Elmo, Minnesota, I followed 
> two materials scientists, Tony Manzara and Doug Johnson, as they tromped down 
> a wintry hill behind Manzara’s house. The temperature was in the high 
> thirties; a foot of snow covered the ground and sparkled almost unbearably in 
> the sunlight. Both men wore dark shades. “You don’t need a parka,” Johnson 
> told me. “But you need sunglasses—snow blindness, you know?” At the bottom of 
> the hill, after passing some turkey tracks, we reached a round, frozen pond, 
> about a hundred feet across. Manzara, a gregarious man with bushy eyebrows, 
> and Johnson, a wiry cross-country skier with a quiet voice, stepped 
> confidently onto the ice.
> 
> Manzara and Johnson wanted me to see the place where, in a series of 
> experiments, they had shown that it was possible to slow the pond’s yearly 
> thaw. Starting in the winter of 2012, working with a colleague named Leslie 
> Field, they had covered some of the ice with glass microspheres, or tiny, 
> hollow bubbles. Through the course of several winters, they demonstrated that 
> the coated ice melted much more slowly than bare ice. An array of scientific 
> instruments explained why: the spheres increase the ice’s albedo, or the 
> portion of the sun’s light that the ice bounces back toward the sky. (Bright 
> surfaces tend to reflect light; we take advantage of albedo, which is Latin 
> for “whiteness,” when we wear white clothes in summer.)
> 
> 
> At the edge of the pond, Manzara and Johnson started to reminisce. 
> Originally, they had applied glass bubbles to a few square sections of the 
> frozen pond, expecting that the brightest ice would last longest. But they 
> found that, beneath the pond’s frozen surface, water was still circulating, 
> erasing any temperature differences between the test and control sections. In 
> subsequent years, they sank walls of plastic sheeting beneath the pond’s 
> surface, and the coated ice started to last longer. At first, Johnson 
> manually measured the ice thickness by donning a wetsuit and snowshoes, tying 
> a rope around his waist, and walking onto the frozen surface with a drill and 
> a measuring rod; he was relieved when they figured out how to take sonar 
> measurements instead. Manzara directed my gaze to two trees on opposite 
> shores. “This is where we set up the flying albedometer,” he said. An 
> albedometer measures reflected radiation; theirs “flew” over the lake by way 
> of a rope strung between two pulleys. By this point, I had been staring at 
> the ice and snow for almost an hour, and my vision started to turn 
> purple-pink. I blinked hard as we headed inside.
> 
> Manzara, Johnson, and Field want to prove that a thin coating of reflective 
> materials, in the right places, could help to save some of the world’s most 
> important ice. Climate scientists report that polar ice is shrinking, 
> thinning, and weakening year by year. Models predict that the Arctic Ocean 
> could be ice-free in summer by the year 2035. The melting ice wouldn’t just 
> be a victim of climate change—it would drive further warming. The physics 
> seem almost sinister: compared with bright ice, which serves as a cool 
> topcoat that insulates the ocean from solar radiation, a dark, ice-free ocean 
> would absorb far more heat. All of this happens underneath the Arctic 
> summer’s twenty-four-hour sun. But the fragility of the Arctic cuts both 
> ways: as much as the region needs help, its ecosystems are sensitive enough 
> that large-scale interventions could have unintended consequences.
> 
> That afternoon, Field arrived at Manzara’s house from California, where she 
> runs a microtechnology-consulting company and teaches a Stanford course on 
> climate change, engineering, and entrepreneurship. Like an old friend, she 
> let herself in and called out hello. Field has let her 

[geo] New reflection physics

[Ronal Larson]

Ye and list

Probably well known to you already, but is a paper being given this 
week - and quite surprising new “paint” capability.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.202104758

Ron

-- 
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/D40D6902-F82D-423E-9328-6A11A5C19064%40comcast.net.

[geo] Re: Form to make comments on AGU position draft for climate interventions - Jan. 20 deadline - AGU membership not required!

[Ronal Larson]

Ron B:

Thanks for the added alert.

I just sent in these two (relatively painless - as a non-AGU member):

"1.  Your 2019 version contains the word "soil".  The 2023 version does not.  
This could be interpreted to mean AGU no longer believes soils are important.  
In fact soils are clearly the place where the most depletion has occurred,  
much on soils is now possible and underway,  and where much more is needed for 
both climate and non-climate reasons.

2.   Your list of references for a 2023 publication would benefit from having 
one or more post 2020.  Biochar (soil-emphasis) advanced greatly in both 2021 
and 2022.;  maybe 8000 publications to choose from since 2020; many with an AGU 
focus.  Footnote (v) could be expanded."

Ron L


> On Jan 9, 2023, at 2:47 PM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Here’s the link to the form to make comments on the AGU position paper draft 
> statement on climate interventions.  All comments are due by Jan 20.
> https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Draft-Climate-Intervention
>  
>  
> Leslie
>  has confirmed that the deadline for comments has been extended to Jan. 20th 
> and that AGU membership is not necessary. 
> 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/CAPhUB9AJcy3GGT13EVxyn3CnaK5WnEfKkpPQBeaiAdCSSfd1WQ%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/72E9CEDB-DEFA-4FBE-AA27-3CE17B2F767A%40comcast.net.

Re: [geo] Posts to list - input welcome

[Ronal Larson]

I find it helpful

> On Oct 28, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Just an update regarding my posts to the list. After a hiatus, I've got an 
> assistant again to help me with managing twitter @geoengineering1 and posts 
> to CDR & geoengineering lists. (Fundraising has therefore now reopened to 
> help offset the costs - both for for regular donations 
> http://patreon.com/geoengineering  and one 
> time donations, https://gofund.me/da586daa  ) 
> 
> It's now a good time to ask people what they want. Presently we post the 
> following - very comprehensive on twitter and much more selective on the 
> lists. 
> - Reports from think tanks 
> - Policy announcements, esp. large economies 
> - Scientific papers 
> - Occasional high quality news articles 
> - Blogs from prominent commentators, especially those with new ideas 
> - Some jobs (usually more senior ones) 
> We haven't done summary emails (eg for this week's videos) for a while, but 
> we'll hopefully start these again soon
> 
> Is this what you are looking for? We can potentially throttle any of the 
> above. 
> 
> Finally, the format is up for debate. We normally do one story per email, so 
> you can open what you want and reply selectively. Round up emails are more 
> manageable for readers, but don't allow threaded replies. We normally send in 
> plain text. This makes it easy to read, minimises your data, makes the 
> content searchable and allows you to click through to read stories on the 
> original source. 
> 
> Any of these things can be changed. FYI CDR isn't my list (it's Greg's), so I 
> have no say what and who goes on. If the work I do isn't useful or welcome 
> then let me know so I can change or stop it. I'm only doing it to help. It 
> takes loads of my time and a not insignificant amount of my money to do this, 
> so if it's not helpful then I need to know. 
> 
> 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-06ZUGwwWvcQyAGnFqRh__4UALxm48Kg9W63PY%2B8nf4rGw%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/DD04BB5A-3A11-49E1-8ABA-DD4E61549222%40comcast.net.

