| (Click on a 'Start Time' to view the video) |
| 00:19 | hello everybody all right all right ah Bruce that must be Bruce Parker that's right uh good to meet you nice meeting you thanks for turning up yes we see your emails I will see you and I have been um corresponding that's right and uh we have uh uh our usual lots and lots of people ah it looks as though uh Robert tulip is in uh Stephen Salter's office nice to be here with Stephen uh-huh and Rebecca in Australia and John in Australia and friends in Germany uh okay um we usually ask I was asked new people |
| 01:06 | Bruce to give a very very brief introduction to themselves do you mind spending a minute uh sure um um that degree in computer science from MIT about 50 some odd years ago very interested in climate change the last uh 20 years active there's the MIT alumni for climate action that's the act of the United States and working been active in that for a couple of years um just trying to see what we can do to get those problems I can't solve the problem but see we do help out uh I've got a couple websites that have |
| 01:42 | information on I do a lot of writing on my own just my own self to help understand things um yeah and most recently you've been you were interested in I asked a question and completely forgot that I asked it and saying be quite good if we could get some sort of estimate some sort of informed estimate on where CO2 emissions are likely to go in in the next few decades or so that's right to me that is probably the most important question has been asked that for some reason climate scientists are very reluctant to answer |
| 02:15 | it because it has very implications about how much director capture you need how soon we need to start geoengineering all those sorts of things and nobody wants to come up with a number they all say well it's there are too many unknowns and I think it's critical that that we start pushing them to come up us to come up with something hmm yeah so I did I looked at the iea and eia and said for all I understand the difference between a scenario and a projection the scenarios say Net Zero is possible in 2050 but the projections say |
| 02:47 | it's yeah writing people to help to work through that process right okay now at the beginning we make thank you for that we we do an agenda and um uh I I you know happy if anybody wants to um quiz you further on that um because you've been coming out with numbers um and you put them to me and said could I could I have a look big fun it's always dangerous no it's dangerous sorry but I did have a look um okay so let's uh start as we should do and welcome everybody it's suppose as always lots of |
| 03:28 | people here because I think people like the format of being able to put in whatever to set the agenda so this is really everybody's meeting is not my meeting I just moderate okay and so um what do we want to talk about talk about today I've got my own thing but let's hear from other people first what do we want to talk about today um we've got another new person I think I miss that other new person oh hi Ashley hi yeah I invited us you know I've known Ashley for many years um yes would you would you like to |
| 04:04 | briefly introduce yourself yes thank you uh thanks Clive yes um hello everybody um I um I'm a teacher and um um I was very interested when Clive mentioned and when he's um described um what your meeting is um and um yeah I'm just I'm just very interested to hear um from experts in the field um about what's going on really um that's great that that can do thank you very much that's great thank you sure and feel free to join in um as I said to you before we love uh when sort of activists you know teachers |
| 04:48 | are going to talk to the children uh otherwise we're just a talking shop you know that goes nowhere well kind of um right so let's um where she's at uh where are you where are you well um I'm in um Kent at the moment in southeast of England um and yes I teach adults and teenagers you must be tough yeah in Washington DC area so what do you teach I teach English student especially to refugees and students who've um uh come from overseas but not exclusively but yes that's my main area of interest and I do shine mention you |
| 05:39 | know I do include texts about the climate and um sustainability and so on I do make a conscious effort to do that but um I know I could do more that's going to tell me how close are you and I I'm in Tunbridge Wells oh hi hello who's that is that Robert Robert hi uh yeah I'm in Gilligan yeah just up the road yeah messy drive but they're relatively okay great thank you very much that's great thank you okay so what do you want to talk about today I was hoping that we could speak about the Albedo enhancement workshop and uh |
| 06:25 | Arctic refreezing um at Cambridge University uh next uh Tuesday so can I just say that um timing isn't perfect here I'm just about to have sit down and have dinner ah so um I'm happy to do a thorough uh summary of that um maybe in 20 minutes okay can you make sure can you remind me um uh Hugh please uh to make sure I don't miss it so you're going to be disappearing and uh I'll be I'll be tuning in but I won't be participating as it were until give us 20 minutes in 20 minutes time okay so |
| 07:04 | okay so someone please and how long are you around for till the end yeah I'll be around till the end but I just so what was it again uh thank you uh Albedo enhancement and uh Arctic refreezing Workshop um at Cambridge just to say very very brief it's Tuesday the 6th of June um morning and afternoon in Cambridge and if anyone is around and would like to attend in person that'd be great and there'll be it'll be um streamed and uh so we'll send the link out as well yeah okay thank you you will come back to it |
| 07:43 | anyway we'll say a little bit more about it okay great yeah so okay and sorry there was it was like one other thing you said Robert okay then okay can we can we just can we talk a little bit about Henson's uh warming in the pipeline paper yeah uh right sorry uh snake yeah yep there's been a lot about going on about that follow you on from that if we're talking about uh talking to children and students uh I'd like to have a bit of feedback on my Bank assessment document which I I recently gave to some of the children's |
