Australia is also well placed to build upon its existing. and long term. support for more fossil fuels, and a technology neutral position which always means encouraging more fossil fuels and the release of massive amounts of GHG....
jon ___________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net> Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 2:32 PM To: 'Planetary Restoration'; 'geoengineering'; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition'; hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com; 'Ye Tao'; 'pfieko'; 'Ron Baiman'; 'Stephen Salter' Subject: [EXTERNAL] [geo] Re: Marine Cloud Brightening for the Southern Ocean As Daniel mentioned, Australia is well placed to build upon its existing support<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02290-3> for marine cloud brightening for the Great Barrier Reef. Australia could seek international agreement to test MCB in international waters, working with scientists and governments. Deployment would aim to mitigate factors that have accentuated unstable weather in Australia. Paul Beckwith provided this explanation of possible MCB technology - https://paulbeckwith.net/2021/06/20/autonomous-spray-ship-deployment-to-cool-planet-via-marine-cloud-brightening/<https://paulbeckwith.net/2021/06/20/autonomous-spray-ship-deployment-to-cool-planet-via-marine-cloud-brightening/> Robert Tulip From: planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Daniel Kieve Sent: Friday, 4 March 2022 11:55 AM To: Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>> Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>>; hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com<mailto:hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com>; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>; Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu<mailto:t...@rowland.harvard.edu>>; pfieko <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>>; Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>>; Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> Subject: Re: Marine Cloud Brightening for the Southern Ocean Hi All, As Robert says, given the geopolitical situation, a focus on direct cooling of the Antarctic ( via MCB in the Southern Oceans) makes perfect sense as opposed to the Arctic. With the Australian Government's existing support for Marine Cloud Brightening to help save the Great Barrier Reef, we'd be hitting the ground running ( relatively speaking). Also, focus on MCB tech which only uses seawater / seasalt also maķes sense, given the evidence of its overwhelmingly benign likely effects ( if administered carefully) and the PR & political challenges associated with adding any substance to the atmosphere for geoengineering purposes. Kind regards, Daniel On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, 22:24 'Robert Tulip' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition, <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>> wrote: Dear Ye, Peter, Ron, Stephen and all I would like to ask the Australian Government to investigate methods to increase planetary albedo. This is something the G20 should have on its agenda. My view is that cooling the Southern Ocean using Marine Cloud Brightening should be a first topic to discuss for international agreement. This would cool Antarctica, our planetary refrigerator, and appears likely to be able to mitigate sea ice melt, glacier collapse, the warming of ocean currents, extreme weather and biodiversity loss. Antarctica might be an easier place to start than the Arctic in view of the geopolitics. Ye, further to your comments below, it would be good for all methods to increase albedo to be studied. I agree somewhat with your doubts regarding stratospheric aerosol injection (atmospheric chemistry uncertainties, acid rain risks, ocean ecosystem impacts, and inhibition of renewable transition) and could add ozone and hydroxyl effects as specific atmospheric chemistry concerns. For marine cloud brightening my assessment is that all of these effects are likely to be overwhelmingly benign, with significant positive benefits. The atmospheric chemistry and rain distribution questions are likely to be primary. MCB could be the simplest and safest and cheapest initial way to produce rapid cooling and mitigation of extreme weather. I don’t accept that enabling a slower renewable transition is a big problem for the climate. The effect on radiative forcing of cutting fossil fuel use can only be far smaller than the effects of direct albedo increase. It is essential to use SRM to cut radiative forcing to buy time to mitigate extreme weather while CDR ramps up. Emission reduction is likely to remain marginal to planetary cooling compared to SRM and CDR. This is an important moral question regarding the strategic justification for geoengineering. Slowing the renewable transition is a good thing to bring on board communities and states who now support traditional energy sources. Sea salt is a safe natural product whose cooling effect can be cheaply optimised using the methods described by Stephen Salter. I would hope that only when NaCl is accepted as a good way to improve atmospheric chemistry should nations consider deploying atmospheric iron and sulphur, recognising that the scientific case for both is quite strong. Robert Tulip From: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Ye Tao Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 8:02 PM To: Robbie Tulip <robbietu...@gmail.com<mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com>>; Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>; Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>>; hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com<mailto:hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com>; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ? Hi Robert, Agreed that Low albedo is dangerous. Just wanted to point out that albedo restoration is not exclusive to oceanic and atmospheric technologies. Albedo can also be restored using surface, and especially land surface-based SRM, that are free of the atmospheric chemistry uncertainties, acid rain risks, ocean ecosystem impacts, and inhibition of renewable transition particular to SAI and MCB. Ye On 3/2/2022 10:21 PM, Robbie Tulip wrote: Low albedo is dangerous and can only be mitigated by oceanic and atmospheric technology. Solar radiation management systems are needed to increase planetary albedo and mitigate the economic and social and ecological harms of climate change by limiting extreme weather events. The benefits of regulating planetary weather far far outweigh the risks and costs of neglecting work to stabilise the climate. This is a major and serious moral problem regarding whether humanity can take action to prevent and reverse the worst effects of climate change in this decade. Robert Tulip On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 2:06 pm, Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Robert- SRM is a logical top priority. Who will pay for it? How will those doing it avoid assassination? (Moral or physical) Peter Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2022, at 6:50 PM, Robbie Tulip <robbietu...