Re: [geo] Climate Book review

[Ronal Larson]

Robert and Stephen , with ccs

Because I saw the word “biochar” below, I read the full Wake Smith book 
review by the Physics World editor Hamish Johnston.  Sounding worthwhile at 
more than 400 pages, I purchased the Kindle E-book version at under $17. 
  I was disappointed at biochar being covered through quotes from 3 
cites in one short paragraph. One 2015 cite was new to me, and relatively OK, 
but nothing special. The other two were reasonable choices, but from 2010 and 
2018 (which covered much more than biochar).   I would rate Smith’s coverage of 
biochar as at best a “D”.   Smith is not a promoter of biochar;  Johnston may 
be, having (see quote below) chosen biochar for covering that small CDR  part 
of what is clearly a text for an introductory class on climate.
I skimmed the rest and didn’t find anything special - in more than 400 
pages.  But I’d be interested in hearing of any part of the book that anyone 
recommends.  It does cover a lot of topics - but I had hoped for more.
Thanks to Robert and Stephen for the alerts.

Ron



> On Sep 11, 2022, at 9:34 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
>  wrote:
> 
> Stephen
> 
>  
> 
> This review 
> 
>  makes several comments that are ignorant and unscientific.  It is amazing at 
> one level that Physics World can publish such mythological claims, but 
> unsurprising at another level, in view of the popular hold of the myths the 
> review promotes and the emotional comfort they provide to the mass climate 
> movement.
> 
> Lets go through them.
> 
> “The rapid reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero is the only 
> practical way to halt climate change.” 
> No.  This is wrong in several points.  Rapid reduction of emissions is not 
> practical in view of the intense and powerful political and economic 
> opposition to it, and the immense technical challenges in stopping emissions 
> of both carbon dioxide and methane.  All the talk of cutting emissions in 
> recent decades has only seen a remorseless rise. Next, even “net zero” would 
> be far from a “way to halt climate change”.  Reaching net zero by 2050 would 
> see a CO2 equivalent level well above 600 parts per million. Numerous 
> irreversible tipping points would be crossed before then, unless we move 
> immediately to brighten the planet.  Relying on carbon methods alone is like 
> claiming you can stop a thirty foot flood with a ten foot levee.  That is not 
> practical.  And even if tipping points do not somehow push us into a 
> hothouse, the idea that 600 ppm would not involve further climate change is 
> absurd.  It would commit the planet to ongoing change until we reach earth 
> system equilibrium with much higher sea level etc.   
> 
> One obvious reason for caution is that altering the chemical makeup of the 
> atmosphere is what got us into this climate mess, and some worry that further 
> tinkering could make things worse.
> This may seem “obvious” but it is not.  It is obvious politically that many 
> (not just some) people do have this worry, which has been aggressively 
> promoted by political opponents using flawed and deceptive moral hazard 
> logic.  It is not at all obvious scientifically, which is what should matter 
> to Physics World.  There are no good scientific grounds for the ideological 
> worries that have prevented investment in cooling technology.  
> Scientifically, applying known cooling chemistry would cause cooling, if 
> managed under strong technical protocols.  This would pull us back from the 
> dangerous precipice of numerous looming unsafe tipping points, with benefits 
> far exceeding risks.  Use of charged political rhetoric like “obvious” is 
> unscientific.  Cooling chemistry is completely different from the chemistry 
> of emissions. 
> 
> Even if we do manage to meet the Paris Agreement 
> 
>  and get to net-zero emissions shortly after 2050, Smith warns, the excess 
> carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere will endure for centuries or 
> even millennia. This means that temperatures will not quickly return to 
> pre-industrial levels.
> This claim accepts the howling popular error in the meaning of net zero, 
> which actually just means emissions equal removals.  It is probable that when 
> net zero is achieved, it will mainly be through removals, not through cutting 
> emissions.  That will mean we will have a trajectory of expanding removals. 
> The removal technology will enable the excess CO2 to be removed over the next 
> decades through ongoing removals, and will not at all imply past emissions 
> will endure for centuries.  The problem is that this review accepts the 
> popular mythological assumption that net zero mainly requires decarbonisation 
> of the economy when that is not the case at all.   
> 
> 

Re: [geo] Senior scholars?

[Ronal Larson]

Greg,  GEO list and 2 ccs  

Six answers to your questions below;

> On Jan 21, 2022, at 9:46 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> “In short, solar geoengineering deployment cannot be governed globally in a 
> fair, inclusive, and effective manner.” 

[RWL1:This quote follows three reasons (that do not follow for CDR) 
from this cite - 5 days ago:


https://science.thewire.in/environment/scholars-float-political-intervention-against-solar-geoengineering/

> Apparently, neither can adequate emissions reduction.

[RWL2; Maybe - but depends on “adequate” (which wasn’t for decades)..  
Both wind and solar PV are now least cost and energy efficiency was always 
getting pretty good government - based on my experience with our local PUC (= 
Public Utility Commission).  Our local utility has pretty aggressive goals now 
in all these reduction (as opposed to removal) categories - and it is being 
governed..  (My PUC is NOT doing well with CDR (because our utility is not) - 
but some PUCs and utilities are.)


> Considering what’s at stake, how about trying harder on both fronts?

[RWL3:  Good -  with your “both” meaning solar geoengineering and 
emissions reductions.  But the group of 45 has given three reasons why the 
former is impossible.  I doubt the 45 are concerned at all with governance of 
emissions reductions.


> Or would that be asking too much of governance “experts”?

[RWl4:   The 45-group, which has given up on solar geoengineering are 
predominately from the field of “governance".  So they are saying “trying 
harder" isn’t going to work - for   theirthree stated reasons.  Arguments 
against their conclusions should focus on their three reasons., 

> Guess our only hope is CDR,

[RWL5:  Maybe not “our only hope” - but CDR seems a lot more possible 
than solar geoengineering now  - especially after the strong negative message 
this week - in Science.  We working on CDR are very fortunate to not have this 
sort of dialog on the CDR list

> or is that also beyond human control?

[RWL6.   Not sure whether your  “that” refers to “hope” or “CDR” or 
“beyond human control”.  Assuming you are referring to “ DR" (whose list 
moderation you lead), I now believe it very unlikely we will ever see any such 
negative reaction to CDR.  This in large part because CDR generally seems to 
not need be controlled and if needed,  can be or already is.

   One point of evidence is the many hundreds of entrees in four categories 
of the $100 million Musk XPRIZE (only on CDR).  Entrants have to answer (in 10 
days) many dozens of questions - none on this topic.

I doubt that a thread like this would get much attention on your CDR 
list.   But I am glad to see such discussion here.  Has to help come up with 
better technologies (that go beyond global long-lived sulfur additions).

Ron


> Greg
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:07 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
>> mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Andrew
>>  
>> From the content of the letter, it is obvious the authors are not 
>> geoengineering experts.  The signatories of the open letter 
>>  are listed at 
>> https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/ 
>> .  They are 




-- 
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/07AD8884-5817-4D7C-BE4C-B4563E0D23F0%40comcast.net.