| 08:28 | students in my own family and it was well received but I want to see whether The Wider Community thinks it's worthwhile too right that was a PDF that you uh attached recently my Pine Bank assessment fine Bank assessment all right if I spelled that right if you could maybe there's only two and a half two and a quarter Pages maybe if you could uh put it up for those new people who haven't seen it yeah okay uh so that's what is that that's Solutions uh your climate solution situation and solutions |
| 09:04 | right right okay um all right let's put my thing up then so I I want to talk about um black carbon again uh yeah so that's and I've got a question for friends actually um which is all part of that um I I've got to put that's I regard that as a low hanging fruit and why are we talking about spending trillions on taking CO2 out of the atmosphere when uh black carbon is so much easier it's should be a lot cheaper to make a huge difference yeah so let's see what people say about that um I have |
| 09:53 | um I have something uh to go to follow on from off to to be with the handsome woman in the pipeline we had quite a discussion uh on Saturday uh about whether CO2 uh um removal results in cooling uh of the planet uh or or whether it's the other way around a cooling causes CO2 removal so okay the O2 removal yeah because Hanson has a graph where the CO2 follows the temperature very uh closely uh Hanson says that shows that CO2 affects temperature but you can equally say it's the temperature affecting CO2 yeah they |
| 10:56 | reinforce each other don't they because this is the slope no it's it's cause it's cause and effect which way I don't think it does it doesn't have to follow the the one reverses the other though I'm sure I'm just saying I think you can't just assume it no okay so let's we'll get into that don't forget Bruce is of course Bruce okay so uh okay um uh let's where do we want that let's have it here unless someone's got a better idea uh so that's Bruce Parker |
| 11:32 | put your full name Bruce new and new to us so this is um the atlc uh Rebecca because you've asked for it okay which thank you pleased about it uh Bruce Parker um CO2 emissions so this is emissions projections right yep that looks a fair bit and this is any other ideas um I was just gonna suggest um just being aware of the UNF Triple C document that came out of the uh uh the article 6. |
| 12:16 | 4 group um about uh carbon dioxide removals oh God I'm only going to talk about a little part of it Robert don't worry did you respond to their um there's consultation no I mean I think the deadlines actually passed anyway yeah yeah I heard about it the day before I send them a one person awful awful awful document yeah uh CO2 removal was that um it's the yeah it's the article 6. |
| 12:50 | 4 Group which is the one that sort of sorts out how they get can potentially get carbon credits for removals okay all right okay um and could I have for the end uh something on changing the narrative changing the narrative oh great you've got something happy to talk about John yeah uh well that's what we have to do we have to change the narrative The Narrative at the moment is the missions reduction is is the best possible solution to uh climate change that goes along with mine actually uh I'm kind of saying wanting to say the |
| 13:38 | same thing with mine uh and and we need a different narrative and something that brings in uh SRM so I've suggested that the uh because because they are at PCC are very happy with the status quo they are they are behind the anti-srm okay John all right we got that yeah that we've and uh we'll revisit all that together okay so what my stuff's about Clive yeah okay so uh how are we trying to put mine can I put mine up there then um am I being too cheeky to put that there no put yours up happy I'm happy |
| 14:21 | for you to protest I don't know okay all right so let's start with I just I don't have a comment yeah with this many topics yeah we request that each person in their introduction is is brief and that we because any one of these topics could take all the time we have so that's right they often do please please uh and and Clyde be ruthless you don't have to smile at everybody just be ruthless I I try my best and I will try my best and I'm also actually happy but sometimes people just sort of say come |
| 14:56 | on it's time we moved on so I I'm don't mind that as well it works out about 10 minutes each doesn't it is that right yeah it could be a bearing okay so let's start with Robert Chris please right well I I don't really want to talk about the people I want to talk about talking about a paper I I've spent in the last two or three well three days really going to just quickly summarize what the paper's saying Hanson's paper well for those of you not familiar with this is very briefly the paper's called |
| 15:26 | warming in the pipeline they issued a pre-publication draft in the end of January beginning of February I think it was and they have just in the last week um issued a second version it's still a pre-publication document and it has not been peer-reviewed it has considerably longer in the second version it's now up to 62 pages and essentially what they are saying Hanson and his collaborators is that um the warming in the pipeline is about 10 degrees Centigrade that's the warming from past emissions |
| 15:58 | assuming that uh only that atmospheric concentration means more or less at its current level indefinitely into the future so this is not a zero a net zero um seeing it it's not a steady state emissions thing either it's a steady concentration uh scenario that you get 10 degrees of warming but it does take some hundreds of years for that to emerge um and you'd probably be up to four or five of that by the end of the century um and the reasons for this uh reassessment is that he has he has reworked some of the uh research the |