@gmail.com<mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com>> wrote: Peter To answer your question, carbon capture can collect CO2 to transform it into stable valuable commodities. But CO2 storage is wrong and useless for climate restoration. Chemical and photosynthetic use of CO2 as feedstock to produce biomass and materials needs to replace the CCS paradigm. First though we need to increase albedo as the emergency security response against extreme weather. Regards Robert 🌷 On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 1:54 am, Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Ye- What does carbon capture have to do with climate restoration? Carbon capture is for enhanced oil recovery and for selling expensive carbon offsets. We're interested in carbon sequestration at the 50 Gt/year scale, such as with synthetic limestone, plankton, kelp. Peter On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:59 AM Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu<mailto:t...@rowland.harvard.edu>> wrote: No Peter, this is not argument for restoring CO2 below 300ppm; lack of a logical connection notwithstanding, carbon capture at scale simply infeasible before we are all fried. Ye On 3/1/2022 9:15 PM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote: Interesting. I remember that Michael Mann wrote a Scientific American article about 1999, telling us to expect 0.5C warming when we eliminate the sulfates. We knew it would happen, and it's happening. Maybe it's not so shocking. Does anyone know how much sulfates still come from coal plants? Back in 1999 that was the big source, I think. This could be an argument to pursue climate restoration, restoring CO2 below 300 ppm, to cool the planet. Peter On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:39 PM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Peter. Unfortunately, the paper and podcast are referring to a termination shock that is potentially happening right now due to a well-intentioned regulation to cut the sulfur content of cargo ships from a prior average of 3.5% sulfur to 0.5% (https://www.joc.com/special-topics/low-sulfur-fuel-rule<https://www.joc.com/special-topics/low-sulfur-fuel-rule> ) that became fully effective Jan. 2020. Using ocean water surface temperature measurement and satellite atmospheric albedo measurements, for the north atlantic and north pacific major shipping lanes, they estimate (still in process of verification) up to (at the maximal estimate) a 50% jump in global warming (as I recall from the podcast), from the time this regulation became fully effective compared to prior years, as a direct result of the loss of sulfur emissions across these (very large) ocean regions. Best, Ron On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:44 PM Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Ron- Just so you know-When looking through a climate restoration lens, with CO2 below 300 ppm by 2050, termination shock doesn't happen. This is because CO2 is back to pre-industrial levels by 2050, and therefore forcing is too. SRM or SAI would only be needed for 15 years between 2030 and 2045. It might be useful starting now, but politically, there is no justification for it because it doesn't benefit the UN net-zero goal. You can read more about climate restoration in my book coming out in April. The summary chapter is available for free now on my website: PeterFiekowsky.com<http://PeterFiekowsky.com> All the processes for climate restoration are now getting underway, and don't require government assistance. BR Peter On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com<mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> wrote: Colleagues This is the podcast I've been talking about to some of you recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ship-tracks-termination-shock-simons/id1529459393?i=1000550593731<https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ship-tracks-termination-shock-simons/id1529459393?i=1000550593731> Here's their draft paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356378673_Climate_Impact_of_Decreasing_Atmospheric_Sulphate_Aerosols_and_the_Risk_of_a_Termination_Shock<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356378673_Climate_Impact_of_Decreasing_Atmospheric_Sulphate_Aerosols_and_the_Risk_of_a_Termination_Shock> When Simon et al (presumably) get some version of this paper published, it could be the centerpiece of, for example, strong support for MCB to offset the sulfur with benign sea salt aerosols, as it would provide direct evidence of the impact of warming/cooling effect of marine cloud brightening from aerosols. It also, needless to say, highlights the need for any and all other types of direct cooling intervention. Best, Ron -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9C_RptW6t79b8ZXEZz6dcj_f%2BZNFk9DY_P7_%2BXgqXV%3DNw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:noac-meetings+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- Peter Fiekowsky Foundation for Climate Restoration<http://f4cr.org/> Founder and Chairman Emeritus Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> Book summary<http://PeterFIekowsky.com> (650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAEr4H2nJoD%3D_HN4R0DSynhhYpjJHT_D3-_NVGSNMc7DJjPSVoA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8da5c1a6-c53b-f840-726a-2bc32f8e341f%40rowland.harvard.edu<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8da5c1a6-c53b-f840-726a-2bc32f8e341f%40rowland.harvard.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03ec01d82f4d%24750f64c0%245f2e2e40%24%40yahoo.com.au<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03ec01d82f4d%24750f64c0%245f2e2e40%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CADtjw38g9ndgS8OVQFp84C6wAcUiF%3DWPUf%3DD-5Wg%2BjTvxwsp0A%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CADtjw38g9ndgS8OVQFp84C6wAcUiF%3DWPUf%3DD-5Wg%2BjTvxwsp0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout<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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/04cf01d82f78%2484d98ae0%248e8ca0a0%24%40rtulip.net<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/04cf01d82f78%2484d98ae0%248e8ca0a0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- 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/SYBPR01MB804397A21E06FA4B819EEBE6DB059%40SYBPR01MB8043.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com.