[geo] Re: [CDR] World Cooling Map

[Ronal Larson]

Robert and Paul, John  and 6 ccs. (note that Paul added “biochar.io”, but did 
not otherwise use that word.  I am mainly responding for biochar reasons)

RWL1.  I write because I agree with Paul on all 3 of Robert’s 3 ideas below.  
Paul said;
"others can embrace the visions (plural) of how to save our planet. “ 

see other inserts below in both Paul’s and Robert’s messages today

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 9:24 AM, Anderson, Paul  wrote:
> 
> Robert,
>  
> AWESOME!!!   
> Each of the 3 possible cooling interventions has merit for separate 
> discussions.   
>  
> Please keep  me included in any discussion / work regarding the focus on
>Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents
>  
> I am a retired geography professor.   I offer the following contribution:
>  
> A.  The green dot indicating an Algae farm in the North Atlantic Ocean is 
> either too far north or a second dot is needed in the Sargasso Sea.   That is 
> the area in the center of the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean.   Also 
> referred to as the Doldrums because of LACK of winds and very little current 
> to  drive the old sailing ships.It is also referred to for its position 
> as a subtropical high.
>  
> It is the center of the very stable high pressure zone over the North 
> Atlantic at around 30 degrees north latitude, the zone of subtropical highs.  
>  The main air flow is from the upper atmosphere downward with clockwise 
> rotation (which drives the winds and therefore the ocean currents around the 
> edges of the high pressure zone.   High pressure also coincides with 
> (actually causes) cloudless sky, meaning more incoming solar radiation.
> That helps grow the macro-algae (the Sargassum seaweed)
>  
> I highly recommend this summary at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea 
>   
> NOTE:  Yes, it is Wikipedia, which I think is a very useful resource for 
> basic information, and I encourage you to join me in annual donations to 
> assure its continuation.
>  
[RWL2:  A few questions for sargassum experts:  

1.  Is the vast majority of sargassum growth on the southern 
part of its journey from Africa to the Caribbean?  
2.  Any need to contain the moving patches of sargassum?  (much 
cheaper to not do so, presumably)
3.  Can harvesting take place only in the Caribbean?
4.  How valuable would conversion to biochar be to the local 
region?  (and might “tourism” funds from those countries be available to 
support this concept?
5.  Are the other gyres all fairly similar?
6.  Any estimates of annual dry tonnage - globally?
7.  Which parts of the ocean seem best for harvesting as input 
to biochar?  (I’ve heard good things about the southern coast of Australia.)

Agree with Paul’s part B - can jump to RWL3 in Robert’s message.

> `
>  
>  
> B.  My 20 years of work in retirement have been about pyrolysis for energy 
> and  biochar.   I assure you that the intended
>Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents
> is quite compatible with biochar production, but that is for later messages.
>  
> I would alter that descriptor to read as:  Large scale ocean-based 
> algae farms floating on the oceans.   The reference to the currents is too 
> limiting. There are similar oceanic areas in the central zones of all of 
> the  oceans at about 30 degrees north and also south latitudes.   Taken 
> together, if they are (estimated to be) 10% of the world’s oceans, that would 
> be 7% of the surface of the planet, and located in the “best” zones for 
> favourable sunshine and  plenty of water (if desalinated).   Note that the 
> TOTAL land mass is only 30% of the surface of the planet, including rugged 
> mountains and very dry deserts.
>  
> Not totally in jest, I will say that the development of the oceanic surfaces 
> in the areas of the subtropical highs could become the needed “Planet B” 
> where life on Earth (or at least major activities) could find some partial 
> salvation as we destroy our lives and livelihood on land.
>  
> Robert, I am on board with you for this  topic.   I hope that others can 
> embrace the visions (plural) of how to save our planet.  
>  
> Paul
>  
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com 
> 
>  Email:  psand...@ilstu.edu    Skype:  
>  paultlud
>  Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
> Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFPGo to: www.JuntosNFP.org 
>   
> Inventor of RoCC kilns and author of Biochar white paper :  See  
> www.woodgas.energy/resources   
> Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org 
> 

Re: [geo] Arctic Wind Pump

[Ronal Larson]

Robert, Steven, Peter, John - with ccs:

1.   Thanks to Robert for this additional information below on Prof. 
Desch and others.  The following is to keep this dialog alive for a bit longer.

2.  The topic of added arctic ice formation was on this list some years 
ago.  Much of the expertise was then coming from Prof. Peter Flynn - based on 
his 2005 paper with S. Zhou - no-fee download possible at:  

http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs/Climatechange/Carbon%20sequestration/Zhou%20anf%20Flynn.pdf

   3.  Some of us made (via a home freezer) and discussed the visual 
appearance of a salty layer on top of the normal relatively-salt-free ocean ice 
layer.  But this Arctic ice  topic was dropped on this list.  Good to see its 
return.

4.   I have now read and followed-up on the 2017 Prof. Desch paper 
noted below by Robert Tulip. I was pleased to see a great deal more valuable 
data on arctic ice loss and gain.  This paper did not mention the earlier Peter 
Flynn material.

5.  Using Wiki,  I found five more papers referencing the Desch paper 
(which is cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_geoengineering)
 along with the Zhou - Flynn cite.  The next two papers are similar in brief 
follow-ups to Desch - but nothing on the hardware topic of this note. 
 I don’t sense any great concerns.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001230
https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/77851/1/Accepted_Manuscript.pdf
`
6.  Getting to my main point - I think (along with Prof.  Flynn) that 
it should be more economical to have the ice-making machinery be mobile - 
rather than fixed to a buoy.  Flynn was thinking a barge.  I agree with that 
for some ice-making,  but I am also thinking something with a strong similarity 
to what is described at 
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceboat  as
> "An iceboat (occasionally spelled ice boat or traditionally called an ice 
> yacht) is a recreational or competition sailing craft supported on metal 
> runners for traveling over ice."

Other from Wiki:
-   This “yacht” at one time held the world speed record - and 
practical business use goes back hundreds of years   

-   The end of the second Wiki paragraph under “Venues” gives 
encouragement on being 
able to drop the Desch system weight and cost by more than an order of 
magnitude. 
"This type of craft was accessible to sportsmen of modest means.  
(Emphasis added)

-  I guess that such an ice-thickening machine could also be made or 
assembled close to the Arctic (or on a large ice-making boat?), therefore  with 
minimal cost for transport.  Also using mostly carbon - neutral materials (wood 
and carbon fiber - stronger than steel), 

-Many topics need further discussion - such as tie-downs, adding 
solar PV,  ratio of self vs central control,  escape from a "freeze-in”, etc.

Thoughts on mobile vs fixed ice-making pumpers??