| 16:39 | earlier stuff on the basis of new data that has emerged that more reliably and more accurately charts uh climatic conditions uh in the Paleo record so going back into the seriously pre-human era and he's essentially using that data to validate um the climate sensitivity and other metrics that come out of the various models so he as I say he comes up with this idea that the warming of the pipeline is about 10 degrees there's a little interesting twist with regard to aerosols which I won't go into and he |
| 17:13 | also other critical point is that he um assesses that the climate response time which is um basically the the amount of time it takes or changes in the forcing from changes in greenhouse gases to uh emerge as changes in surface temperature whereas these were previously thought to be 10 or 20 years or so he's now saying that we're talking about 100 years time scale longer and the upshot of this is that the the greater level of warming increasing it from Three Degrees which it was previously to 10 degrees |
| 17:54 | and the much much longer response time essentially means we're in a much deeper hole than previously imagined and uh the situation is very much more serious and he comes up with three prescriptions about what to do um a policy policy views policy descriptions one is that we've got a tax uh carbon very aggressively uh the second is we've got to talk to each other and get uh get our act together and the third is that we need to do some uh solar radiation management um pretty down quickly because that's |
| 18:25 | the only thing because that is now necessary emissions reductions are necessary greenhouse gases removed is necessary but now we have to do the SRI SRM as well it doesn't go into any detail about what kind of Technologies or where or when or anything else merely that um making the observation that the situation is now sufficiently dire that um it would be it would require a miracle and he uses that word a miracle um to get it sorted without some short-term sort of radiation management well this is a very detailed paper it's |
| 19:00 | in Parts it's quite easy to read and quite narrative in style but in other parts it's very technical and very detailed and a lot of maths some ghastly looking formulas which for those that are mathematically inclined actually yield uh to not very much effort they look ghastly but they're actually quite simple um but I have in this last couple of days I rather than just comments concentrating on the narrative and sort of the abstract and the conclusions I have spent a lot of time going through it in |
| 19:34 | detail and I have to say that I've got more and more confused and um the situation I'm now really quite unclear about where some of these numbers are coming from and how he justifies it quite actively I was hoping I might be able to get something out to inform this meeting but I haven't been able to finish it sufficiently to to distribute it yet but if anybody else is reading this that is putting effort into trying to understand exactly what he is saying where his numbers come from Harry reaches conclusions and interestingly |
| 20:04 | how he reconciles the first version with the second version which I don't know whether anybody's looked at but there are some really significant differences between them um I would you know I'd be very happy to work with somebody on this to make it a joy project rather than sort of fight on my own with it uh the entire I've also as part of doing this I started off writing him an email it came out as a message to him and it's now got very complicated so I've got to redefine it and kind of clean it up well I am |
| 20:35 | very pleased if somebody wants to give me a hand I'm also happy to carry on doing it on my own but if anybody else is working with it has got the time um then this is a a a cry for help I I had a PowerPoint presentation a couple of months ago on this paper on the first time so I've been through in pretty much detail I'd be glad to help out yeah I I saw that Bruce a very good and and your paper has been rendered totally redundant by the second version right okay so he's changed some of some of the |
| 21:04 | key points that you made in there which I really liked don't appear in in the new version okay interesting okay way of telling it okay okay right so you know that's that's I mean one of the critical things in the first version just kind of make the point one of the critical things was he was saying that the um one version of this equilibrium climate sensitivity was 2. |
| 21:38 | 4 degrees per watt per square meter that does not appear in the second version the corresponding metric is 1.2 it's half but there's a complicated I I think he's saying the same thing but he's saying it in a very different way and I haven't yet quite been able to put the jigsaw together to work out why he has changed the way he's told the story or if indeed the story has actually changed which I suspect is not the case so 10 degrees is still there then it's the same thing then it's the same thing what do you mean it's the same thing |
| 22:10 | if he was saying we're now at two if our current forcing is going to be 10 degrees based on the current forcing that probably equates to 2.4 watts per meter so anyway I'll take a look at it yeah but the problem is he uses he's using different um forcing figures in different parts of the paper so in one place he uses a figure of 4.1 or 4. |
| 22:38 | 6 what's the square meter and when he actually does the calculation of the 10 10 degrees Centigrade he says that the forcing he works out like kind of a different way of approaching it he comes up with a forcing of 8.25 what's the square meter right right the thing is you've so you've got uh a uh uh someone said they'll work with you uh Robert um and that says by the sound of it is that right um Bruce yeah that's right okay so you've got that um and uh we'd be look forward to seeing what comes out of that |
