[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Robert-
It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and probably
everyone on this list agrees with you that SRM right now would be
smart, even moral.

I, and probably you and everyone on this list is working on this in order
to leave a world our children and grandchildren can flourish in--obviously
including our Holocene ecosystems.

As far as I can tell we've been in agreement for ten or fifteen years. Has
that agreement changed the planet?
I'd say no. I don't think the physical world responds much to the brain
patterns in my head, or the ones in your head which we call agreement.

What's needed is action that will restore the climate. Let's get action
going. Physical action. How do we do that?

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:22 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  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  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  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  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  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 ) 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 
> 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. 

RE: [geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[SALTER Stephen]

Hi All

The present environmental regulations for geoengineering (not totally ratified) 
were framed at a time when we were dumping nuclear waste, unexploded munitions 
and even poison gas into the sea.  They essentially meant ‘no new chemicals’.
Marine cloud brightening uses material that is already there and is already 
being thrown up in quantities hundreds of times greater by breaking waves. 
Energy comes from the wind so we are not even burning fuel. It would be an 
interesting legal exercise to separate spray vessels from paddling children 
splashing one another.
The difference is that the size of spray is carefully chosen to suit Köhler 
nucleation which also happens to be in the Greenfield gap where there is an 
abnormally low concentration of natural aerosol between Aitken and accumulation 
modes.We can choose exactly when and where we want to release spray. 
Initially this could be aimed at getting sea surface temperatures back to where 
they used to be.  However we may be able to learn to get an even more benign 
result to counteract hot blobs and El Niño events.  We can moderate hurricanes 
and typhoons, restore ice or coral and adjust the temperature gradient across 
the Indian Ocean.  Operating anywhere at any time will eventually (~30 years) 
reverse sea level rise with an enormous benefit-to-cost ratio.  Spray can be 
stopped with a single mouse click and the effects cancelled at the next rain 
shower.  Spraying can change results far from the spray release point, even in 
the opposite hemisphere, but we should be able to get an 
everywhere-to-everywhere season by season transfer function of what these 
distant results are and use them to advantage.

Breathe safely

Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3DW
0131 650 5704
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0h14RFq4M=155s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BBVTStBrhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBB6WtH_Ni8



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:49 PM
To: pfi...@gmail.com; Robbie Tulip 
Cc: Planetary Restoration ; Ron Baiman 
; Ye Tao ; geoengineering 
; healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; 
hpac-steering-cir...@googlegroups.com; noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 
significantly warming the planet ?

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email 
is genuine and the content is safe.

Just to note that way back in 2010 when we organized the Asilomar Conference on 
geoengineering, the State of Victoria in Australia was a co-sponsor of the 
meeting.

And just to note that it is really not clear that use of MCB to address some of 
the impacts affecting Australia (Great Barrier Reef, shifting of the storm 
track) might not have influences much further away than New Zealand and so not 
really clear would need full international participation in the primary 
analysis. So, yes, Australia could, in my view, well lead consideration on 
getting started on such an approach for certain types of applications.

Mike MacCracken


On 3/3/22 1:14 AM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
Now we’re acting!
Who would we propose it to? Said another way-Who would we invite to do that, 
whom we would support?
Peter
Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 2, 2022, at 9:03 PM, Robbie Tulip 
<mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Australian government could be invited to investigate international 
agreement for marine cloud brightening in the Southern Ocean to cool Antarctica.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 3:22 pm, Peter Fiekowsky 
mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Robert-
It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and probably everyone 
on this list agrees with you that SRM right now would be smart, even moral.

I, and probably you and everyone on this list is working on this in order to 
leave a world our children and grandchildren can flourish in--obviously 
including our Holocene ecosystems.

As far as I can tell we've been in agreement for ten or fifteen years. Has that 
agreement changed the planet?
I'd say no. I don't think the physical world responds much to the brain 
patterns in my head, or the ones in your head which we call agreement.

What's needed is action that will restore the climate. Let's get action going. 
Physical action. How do we do that?

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:22 PM Robbie Tulip 
mailto:robbietu...@gmail.com>> 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 maj

[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Anton-

Ye has been saying that there isn't peer reviewed literature confirming
that CDR at scale is practical, and that he believes the peer reviewed
literature. He has provided compelling evidence to back up those two
assertions.

He is entitled to believe whatever he wants, as are you and I...as well as
any professor or priest.

If Ye were in charge of a trillion dollar budget, I believe he would
institute his mirrors, not CDR. As a professor at Harvard, I argue that
would be the appropriate and justifiable thing for him to do.

The things that you and I know from personal experience may be or not be
true in the physical world, but in the academic world they're only true
while confirmed by peer reviewed literature.

To my knowledge Ye does not have a large budget to allocate, so let's
support Ye in believing and espousing the literature, and carry on with our
various projects in partnership and even joy. We're all on the same team
here, seeing the world through the lenses of our personal experience.