Ron


> On Aug 20, 2021, at 6:28 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Kevin – in reply to your 12 August comment on Arctic wind pumps to thicken 
> sea ice to increase albedo, I felt your description of this technology 
> against the Rumsfeld epistemology was a bit flippant in view of its potential 
> importance as a cost-effective contribution to planetary cooling.  I don’t 
> accept your assertion that Arctic sea ice is fatally doomed.
>  
> I see you have worked with Sev Clarke on his Ice Shield ideas (link 
> ),
>  and am interested to know whether innovative methods can overcome the 
> challenges you mention.  
>  
> After reading your comment I returned to read Desch et al. (2017), Arctic Ice 
> Management, (free link 
> ), 
> which is the most prominent analysis of the Arctic wind pump sea ice concept. 
>  Steve Desch is a Professor of Astrophysics at Arizona State University.
>  
> This article presents suggestions that are quite different from your alleged 
> “known knowns”, even accepting that you were responding to my slightly wild 
> ‘bomb dispersal’ aircraft deployment idea.  A key idea is to target locations 
> along the fringe of the sea ice in early winter, rather than to deploy across 
> the whole Arctic.  There is no point deploying where ice will not melt away 
> in summer, or where the ice melts early.  The line of late melting ice can 
> gradually be extended each year. I have added my interpretation of this to 
> the attached file from Desch’s TEDx talk.
>  
> Desch suggests that small scale trials in northern Canada can test this 
> concept, including in location where charismatic megafauna are under threat.  
> It is amazing that this paper appears like so many geoengineering suggestions 
> to have fallen dead-born 

[geo] Re: [CDR] 'Counterintuitive': The planet warmed as virus reduced CO2

[Ronal Larson]

Gre and two lists:

1..This mainly to save others time (and wondering why eenews and 
similar usually find it hard to give the original cite).. The article is 
non-fee at:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091805#:~:text=The%20COVID%E2%80%9019%20pandemic%20changed%20emissions%20of%20gases%20and%20particulates.=COVID%E2%80%9019%20induced%20lockdowns%20led,the%20earth%20in%20spring%202020.
First author Andrew Gettelman

2.  This is the first paragraph in the final section:

>   ”In this work we have estimated the effects of COVID‐19 affected 
> emissions changes in 2020. We use two ESMs with similar complexity of their 
> cloud and aerosol schemes, but very different implementations. The two 
> models, CESM and ECHAM‐HAM, yield very similar quantitative responses to the 
> same emissions perturbations. The unique aspect of this study is we use 
> simulations constrained by actual meteorology over 2020 to remove the effects 
> of meteorological noise from the simulations. This results in the ability to 
> find statistically significant changes much smaller than could be seen in 
> observations (Diamond & Wood, 2020 
> ),
>  and differs in that regard from previous work. The limitation of the study 
> is to use one set of emissions perturbation estimates from Forster et al. 
> (2020 
> ),
>  though that estimate has been compared to observations.”

3.  So I conclude the results likely to be pretty accurate (besides the 
UCAR team has lots of experience). 

  And this phenomenon makes our CDR job harder, not easier.

Ron



> On Feb 6, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> 
>> https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063724319 
>> 
> 
> "While levels of CO2 and other gaseous pollutants were falling, so were 
> emissions of aerosols that contain particles of sulfates, nitrates, black 
> carbon and dust.
> When economies are roaring along, aerosols, led by soot and sulfate ions, 
> tend to brighten clouds. That helps them reflect the sun's heat back into 
> space.
> 
> So with the absence of aerosols more sunlight fell on Earth. That made the 
> planet slightly warmer, especially near industrial countries like the U.S. 
> and Russia."
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/EFA6099E-2C66-4C74-84A8-C9180803B004%40sbcglobal.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/E69EA737-6A25-4302-B0C6-D5C515AD8D48%40comcast.net.

Re: [geo] The world needs to explore solar geoengineering as a tool to fight climate change

[Ronal Larson]

Andrew and list:

Thanks for the alert.  Professor Keith has done a good job here.  But 
he uses the terms “geoengineering” and "solar geoengineering” interchangeably 
and approximately equally.   Not a single mention of either SRM or CDR (Carbon 
Dioxide Removal) in this article.   We used to use the term “SRM” (’Solar 
Radiation Management”)  to cover the topic of this article;  why has that term 
disappeared?  Why no mention of CDR (which used to be more than half of 
discussion of “geoengineering”)?

 I’d like to hear some discussion on both the present  “Geo” and newer 
“CDR” lists of the desirability of more tightly coupling these two topics that 
used to be so tightly coupled.I personally can be supportive of the Keith 
position of this article if I knew SRM (now “geoengineering'?) funding always 
depended on both CDR funding and CDR progress.

Other thoughts on returning to a tighter coupling of these two topics?  
And of avoiding the (older, now confusing) term “Geoengineering”?

Ron


> On Oct 19, 2020, at 10:10 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/news/world-needs-explore-solar-geoengineering-tool-fight-climate-change
>  
> 
> 
> The world needs to explore solar geoengineering as a tool to fight climate 
> change
> October 19, 2020
> By David KeithSolar geoengineering, also called solar climate intervention, 
> is the idea that humans could make the planet a bit more reflective to reduce 
> temperatures and other climate changes caused by accumulating carbon 
> emissions. But at what cost?
> 
> A casual observer will read that geoengineering causes droughts, makes 
> weather less predictable, dims the blue sky, and threatens the food supply of 
> billions who depend on monsoon rains. And that’s the short list. But is it 
> fair?
> 
> A technology’s risks depend on how it’s used. Antibiotics save lives, but if 
> overused to make cheap beef in feedlots they breed deadly 
> antibiotic-resistant bacteria. As with other technologies, the risks of 
> geoengineering cannot be evaluated without a scenario for goals and 
> governance. Like antibiotics, geoengineering could be deadly if overused.
> 
> A worthy goal for solar geoengineering is to slow climate change without 
> making any region worse off. Plausible methods include spraying sea salt into 
> the air to brighten marine clouds or injecting sulfur into the stratosphere 
> to reflect some sunlight back to space. A fairly uniform application of 
> geoengineering across the globe is less prone to make some regions worse off 
> because atmospheric teleconnections mean that a strong localized application 
> may cause unwanted climate changes elsewhere. While there will certainly be 
> harmful impacts of geoengineering under such a scenario, evidence suggests 
> that it would reduce heat waves, extreme storms, and rising seas, and the 
> benefits would greatly outweigh direct physical risks, such as added air 
> pollution. Studies suggest that such geoengineering would increase crop 
> yields, and it would not perceptibly dim the blue sky. And because the 
> benefits of reduced climate change are felt most strongly in the hottest and 
> poorest parts of the world, it would reduce global income inequality.
> 
> An Internet search for “geoengineering and drought” turns up thousands of 
> hits, most prominently a Guardian article titled “Geoengineering could bring 
> severe drought to the tropics, research shows.” But despite widespread 
> reporting, not a single scientific article demonstrates that geoengineering 
> increases droughts. This disconnect is not confined to the popular press. The 
> only article on geoengineering to make the cover of Nature, the world’s most 
> prestigious scientific journal, did so under the headline “Veiled threat.” 
> Yet the research article simply showed that geoengineering might not have an 
> effect on crop yields, in contrast to previous research that suggested 
> geoengineering would increase yields.
> 
> Why the sharp divergence between media and science? It’s driven, in part, by 
> a well-intentioned sense of caution that solar geoengineering will weaken 
> efforts to cut carbon emissions. This is geoengineering’s addiction problem, 
> often called its moral hazard. If it encourages more fossil emissions by 
> masking the climate pain they cause, then it is addictive because every ton 
> of extra fossil carbon emissions increases climate risks, thereby increasing 
> the demand for geoengineering to mask the pain.
> 
> It’s a reasonable fear. Heat waves, storms, and other climate changes grow in 
> proportion to cumulative emissions of carbon. That is to the cumulative 
> amount of coal, gas, and oil that humanity has used since the Industrial 
> Revolution. Solar geoengineering acts quickly and temporarily, but it can 
> only partially reduce climate 

Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse

[Ronal Larson]

Geo and cc Jasmin

I have sent this message (and added a bit) over to the CDR list.