| 23:08 | um and Rebecca you've got your hand up um yes I think it's great that we're doing this work to forensically interrogate his logic and His science so that if we want to refer to it we know exactly what it means it doesn't change the punch line that we need Cooling and um I notice in that various emails that Jim Hansen replied with about two lines or two short paragraphs about um committed versus um whatever the other word was I I embarrassed myself there never mind Chris anyway I'm very I'm very pleased |
| 23:46 | about this and I think it doesn't change our conclusion but it certainly does mean that if we're referring to it we know what he means and what we think we mean yeah absolutely very good yeah because we want so we're looking for ways to uh support our own you know um policy suggestion that uh Albedo enhancement is needed um I don't know if that's Stephen Salter or Robert hey so just two things uh Paul Beckwith uh has uh just uh put up a good YouTube summary of um the Hanson paper I was following the conversation about um |
| 24:23 | committed warming and equilibrium with considerable interest and and also some confusion because when uh Hanson's title says in the pipeline uh I think the idiom in the pipeline suggests that what is in the pipeline now is going to come out of a pipeline and and so uh the uh the title seems to imply uh committed warming and uh and further on the the like I felt that in his replies he was perhaps being a little bit too semantic in that committed warming is uh the the importance of the concept of committed |
| 25:03 | warming is that the emission reduction Alone um ideology or mythology that's uh that drives uh popular uh climate understanding assets committed warming at zero uh it assumes that we can respond to climate change entirely by uh changing future emissions without worrying about past emissions and uh so the very concept that past emissions have uh in some way committed the planet to a trajectory of of ongoing temperature rise uh for him to then uh say oh I didn't use the term uh committed warming it just seems |
| 25:44 | disingenuous to me so I I'd be interested in Robert Chris's uh if if Robert Chris has any thoughts on those questions yeah I mean I did respond to this um I think that I thought it was rather rather sweet actually because I think what what Jim Henson is doing was being a consummate scientist so he was just dealing with the physics and and essentially the point that he was making I think um in a perhaps unclearly um it was that I mean he did actually say in one place the committed committed warming is undefined which is expression |
| 26:21 | permitted warming is undefined and I think that what he means by that is in scientific terms it is undefined because in response to Bruce's comments earlier on who knows what future emissions are going to be like so if you without without knowing what the future mission is going to be like you don't know what's committed and what's not committed so if any when you look at and I did in that email those of you that looked at it I actually cut and pasted a chunk out of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the verb to |
| 26:52 | commit and from its etymology and it I mean it is when you just read those four or five lines it is quite clear that the word commit has this sense of human intervention you commit to something because you are making a statement you are going to do this and Hanson is not talking about what we're committing to do engine is talking about the physics only and he's saying that given what we have done if we carried on at this level this is what would unfold right he's talking about that with the equilibrium warming |
| 27:25 | isn't he isn't that the physical what the physics is about yes he's exactly he's talking about the he generates this the equilibrium climate sensitivity statistic but then in order to use that to project forward to arrive in his 10 degrees Centigrade he has to assume that the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will remain at its current level so that means that there have to be future emissions there have to be future emissions to offset the natural sinks okay emissions at the current level which |
| 28:02 | will increase atmospheric concentrations and not zero which will reduce them so he's kind of charting a middle course and I think most people don't really understand that that was one of the reasons that I made that mistake because I mean I was aware of it but I in my at least I forgot about it yeah but this is a critical point to understand about what he's saying so he's just focusing on the physics he's a climate scientist that's what he does and the word committed is is a word that will be used |
| 28:29 | by social scientists by political scientists because it's about what we decide we want to do there's a political element to it that's a distinction it's also about what what inertia uh brings and uh the fossil fuel industry has got such a vast inertia that uh these sorts of uh uh thought experiments of cutting emissions uh uh somewhat irrelevant to the the political realities of climate change no well I don't agree with that at all Robert because I think that that inertia that you're in for your |
| 29:02 | referring to is absolutely part of the whole political Nexus because in the truth of the matter is that governments have the coercive power to say from 2030 all oil wells and all coal mines will be closed down they have that power obviously they're not going to use it but they have that power that is a political decision okay so all of that stuff about what the oil companies may do What consumers may do how quickly we will change change our way of being and stop taking all these long-haul flights from Australia to Europe and back and |
| 29:36 | no need for that but keep going yeah come on because we've got we've got to get on and uh and uh John listen please briefly and then so we can then we'll move on oh John you're muted right now um two points uh uh one is that the SO2 thing is uh critical to Anson's uh uh point about rapid decarbonization is actually the SO2 did you see the SO2 yes it's going to lead to uh a doubling uh of the rate of yeah warming uh over over the next 25 years compared to the last 40 years um and that gives one of his graphs has |