Peter

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 12:54 AM Ye Tao  wrote:

> Anton,
>
> Please then kindly share papers and data showing otherwise that also take
> into account time, energy, and material limitations.
>
> I have been requesting such info from the group with no relevant
> response.  The NAS report recently came out, confirming my own
> interpretation of the primary literature.
>
> Looking forward to a proper reply.
>
> Ye
> On 3/2/2022 10:22 PM, Anton Alferness wrote:
>
> Ye
>
> You are fundamentally incorrect in your assertion.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022, 7:05 AM Ye Tao  wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> There is zero evidence to support that any combination of existing
>> artificial, nature-based, or hybrid carbon capture/sequestration methods,
>> at global implementation scale and using all of humanities resources, could
>> achieve even 10% of the fantastical net 50 Gt (C or CO2) /year number you
>> take on faith.
>>
>> If you disagree, please refer back to the discuss thread we had on this
>> topic a couple of weeks ago and contribute with a properly cited,
>> evidence-based response.
>>
>> Ye
>> On 3/2/2022 9:53 AM, Peter Fiekowsky 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  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  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 ) 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 
 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:
> 

Re: [geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Michael MacCracken]

Just to note that way back in 2010 when we organized the Asilomar 
Conference on geoengineering, the State of Victoria in Australia was a 
co-sponsor of the meeting.


And just to note that it is really not clear that use of MCB to address 
some of the impacts affecting Australia (Great Barrier Reef, shifting of 
the storm track) might not have influences much further away than New 
Zealand and so not really clear would need full international 
participation in the primary analysis. So, yes, Australia could, in my 
view, well lead consideration on getting started on such an approach for 
certain types of applications.


Mike MacCracken


On 3/3/22 1:14 AM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:

Now we’re acting!
Who would we propose it to? Said another way-Who would we invite to do 
that, whom we would support?


Peter
Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 2, 2022, at 9:03 PM, Robbie Tulip  wrote:


The Australian government could be invited to investigate 
international agreement for marine cloud brightening in the Southern 
Ocean to cool Antarctica.


On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 3:22 pm, Peter Fiekowsky  wrote:

Robert-
It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and
probably everyone on this list agrees with you that SRM right now
would be smart, even moral.

I, and probably you and everyone on this list is working on this
in order to leave a world our children and grandchildren can
flourish in--obviously including our Holocene ecosystems.

As far as I can tell we've been in agreement for ten or fifteen
years. Has that agreement changed the planet?
I'd say no. I don't think the physical world responds much to the
brain patterns in my head, or the ones in your head which we call
agreement.

What's needed is action that will restore the climate. Let's get
action going. Physical action. How do we do that?

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:22 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
 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
 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
 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
 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.

   

[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

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  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  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  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  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 ) 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  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 
>> 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  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
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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 

[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Now we’re acting! 
Who would we propose it to? Said another way-Who would we invite to do that, 
whom we would support?

Peter 
Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2022, at 9:03 PM, Robbie Tulip  wrote:
> 
> 
> The Australian government could be invited to investigate international 
> agreement for marine cloud brightening in the Southern Ocean to cool 
> Antarctica.
> 
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 3:22 pm, Peter Fiekowsky  wrote:
>> Robert-
>> It's one thing to be logically correct, and logically I and probably 
>> everyone on this list agrees with you that SRM right now would be smart, 
>> even moral.
>> 
>> I, and probably you and everyone on this list is working on this in order to 
>> leave a world our children and grandchildren can flourish in--obviously 
>> including our Holocene ecosystems.
>> 
>> As far as I can tell we've been in agreement for ten or fifteen years. Has 
>> that agreement changed the planet?
>> I'd say no. I don't think the physical world responds much to the brain 
>> patterns in my head, or the ones in your head which we call agreement.
>> 
>> What's needed is action that will restore the climate. Let's get action 
>> going. Physical action. How do we do that?
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:22 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  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  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  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  
 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  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 ) 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 

[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

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  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  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 ) 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  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
>>> 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  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

 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

 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.
 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
 
 .

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Peter Fiekowsky*
>>> *Foundation for Climate Restoration  **Founder and
>>> Chairman Emeritus*
>>> Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the
>>> flourishing of humanity. Climate restoration 2021
>>> 
>>>  Book summary 
>>>
>>> *(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California *
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> *Peter Fiekowsky*
> *Foundation for Climate Restoration  **Founder and
> Chairman Emeritus*
> Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing

[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

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  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 ) 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  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
>> 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  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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Peter Fiekowsky*
>> *Foundation for Climate Restoration  **Founder and
>> Chairman Emeritus*
>> Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing
>> of humanity. Climate restoration 2021
>> 
>>  Book summary 
>>
>> *(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California*
>>
>

-- 

*Peter Fiekowsky*
*Foundation for Climate Restoration  **Founder and
Chairman Emeritus*
Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing
of humanity. Climate restoration 2021

 Book summary 

*(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California*

-- 
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/CAEr4H2%3D%2BtacYuf%3DJrw%2BSfZPpjHtxE2omT6R9fVCYwNDEHSFGEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Ron Baiman]

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 ) 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  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
> 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  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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>> 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
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Peter Fiekowsky*
> *Foundation for Climate Restoration  **Founder and
> Chairman Emeritus*
> Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing
> of humanity. Climate restoration 2021
> 
>  Book summary 
>
> *(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California*
>

-- 
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/CAPhUB9CdSnEAS08cUaypnumuEbH84%3Dy4%2BsL3VmPwigPHUgoBEA%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] Re: Is Inadvertent "Reverse Geoengineering" since 2020 significantly warming the planet ?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

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
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  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
>
> 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
>
> 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.
> 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
> 
> .
>


-- 

*Peter Fiekowsky*
*Foundation for Climate Restoration  **Founder and
Chairman Emeritus*
Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing
of humanity. Climate restoration 2021

 Book summary 

*(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California*

-- 
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/CAEr4H2%3Dg7DqKiEZ_M0xFsre2%3Dgpk0JPHJgjkw%2B%2B7fgv-BB0NDg%40mail.gmail.com.