Ron



> On Aug 15, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Jasmin S. A. Link  
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
> 
> Thank you very much, for your interest an for emphasizing the relevance of my 
> thesis in the context of SRM and CDR.
> 
> Please, feel free to add me to the CDR list as well.
> 
> The detailed potential side effects networks I have published only for SAI 
> (Figure 3.1.) and BECCS (Figure 3.2. in the same EuTRACE final report) so 
> far. I have made one for afforestion, but that has not been as requested and 
> intriguing for discussion yet.
> 
> I think, some of the potential indirect side effects of SRM - such as a 
> potential reduction in individual mitigation efforts - might also apply to a 
> large-scale CDR. Depending on the method of CDR and its public presence (like 
> artificial trees), this might also be true for even relatively small 
> applications of CDR. Thus, it might be important to estimate in advance, if 
> the contruction of one artifical tree rather decreases carbon emissions, by 
> capturing them, or in total rather increases carbon emissions, by triggering 
> passengers to feel free to emit more carbon.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jasmin
> 
> 
> 
> Am 15.08.2020 um 19:47 schrieb Ronal Larson:
>> Dr.  Link and list:



-- 
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/34C2E2CB-DAC8-4850-8ECA-4ABBEA62208E%40comcast.net.

Re: [geo] IMechE Meeting on Climate Repair 9/11/19 - Youtube Recordings

[Ronal Larson]

Robert and ccs

Thanks.

All four videos worth watching.

I was surprised to see you listed at the end of Dr.  Renaud de 
Richter’s presentation.  Can you say more on what you are working on?

Also near the end of Sir King’s presentation, he called attention to a 
new paper with Clive Elsworth.  Can that be made available to these lists?

Ron



> On Sep 28, 2019, at 10:15 PM, Robert Tulip  wrote:
> 
> Presentations at Institute of Mechanical Engineers meeting  in London on 9 
> September 2019, New Tools for Climate Repair - An Introduction for Engineers.
> 
> Sir David King - A Fresh Look At Humanity's Greatest Ever Challenge - Climate 
> Repair (42 minutes) New Tools for Climate Repair: An Introduction for 
> Engineers. Sir David King FRS 
> 
> Professor Jim Haywood - Climate Repair - Why We May Need It (20 minutes) New 
> Tools for Climate Repair: an Introduction for Engineers. Professor Jim 
> Haywood 
> 
> Dr Renaud de Richter - Iron Salt Aerosol - A Natural Method to Remove Methane 
> and Other Greenhouse Gases (27 minutes)  New Tools for Climate Repair: An 
> Introduction for Engineers. Dr Renaud de Richter 
> 
> 
> Question and Answer session (31 minutes)New Tools for Climate Repair: An 
> Introduction for Engineers. Question and Answer session 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Tulip
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/53403156.551643.1569730558255%40mail.yahoo.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/8A05B056-0791-48F8-AE1C-F12D0873318B%40comcast.net.

Re: [geo] [CDR] GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf

[Ronal Larson]

uld share, beyond the 
> one by Zimmerman, Gao, and Ahn? 
[RWL6:  My google scholar search for papers after the one I mentioned 
gave this (available on Research Gate) 
as the first (maybe because it had several thousand subsequent cites).  I have 
a very high regard for Professor Lehmann’s work.  
"Biochar effects on soil biota–a review 
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071711001805>”. J 
Lehmann <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DbRhb7UJ=en=sra>, 
MC Rillig 
<https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2QVHtgUJ=en=sra>, J Thies 
<https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SZAJzysJ=en=sra>, CA 
Masiello <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1GGkVIQJ=en=sra>  
There are several pages on this “priming” issue at section 3.3.2 at page 
1822 - also NOT showing concern.

[RWL7:   Thanks for the response.  I hope you better understand biochar 
a bit.  Disparaging it will greatly slow down your commendable efforts with the 
GND.  I’d be glad to comment on any revisions you make.

Ron

> 
> All the best,
> 
> Pawel 
> 
> Pawel Wargan
> Campaign Coordinator
>  <http://www.gndforeurope.com/>
> @gndforeurope <https://twitter.com/gndforeurope>
> @pawelwargan <https://twitter.com/pawelwargan>
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Sep 2019, 05:40 +0200, Ronal Larson , wrote:
>> Pawel and David:  cc two lists
>> 
>>  I assume you know that the CDR and Geo lists (addresses given below) 
>> have suggested that those of us who expressed concern on your draft GNDE 
>> Blueprint for Europe should contact you with notes like the following.  This 
>> is my response.  In addition to my original concerns given below about your 
>> three sentences on biochar, I submit that biochar should be much more highly 
>> ranked for these additional reasons:
>> 
>>  a.   Numerous articles showing (for crop productivity reasons) 
>> continued use over thousands of years (especially as Terra Preta in the 
>> Amazon); an investment opportunity then and now - not an expense.
>>  b.   Rapid growth as an industry:  hundreds of companies making and 
>> selling biochar,  hundreds of technical articles every month,  multiple 
>> annual biochar-only symposia - on almost every continent,  numerous active 
>> web sites, etc.
>>  c.   Can provide valuable dispatchable backup energy for 
>> non-dispatchable wind and solar, at a lower cost than battery storage.
>>  d.  Growth of the biomass resource prior to harvesting and pyrolyzing 
>> is more valuable than simply planting trees, if there are no plans for the 
>> certain return of their temporary captured CO2 to the atmosphere..
>>  e.  Biochar fits well into all three of the carbon-related topics of 
>> your paper:  carbon neutral mitigation, carbon negative CDR/NET/GGR, and 
>> adaptation.
>>  f.  Biochar will be especially valuable to the poorest - often also 
>> those with the least valuable land.
>>  g.  A potential for use in our (quite sick) oceans - as well as on land.
>>  h.  Apparently the least cost way to minimize wildfire damage, by 
>> offering a home for the over-growth of biomass accompanying decades of fire 
>> suppression.
>>  i.  No need to provide insurance for CO2 stored deep underground.
>>  j.  CO2 released after combustion of the valuable pyrolysis gases is 
>> much cheaper to capture than via direct air capture;  both immediate uses 
>> possible (greenhouses) and generation of high-value chemicals (from CO and 
>> H2)
>>  k.  Has considerable potential for preventing release of CH4 and NOx.
>>  l.  Considerable (half for some soils?) reduced need for irrigation and 
>> fertilization.
>>  m.  Favorable economics from the smallest applications (rural 
>> cookstoves at a few kWth) to the largest (electric power plants at hundreds 
>> of MWe); and for different types of ownership.
>>  n.  Pyrolysis can be cleaner than combustion, and much more climate 
>> friendly than allowing methanation.
>>  o.  Improves composting (lowers odors, faster finishing, longer 
>> benefits)
>>  p.  Seems to fit every aspect of the GND
>>
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>>  
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Ronal Larson >> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>>
>>> Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf
>>> Date: September 2, 2019 at 9:57:48 AM MDT
>>> To: Andrew Lockley >> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: via geoengineering >> <mailto:geoenginee

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] GNDE-A-Blueprint-for-Europes-Just-Transition.pdf

[Ronal Larson]

Gideon.  (Cc “Geo” list)

Thanks for the suggestion.