| 30:37 | a kind of yellow I've shown that graph in the past in the last six months yeah and that shows the kind of doubling um yeah so that's very relevant um and the other thing uh I can lead on to uh my own agenda Point reduces Hanson seems to assume that will be it's the CO2 um the when the CO2 goes uh with the temperature that it's the CO2 driving temperature he doesn't do that doesn't he no he doesn't do that oh well some some people are interpreting that graph I don't I don't think I don't that in the narrative I |
| 31:26 | don't think he's doing that okay let's do this offline in the small group please I really want to get to some of these others right what what I've done we're actually we've actually morphed into the next gender item Rebecca which is um which is John's item so so John said okay so let me make that clear um John has uh now wants to talk about what does um CO2 make warming orders warming make CO2 or is it both and how does it work is that that right John yeah um what you just said was |
| 32:02 | um that Jim Hansen's I'm sorry I missed it you said what was it I thought that uh Hanson was assuming that the CO2 uh was the the cause of of the warming because the temperature follows CO2 or is it the CO2 following the temperature is not Elvis from the grass when I looked at the Grass more closely and they're only really sufficiently accurate in the last 20 000 years to be able to judge it it seems that the CO2 follows the temperature and this is quite crucial because Pinatubo eruption resulted in their reduction |
| 32:50 | in CO2 which you could see upon that reduction in the CO2 so it removed some I say quite a lot yeah to do from the atmosphere and that is not CO2 from the atmosphere or sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere like this isolation management yeah but I think John might be saying that if the oceans get colder then they absorb more CO2 or something like that so the the assumption uh I think uh most perceived assumption is that the sa2 did cook Cooling and the cooling resulted in uh in more CO2 being absorbed by the oceans |
| 33:37 | yeah um okay produced is a kink and whereas with the temperature there was so much variation you couldn't see or any permanent effect on the temperature uh and there was a would have been a rebound effect anyway uh with the CO2 it was permanent okay that's a good point any anything else on that from anyone and over geologic time up until a human intervention or unless there is a huge Outburst of CO2 the it's the temperature drives the CO2 because the temperature goes up the oceans get warmer and the |
| 34:15 | outgass CO2 the temperature goes down the ocean is going to absorb more CO2 and the CO2 goes down over geologic time with the moleinkovic Cycles with the sun with the sun energy from the Sun changing that's the main draw that's that's what happens it's the CO2 follows temperature but when you get a sudden outgassing of CO2 things change and the CO2 can drive the temperature that's right but I just say Bruce when when you and I look at the this paper in more detail um he Hanson has him there what to me |
| 34:49 | was a novel claim that throughout the cinezone which is the last 66 million years um the major driver of CO2 was tectonic and tectonic activity and metaphomorphism and volcanism that's where the CO2 came from yeah particularly and particularly the shift of the Indian plate that and colliding with the Asians yeah yeah which caused a massive amount of CO2 this is in his book uh storms of my grandchildren as well so it's been there no I know nothing about this but it's a quite an interesting Dimension yeah and and and |
| 35:29 | the other critical point here is that the CO2 is not the only forcing because you've got ice sheet forcing and you've got um non-co2 forcing as well all going on at different you know levels so which is leading which in that is lagging is kind of complicated I don't think he's saying it's one or the other areas according to if it's better dependent I think what's interesting in John's point about uh the the general principle that um well if you if you look at the um orbital geological scale then uh it's |
| 36:03 | the uh uh insulation that drives the the CO2 but uh the question is um at our human scale today um which is the key point between um Albedo and emissions and I would say that the implication of what uh John is describing from the from the geological scale is that if we can and change temperature through increasing Albedo then that actually has a very significant um uh greenhouse gas effect and so we see it in particular with methane that if we do cut the temperature uh then uh we I I think the most Vivid example is |
| 36:50 | uh Arctic methane but uh more broadly that's uh this is a a feedback process that hasn't been sufficiently accepted in models and so we see it for example in the methane Community saying uh that we don't need to worry about Albedo because methane is the most important thing and yet the Albedo effects could swap the the methane level yeah thank you this is what a feedback loop is it's it you know whether you say does it does this lead that or does the other thing lead the other way well they lead each other they reinforce each |
| 37:27 | other as it goes along he handsome deals with this again in over the long term because in this particular part of the paper he's dealing with the cenozoic which is obviously a very long period but he comes up with the observation that by and large through this period the uh amplification the forcing amplification from non-co2 uh greenhouse gases was fairly constant at about 25 percent of the CO2 forcing so in his calculation of the 10 degrees he has assumed a non-co2 ghd forcing of 20 or say of 25 percent of the CO2 forcing |