I looked all over their web site and found no way to send in a 
suggestion.  Not a single individual’s name could be found.

I like the idea of writing them, so am hoping you or other “Geo” list 
members can suggest an address.

Ron



> On Sep 2, 2019, at 3:20 PM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ron, 
> This draft is in public consultation period, so I would recommend you sending 
> your critiscm to the authors of the report (on the GND for Europe website) a 
> sthe may edit some bits if criticed
> Best wishes
> 
> 
> Gideon Futerman
> President of Worldward
> 
> 
> 
> Em 2 de setembro de 2019, 16:57 Hora de verão Britânica, Ronal Larson 
>  escreveu:
> Andrew and list:
> 
> Thanks for the lead.
> 
> The comparable portion for biochar states (P 64)
> 
> " BIOCHAR
> A method of converting biomass into charcoal and mixing this into the soil to 
> store the burnt carbon.
> 
>  But field trials showed that biochar-treated soils were less effective in 
> sequestering carbon than untreated soils: the added carbon stimulates 
> microbes to release more CO2. 
> 
> Claims that addition of biochar enhances agricultural productivity has not 
> been consistently demonstrated. 
> 
> 
> No citations.  I conclude this biochar part of the paper received no serious 
> attention.
> 
> Sentence 1 is OK, but char-ists would never use the term “burnt carbon”;  
> there is also a growing literature on using charcoal as an additive in 
> concrete, asphalt, etc - not only soil placement.
> 
> 
>   Sentence 2 refers to a soil phenomenon called “priming”.  This 
> Google-available paper  "Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming 
> effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils “ by Andrew R. Zimmerman, 
> Bin Gao,and  Mi-Youn Ahn
>  has this as its final sentence of the abstract:
> "The data strongly suggests, however, that over the long term, biochar - soil 
> interaction will enhance soil C storage via the processes of OM sorption to 
> biochar and physical protection. “.
> 
> 
> Sentence 3’ s key phrase is:  "…not been consistently..”.  True - there are 
> negative result outliers (that can be easily caught by testing).  But the 
> vast majority of biochar outcomes have been and continue to be positive. We 
> are seeing more than 200 technical publications per month on biochar - mostly 
> favorable.
>  After millennia, the Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are valued at triple or 
> more the economic value of nearby non-biochar soils- because of triple or 
> more productivity.  If positive timing is occurring, its impact is negligible.
> 
> 
> There may be value in this report, but I’m not going to investigate it 
> further - based on this biochar example.  I am still favorable to the GND 
> (Green New Deal) concept.  Biochar can be a key part of making it work.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> On Sep 2, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Andrew Lockley  <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net?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/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6ECF4076-204E-4671-8699-C389ABEDDCF1%40comcast.net?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/8984BB44-C45E-4B33-B197-27C6B89953AE%40comcast.net.

Re: [geo] Here's a published article demanding "humanity must: (1) Abruptly halt tropospheric particulate geoengineering"

[Ronal Larson]

Francis:

I can agree, but I don’t have a good reason to do so myself.  There are 
plenty of papers that misrepresent biochar - which is unbothered by “refereed” 
papers on contrails.  My reason to jump in was to be supportive of Alan.

Ron



> On Aug 30, 2019, at 5:00 AM, Francis Micheal Ludlow  wrote:
> 
> I find it useful to keep track of such papers, including for teaching 
> purposes in highlighting potentially misleading / biased / agenda-driven 
> research.
> 
> Francis
> 
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 20:03, Ronal Larson  <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> wrote:
> Alan:
> 
>   The ones I was referring to are in your “refereed” (as opposed to 
> refereed) category - so I’m going to pass on referring.   
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On Aug 24, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Alan Robock > <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> If there are plenty of such "refereed" journal articles out there, I think 
>> it would be good to know about them.
>> Alan
>> 
>> On 8/24/2019 2:51 PM, Ronal Larson wrote:
>>> Alan,  cc “Geo”
>>> 
>>> I can see why you referred this - but hope you won’t do another like it 
>>> (and there are plenty - I found out)..
>>> 
>>> Ron
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 24, 2019, at 9:42 AM, Alan Robock >>> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International
>>>> 
>>>> http://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30157 
>>>> <http://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30157>
>>>> 
>>>> Geophysical Consequences of Tropospheric Particulate Heating: Further 
>>>> Evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Principally Caused by 
>>>> Particulate Pollution
>>>> 
>>>> J. Marvin Herndon
>>>> Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego, CA 92131, USA.
>>>> 
>>>> Mark Whiteside
>>>> Florida Department of Health in Monroe County, 1100 Simonton Street, Key 
>>>> West, FL 33040, USA.
>>>> 
>>>> Abstract
>>>> The climate science community and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental 
>>>> Panel on Climate Change have misinformed world governments by failing to 
>>>> acknowledge tropospheric particulate geoengineering that has been ongoing 
>>>> with ever-increasing duration and intensity for decades, and by treating 
>>>> global warming solely as a radiation-balance issue, which has resulted in 
>>>> a seriously incomplete understanding of the fundamental factors that 
>>>> affect Earth’s surface temperature. Here we review the consequences of 
>>>> tropospheric particulate heating by absorption of short- and long-wave 
>>>> solar radiation and long-wave radiation from Earth’s surface. Generally, 
>>>> black carbon absorbs light over the entire solar spectrum; brown carbon 
>>>> absorbs near-UV wavelengths and, to a lesser extent, visible light; iron 
>>>> oxides are good absorbers, the most efficient being magnetite. Pyrogenic 
>>>> coal fly ash, both from coal burning and from tropospheric jet-spraying 
>>>> geoengineering (for military purposes and/or climate engineering), 
>>>> contains carbon and iron oxides, hematite and magnetite. The recently 
>>>> published climate-science paradigm shift discloses that the main cause of 
>>>> global warming is not carbon dioxide heat retention, but particulate 
>>>> pollution that absorbs radiation, heats the troposphere, and reduces the 
>>>> efficiency of atmospheric-convective heat removal from Earth’s surface. In 
>>>> addition to the World War II data, three other independent lines of 
>>>> supporting evidence are reviewed: (1) Passage overhead of the Mt. St. 
>>>> Helens volcanic plume; (2) Radiosonde and aethalometer investigations of 
>>>> Talukdar et al.; and, (3) convection suppression over the tropical North 
>>>> Atlantic caused by the Saharan-blown dust. The risks associated with the 
>>>> placement of aerosol particulates into the stratosphere, whether lofted 
>>>> naturally, inadvertently, or deliberately as proposed for solar radiation 
>>>> management, poses grave risks, including the destruction of atmospheric 
>>>> ozone. To solve global warming humanity must: (1) Abruptly halt 
>>>> tropospheric particulate geoengineering; (2) Trap particulate emis

Re: [geo] Here's a published article demanding "humanity must: (1) Abruptly halt tropospheric particulate geoengineering"

[Ronal Larson]

Alan:

The ones I was referring to are in your “refereed” (as opposed to 
refereed) category - so I’m going to pass on referring.   

Ron


> On Aug 24, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Alan Robock  wrote:
> 
> If there are plenty of such "refereed" journal articles out there, I think it 
> would be good to know about them.
> Alan
> 
> On 8/24/2019 2:51 PM, Ronal Larson wrote:
>> Alan,  cc “Geo”
>> 
>> I can see why you referred this - but hope you won’t do another like it (and 
>> there are plenty - I found out)..
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2019, at 9:42 AM, Alan Robock >> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International
>>> 
>>> http://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30157 
>>> <http://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30157>
>>> 
>>> Geophysical Consequences of Tropospheric Particulate Heating: Further 
>>> Evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Principally Caused by 
>>> Particulate Pollution
>>> 
>>> J. Marvin Herndon
>>> Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego, CA 92131, USA.
>>> 
>>> Mark Whiteside
>>> Florida Department of Health in Monroe County, 1100 Simonton Street, Key 
>>> West, FL 33040, USA.
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> The climate science community and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental 
>>> Panel on Climate Change have misinformed world governments by failing to 
>>> acknowledge tropospheric particulate geoengineering that has been ongoing 
>>> with ever-increasing duration and intensity for decades, and by treating 
>>> global warming solely as a radiation-balance issue, which has resulted in a 
>>> seriously incomplete understanding of the fundamental factors that affect 
>>> Earth’s surface temperature. Here we review the consequences of 
>>> tropospheric particulate heating by absorption of short- and long-wave 
>>> solar radiation and long-wave radiation from Earth’s surface. Generally, 
>>> black carbon absorbs light over the entire solar spectrum; brown carbon 
>>> absorbs near-UV wavelengths and, to a lesser extent, visible light; iron 
>>> oxides are good absorbers, the most efficient being magnetite. Pyrogenic 
>>> coal fly ash, both from coal burning and from tropospheric jet-spraying 
>>> geoengineering (for military purposes and/or climate engineering), contains 
>>> carbon and iron oxides, hematite and magnetite. The recently published 
>>> climate-science paradigm shift discloses that the main cause of global 
>>> warming is not carbon dioxide heat retention, but particulate pollution 
>>> that absorbs radiation, heats the troposphere, and reduces the efficiency 
>>> of atmospheric-convective heat removal from Earth’s surface. In addition to 
>>> the World War II data, three other independent lines of supporting evidence 
>>> are reviewed: (1) Passage overhead of the Mt. St. Helens volcanic plume; 
>>> (2) Radiosonde and aethalometer investigations of Talukdar et al.; and, (3) 
>>> convection suppression over the tropical North Atlantic caused by the 
>>> Saharan-blown dust. The risks associated with the placement of aerosol 
>>> particulates into the stratosphere, whether lofted naturally, 
>>> inadvertently, or deliberately as proposed for solar radiation management, 
>>> poses grave risks, including the destruction of atmospheric ozone. To solve 
>>> global warming humanity must: (1) Abruptly halt tropospheric particulate 
>>> geoengineering; (2) Trap particulate emissions from coal-fired industrial 
>>> furnaces (especially in India and China) and from vehicle exhaust; and, (3) 
>>> Reduce particulate-forming fuel additives.
>>> -- 
>>> 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 
>>> <mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
>>> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock 
>>> <http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock>
>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 
>>> <http://twitter.com/AlanRobock>
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>

Re: [geo] Here's a published article demanding "humanity must: (1) Abruptly halt tropospheric particulate geoengineering"

[Ronal Larson]

Alan,  cc “Geo”

I can see why you referred this - but hope you won’t do another like it 
(and there are plenty - I found out)..

Ron



> On Aug 24, 2019, at 9:42 AM, Alan Robock  wrote:
> 
> Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International
> 
> http://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/30157 
> 
> 
> Geophysical Consequences of Tropospheric Particulate Heating: Further 
> Evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Principally Caused by 
> Particulate Pollution
> 
> J. Marvin Herndon
> Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego, CA 92131, USA.
> 
> Mark Whiteside
> Florida Department of Health in Monroe County, 1100 Simonton Street, Key 
> West, FL 33040, USA.
> 
> Abstract
> The climate science community and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel 
> on Climate Change have misinformed world governments by failing to 
> acknowledge tropospheric particulate geoengineering that has been ongoing 
> with ever-increasing duration and intensity for decades, and by treating 
> global warming solely as a radiation-balance issue, which has resulted in a 
> seriously incomplete understanding of the fundamental factors that affect 
> Earth’s surface temperature. Here we review the consequences of tropospheric 
> particulate heating by absorption of short- and long-wave solar radiation and 
> long-wave radiation from Earth’s surface. Generally, black carbon absorbs 
> light over the entire solar spectrum; brown carbon absorbs near-UV 
> wavelengths and, to a lesser extent, visible light; iron oxides are good 
> absorbers, the most efficient being magnetite. Pyrogenic coal fly ash, both 
> from coal burning and from tropospheric jet-spraying geoengineering (for 
> military purposes and/or climate engineering), contains carbon and iron 
> oxides, hematite and magnetite. The recently published climate-science 
> paradigm shift discloses that the main cause of global warming is not carbon 
> dioxide heat retention, but particulate pollution that absorbs radiation, 
> heats the troposphere, and reduces the efficiency of atmospheric-convective 
> heat removal from Earth’s surface. In addition to the World War II data, 
> three other independent lines of supporting evidence are reviewed: (1) 
> Passage overhead of the Mt. St. Helens volcanic plume; (2) Radiosonde and 
> aethalometer investigations of Talukdar et al.; and, (3) convection 
> suppression over the tropical North Atlantic caused by the Saharan-blown 
> dust. The risks associated with the placement of aerosol particulates into 
> the stratosphere, whether lofted naturally, inadvertently, or deliberately as 
> proposed for solar radiation management, poses grave risks, including the 
> destruction of atmospheric ozone. To solve global warming humanity must: (1) 
> Abruptly halt tropospheric particulate geoengineering; (2) Trap particulate 
> emissions from coal-fired industrial furnaces (especially in India and China) 
> and from vehicle exhaust; and, (3) Reduce particulate-forming fuel additives.
> -- 
> 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 
> 
> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock 
> 
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/3c425571-66d0-504d-c81f-61d9a255d2ab%40envsci.rutgers.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/26EBB1F1-E2E2-45FE-A41A-EA4B7D4B9324%40comcast.net.

Re: [geo] The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering

[Ronal Larson]

Andrew,  cc List

I am almost finished reading this - and found it to be first-rate.  
Biochar is mentioned only twice (only found once by a search - the other in a 
figure/graph) - and so there is essentially nothing to quibble about for 
biochar.  Still, the perspective of an expert in political science (as opposed 
to the usual geo view on morals and ethics by Philosophers) should be very 
helpful to anyone remotely related to either CDR or SRM.