| 38:10 | that's how that's one of the bits of numbers he's used so so that would suggest that the two are linked so if you if you reduce the CO2 you're going to reduce the non-co2 as well because they're kind of linked in some way if one is the same it's always the same percentage of the other yeah this is why I'm saying this well as I've gone into this it's this paper it's just got a lot of detail in it and it needs really carefully I'm picking yeah great okay thank you John you still got |
| 38:38 | John listen you've still got your hand up did you have something else you wanted to say yeah that's just one other uh very interesting thing the I think it was called asada a a little plant that absorbed huge quantities of uh CO2 from the atmosphere converted it to carbohydrate but it then got sunk and it is now a source of of methane in the Arctic um uh that dropped the CO2 level in the atmosphere hugely but the cooling effect uh from the CO2 removal uh uh it was it was not apparent immediately there was a so so the cooling effect probably |
| 39:32 | did come from something other than CO2 uh they're probably the eyes like clouds from DMS once you've got that much CO2 John the whole thing is saturated so for the first three quarters of CO2 you take out you wouldn't expect to see any difference it's only when it gets lower that the saturation becomes less than uh 100 percent yeah but um yeah so you but there may be some effect from the non uh converting from being logarithmic to uh less logarithmic but I I don't think that's a showstopper yeah it's |
| 40:17 | very complicated it's because you have um phytoplankton they they make as we know um dimethyl sulfide the smell of the sea which ends up making clouds over over the ocean and clouds have a very strong cooling effect this is what we're what we're all talking about isn't it um okay that's my end of the my agenda Point thank you very much thank you very much thank you John but I think Ron wants to say something about it oh thank you thank you Clive um I just wanted to make mention of uh Feinberg uh |
| 40:48 | a physicist in uh in the Boston area just there's a podcast on reviewer two where he he uh he calculates it sounds very similar the induced effect of cooling that part of the he claims that a lot of the calculations for greenhouse gas uh uh effects are are uh underestimated or overestimated for greenhouse gas and underestimate for cooling for exactly uh this kind of reason that there's a there's an induced uh by cooling you uh uh cooling you can you can cause more ghg to to be removed whereas if you just work directly on ghg |
| 41:27 | you you're not able to do that so it has a kind of multiplier effect uh that is not present with uh with GHC uh reduction and and uh and Emissions reduction so I mean it's I I would I would you know to take a look at that I'm kind of curious what people think of that because uh he really is suggesting that there's been a a lot of miscalculation on on this on this very issue in the literature who's saying that this is uh his name is fine I think it's oh yeah Feinberg Feinberg yes yes so Jim Hansel will be saying what he |
| 42:04 | says and Feinberg assignment would disagrees I think should be something else well no I know I'm not sure other people disagree it's relating more to what what John was talking about actually the the feedback uh uh with cooling uh makes that actually more attractive uh than is usually it makes it a a easier uh intervention technique than GHC reduction uh so that's yeah yeah a very good point thank you uh uh Ron yeah yeah uh Chris you're muted crisp uh yeah just quickly coming back on that um I do remember that there was a paper |
| 42:47 | a while ago I think David Keith who said that some of these stratospheric techniques would cause carbon dioxide reductions so it's not a new idea it's been around for quite a few years and the other thing is the azola event was a very unique event when the Arctic Ocean was flooded with a thin relatively thin layer of fresh water as always a freshwater plant it's not a Marine One um and it was very unique circumstances that led to that blooming and massive amounts and sinking into the seabed of the Arctic Ocean |
| 43:18 | um it's probably not something reliable to ever see again and I'm not sure be easy to reproduce if you try to do it and through man's intervention okay thank you thank you Chris okay next um who's that um I'm going to move this out of the way uh oh yes that's your next Chris yeah okay um I'll just uh share my screen just to show you the document I'm talking about very briefly uh you should be able to do it now right which one is it ghg means greenhouse gas by the way Ursula you're wondering yes I was |
| 44:03 | wondering I was also wondering about uh thank you very much I was also wondering about um alphabeta what what's that sorry somebody mentioned I think it was Steven oh Alpha Beta or Alpha B I'm not maybe I didn't hear it correctly I think we're talking about Albedo which is sorry which means the reflectivity of the earth it reflects a lot of heat away and clouds do that um and volcanoes have done that in the past as well so if we make the planets brighter then uh carbon dioxide level will go down is is the feedback loop |
| 44:38 | that was uh being discussed yeah but the first and foremost thing that this group is passionate about people you know the the general Community is saying well you've got to reduce your emissions you know you've got to let burn less fossil fuels and we're saying it's too late for that it was about it was a good idea sort of 30 years ago but that's too late for that now you need something that directly calls the the planet um people don't like the sound of that yep it's also important to say we are |
| 45:08 | still saying to have removing carbon oh yeah yeah yeah sorry we're not saying don't do that no we're not saying don't don't take the CO2 I don't don't reduce your emissions thank you Rebecca yeah we're saying that it's you still got to do that but the but the priority should move to cooling providing a cooling influence uh and we have Stephen salza here who's the Marine Cloud brightening um pioneer today's Pioneer should we say um and uh uh has given us a lot of great |
| 45:38 | calculations on how we could how how we can see how much clouds are needed we also have a gentleman here John who's been speaking earlier saying no no volcanoes every time there's been a big volcano it's called the Earth has been very heavy wind you know strong Winters um but people don't like the doubt that apparently don't like the scent well people don't like this but there's lots of like huge in in this in the space there's a lot of controversy about uh mimicking the effect of volcanoes okay |
| 46:06 | Chris please yeah um this is the document I was talking about I'm only showing you that hit the front page just so you know what it is it's a UNF Triple C document article 6.4 mechanism which is uh where removal activities are dealt with under the Paris agreement okay um the controversy about it which I'll just stop sharing and open a different one is that um in the document which is now most people seem to think is singly ill-informed um it's made some rather controversial statements about carbon dioxide removal |
| 46:47 | and we come just scroll down so I'll put it in the bigger screen there we go uh engineering removals are technology and economically unproven probably true largely true at the minute um but maybe not be completely and then they also think that they do not make do not serve any of the objectives of the article 6. |
| 47:12 | 4 mechanism and they basically dismiss all CDR techniques apart from those which are Land Based ones they also make a statement further down the document that says enhance Rock weathering and ocean related activities have no known method of monitoring which I think is uh completely true oh it's completely untrue well yeah I mean no no methods of monitoring is simply untrue but maybe some and they may be controversial but basically this particular document has wiped out um most of the um technological methods this and the land-based ones |
| 47:52 | um they gave loads of loads of Pros as you can see there uh and only one con so it's highly biased towards land-based activities such as uh and talk about using wood and wood-based products and all sorts of biodiversity conservation social cultural things it all sounds a bit woolly frankly anyway it's article 6.4 problem what is article 6. |
| 48:20 | 4 uh it's the part of the Paris agreement where you can basically get you can get credited for the um removal activities I can't just I'll just see if that document has uh that I showed you earlier has got a brief message at the beginning which shows you exactly what 6.4 is which is probably the easier thing to do uh okay so this is uh to do with rules modalities and procedures for this mechanism um to elaborate and develop these procedures including appropriate monitoring reporting accounting crediting and all the rest of it |
| 49:11 | avoidance of leakage the whole thing around monitoring and crediting and allowing uh for removal mechanisms to be taken as part of the Paris agreement okay this is not talking about so what was the question there it was about pricing it and getting paid for it but it's not just paid but actually just get it even if you were a state whether you could count it against your ndcs for example okay right yeah okay and so what they were saying before in the other document was uh were they saying there's no known |
| 49:46 | ocean removal mechanism or they just can't measure no they said there's no no monitoring no no monitors for ocean ocean activities full stop of all types right and also Rock weathering as well and that has been quite a few um recent um uh posts on the CDR Google Groups about rock weathering and monitoring which I've noticed over the last few weeks and there are some controversies there I think but uh it doesn't sound like it's impossible it might be difficult okay but I think Paul wants to have a word |
| 50:17 | yep Paul yes please my specialty is biochar and that is a CDR removal technique it seems to always seem to fall through the cracks geoengineering ones there's they're building big machines and stuff like that it's got problems the one is they're going to plant trees everywhere fine and the hybrid ones which is in the middle this is a height this is um uh this is the biochar side because biochar doesn't remove anything from the atmosphere it just makes it long-term removal which is accomplished the the |
| 50:57 | trees did it so we want to plant lots of trees but we want to harvest lots of trees and to take that down and to get 70 percent of that bioenergy into the energy cycle and 30 percent of it is remains into the biochar which is about the most the easiest and most direct measurement that you can make it's actual tons of physical stuff that you can touch and and I just keep finding that they they seem to gloss over it and they leave it out they don't give it the recognition so I I hope they'll get it better someday |
| 51:35 | yeah I've uh I've uh I'm going to say something about that in my point as well I think there's an opportunity uh uh I think you're right Paul I do I think you're right there's an opportunity there uh okay anything else on this unfcc how long we've got we've got 40 minutes live uh Hugh is back could I suggest we we talk about the the conference yep okay let's let's do that then let's move that up there wanna fire away police you there Hugh I am I just I didn't know where it was |
| 52:16 | going to be because it's not on the agenda you've just been moved up I see is it is it a good time yeah I thought Robert was going to talk about it uh well no it's fine um I'm very happy to talk about it um so this is a very it started off being a very informal thing uh Robert was visiting and it's now uh grown up to be uh still informal it's it is totally focused on those who are able to be here in person but we are going to be streaming it um I will I don't know what the link is |