There are two open-source papers already available to us, but two more 
in process.  All should be helpful to anyone trying to implement policy.

This is one example where it makes sense to combine discussion of both 
SRM and CDR. 

I think detailed “Politics” material on each Geo approach should be the 
next step.  Biochar is very different from the examples given here, but there 
are many lessons for biochar herein.   I hope Dr. Moller ext4ends her analyses.


Ron





> On Aug 21, 2019, at 2:36 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/the-emergent-politics-of-geoengineering(5db25b16-0faf-47f9-87a8-e90b88c7c2a9).html
>  
> 
> 
> The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering
> THESIS › DOCTORAL THESIS (COMPILATION)
> 
> Overview
>  
> 
> Cite
>  
> 
> BibTeX
>  
> 
> Abstract
> This thesis examines the role of science in the earliest stages of the 
> political process. It does this by studying the emergence of ‘geoengineering’ 
> on the political agenda. The term describes a set of ideas on how to 
> stabilize global temperature by intervening into the Earth’s natural systems, 
> and was subject to a strong taboo in the scientific community until the 
> mid-2000s. Yet within a decade, it has become relevant to international 
> climate politics. To understand how this transition took place, the thesis 
> uses mixed methods to study the causal mechanisms by which geoengineering 
> became an object of governance. Paper I describes the internal dynamics of a 
> scientific community that helped transform geoengineering into a distinct, 
> salient and malleable governance object. It explains how social cohesion, 
> brokerage and diversity acted as important mechanisms in this process. Paper 
> II studies the role of authoritative scientific assessments in making 
> geoengineering a normal and relevant topic for research. It shows how such 
> assessments act as a form of de facto governance in shaping the activities of 
> a research landscape. Paper III identifies similarities and differences in 
> the way that different sub-areas of climate change policy are governed. It 
> suggests that, if a problem structure is perceived to be malign, this makes 
> it less conducive to public governance. Conversely, if a problem structure 
> comes to be perceived as more benign, this facilitates public governance. 
> Paper IV examines the role of problem definition and ‘institutional fit’, 
> evaluating how geoengineering matches with the expectations of government 
> actors. It discusses three areas where such fit is lacking, and how this 
> makes it difficult for government officials to form a political position on 
> geoengineering. The results of this study flow into the description of a 
> pattern that seems to be important at many different stages of the 
> opinion-shaping process. This pattern includes the introduction of a topic to 
> a new audience; the audience’s heated debate around this topic; the 
> intervention of an actor with authority; and the streamlining of the 
> audience’s debate according to the authoritative actor’s judgement. Found at 
> many different levels of the political process, the pattern may explain why 
> some topics become subject to political decision making, and others do not.
> 
> -- 
> 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-057meF27vzD20dqjZsCBAOPiGq5dn%2Br2Sf4AaNc%2B951Hw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 

Re: [geo] Governing Climate Engineering: A Proposal for Immediate Governance of Solar Radiation Management

[Ronal Larson]

Andrew and list

1.Thanks for your https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3954 
 cite below - this for a 9 page, 
non-fee, 4-day old paper that is of direct interest to SRM (Geo without CDR).  
I especially like that it was written by experts on governance (but initially 
not on SRM), who were divided on SRM itself, and had many discussions on the 
topic over multiple years.  
I find nothing wrong with any part of the paper.   I hope the same 
group can continue on with governing CDR (the other part of Geoengineering).  
Comparing the governance ideas of SRM with those for CDR should help both 
groups - as well as policymakers.  I would guess that CDR could now take much 
less than half the time as for SRM, even with CDR's much broader array of 
options.
This appears to have been conducted very much like a jury deliberation 
- with proponents NOT involved in the deliberations.  I believe this approach 
will give better results in most cross comparisons.


2.Here is a short outline.  This is probably less than about 1% of 
the article - intended only to encourage a full read and for use by other 
technologies or groups of technologies (especially CDR).

 Abstract: (see below)

1. Introduction ……... The working group met for five deliberative workshops 
between March 2016 and February 2018. The chief findings of the working group’s 
report are detailed below. All recommendations presented in this article are 
derived from the working group report.

 2. Background on the Process 

 3. Governance Objectives
3.1. Objective I—Keep Mitigation and Adaptation First 
3.2. Objective II—Thoroughly and Transparently Evaluate Risks, Burdens, and 
Benefits 
3.3. Objective III—Enable Responsible Knowledge Creation 
3.4. Objective IV—Ensure Robust Governance Before any Consideration of 
Deployment 

4. Recommendations: Concrete Near-Term Governance Steps 

  Cluster #1: Create Politically Legitimate Deliberative Bodies:
1 Establish a World Commission on SRM;
2 Establish a Global Forum for Stakeholder Dialogue 

  Cluster #2: Leverage Existing Institutions 
3 Strengthen cooperation between international organizations;
4 Assess and improve capacities for regional coordination and conflict 
resolution;
5 Continue ongoing assessment role for the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change…..;   
6 Develop foresight capabilities 

  Cluster #3: Make Research Transparent and Accountable 
7 Report on SRM research and development activities in the Paris 
Agreement….;   
8 Institutionalize codes of conduct for responsible SRM research; 
9 Ensure that ongoing research includes international and interdisciplinary 
collaboration;   
   10 Clarify funding streams
   11 Develop a publicly accessible clearinghouse;
   12 Develop best practices for risk and impact assessments

5. Conclusions The working group argues that SRM governance should begin now. 
Some members see SRM development as desirable; some as potentially dangerous. 
Whatever the perspective, governance will be required to prompt the careful 
deliberation and oversight needed to make decisions about SRM in the societal 
interest. The working group’s recommendations establish essential rules and 
institutional arrangements for near-term understanding and guidance of SRM 
research, they also begin building the scaffolding for effective long-term 
governance. 



3.   In sum,  I find all parts of this reasonable for the SRM part of Geo.  The 
only recommendation I have so far is to hope they can tie CDR into their 
recommendations.

 I will forward this to both the Google CDR and Yahoo Biochar lists  - with 
separate notes pertinent to each.   For example, the “ before” part of their 
Objective 4 seems too late for most of CDR and certainly for biochar..   


Ron




> On Jul 24, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3954 
> 
> 
> Abstract
> Solar radiation management (SRM) technologies would reflect a small amount of 
> incoming solar radiation back into space before the radiation can warm the 
> planet. Although SRM may emerge as a useful component of a global response to 
> climate change, there is also good reason for caution. In June 2017, the 
> Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance released a policy 
> report, “Governing Solar Radiation Management”, which developed a set of 
> objectives to govern SRM in the near-term future: (1) keep mitigation and 
> adaptation first; (2) thoroughly and transparently evaluate risks, burdens, 
> and benefits; (3) enable responsible knowledge creation; and (4) ensure 
> robust governance before any consideration of deployment. To advance the 
> governance objectives identified above, the working group developed twelve 
> recommendations, grouped into three clusters: (1) create politically 
>