| 52:51 | yet but I will uh get that um sent out um I'll just put in the chat um a copy of an email from about a week ago um with some preliminary thoughts on the program the idea is we'll start in Cambridge the night before Monday night depending ones around do come and join us at the Eagle Pub the eagle is where Cricket Watson famously discussed the work of their PHD student who supported his other work and she never got the credit um but that's where cook and Watson invented DNA it's also where the the the RAF pilots and their American |
| 53:31 | colleagues would gather to to talk about their their priority shooting down uh enemy airplanes anyway the eagle Pub on that night that uh do come along let us know one time what time uh I don't know I haven't figured that yet probably about seven but if you can let us know uh if you're thinking of coming um and just to make sure we get enough uh seats um and then in the morning we'll kick off in Trinity College Cambridge at the wind Stanley lecture theater where I've managed to not include that on that yeah |
| 54:08 | Winston election theater in Trinity but those who have signed up will get all the details and then we will have a session on stratospheric aerosols and Marine Cloud brightening and then we'll have a session on iron aerosols a nice thickening and then we'll have some lunch and then we'll talk about other things it's all very it's very fluid um now a few people that I know have sent in um suggestions for things they want to talk about I've got all those apologies for not having them in this draft |
| 54:36 | program but have certainly be great to hear from you if you're still going to be awake and then uh I don't know what the time that should be all right and then no but be great to have um as many as possible in person and people tuning in um and um it really is an opportunity oh by the way at the end will take a visit to our newly formed saltwater lab in in Cambridge have a look at what we're doing um and um uh and yeah we'll just uh be um that's what it's great that's what's up uh Hugh thank you very much I I |
| 55:18 | was asked by Sean Fitzgerald I would love to have come but I'm teaching those three days I don't get that many teachers so I can't I can't um throw them away because I know your priority is Clark I need the money paying the bills um but I've said that if if I send my people to lunch usually half between half 12 and half one could change it a bit maybe but uh I'm happy to so Sean said could I talk for half an hour or talk for 10 or 15 minutes and then have q a so I could do that but I think that your |
| 55:54 | lunch is 12 till half past one which makes it very difficult for me just would you like my lunch if if you could start at um you could if you could start if you could start one then I could talk from half 12 to 1. could you keep could you hang on till one o'clock and listen to me for the last half an hour before you go to lunch I will ponder that that should be that should be doable great thank you um might mean we'll have to go for sandwiches instead of roast swans [Laughter] uh you did did you get my message that I |
| 56:37 | would like to start off the proceedings to set the scene yeah well we're we're um we're getting all the the um various ideas in our Melting Pot the Sorting Hat is um hasn't been invented yet but as you know with all good Technologies we can we can plan to use the Technologies before they've been invented so no yes I have got your message John thank you um so do you know how many people are likely to come outside of um the uh people who've been involved with these online discussions oh so |
| 57:16 | they'll be I think we probably have a about maybe 50 or 60 people in the room um but most will be um local people in Cambridge sort of interested students and um people who are passing through um well I mean just perhaps a quick wave of hands on the screen how many people on this meeting right now think they might be there in person let's do in person first so I can see one two three and myself four how many do you think might be able to participate online and I can see one two three so we got so look it looks like three or four in |
| 57:54 | person and three or four online plus another 40 or so from here there'll be a lively um it'll be a lively meeting uh I think George Soros will be there but him and his whole family you have well he uh was uh quoting to David King I mean he ought to be there he cares what about Sir David is is Sir David in town I I think he I'm not sure if he's in town um I uh don't know for sure but hopefully he will be all right okay but lots of students anyway so that's the one person I will who do hope |
| 58:31 | will be able to come is Martin Rhys astronomer Royal um for ex-president of the Royal Society he's a he's a great a great um thinker and figure um uh another great uh thinker and and uh and and figure is Robert Chris I'm hoping he's coming did you arrange the weather yeah like it's there you go so a couple of years ago Martin Reese was a was a favoring my boy and flakes idea so you might even remember it well there you go um so look any questions um I will I'll put my if you haven't got |
| 59:19 | it already I'll check my email in the chat um do um uh do um reply to you whatever you like and I do apologize for the technology of my camera it is so it's all right this this today it's all right it's just fun I just think it adds a little bit of a well because it was uh very interesting last time but it's working today fine okay I guess you move on with the agenda right thank you very much you thank you thanks for that that's great okay so um do you want to introduce this uh Rebecca or uh or Bruce do you just want |
| 59:58 | to tell us about your you started telling us before so let's just just go cut straight to it please yeah I done some some projections I've got a document I've got online I'll put the put in the chat can I share my screen uh yep go for it um so I'll just go through these quickly so I started with the United States Energy Information agency and they show uh greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emissions going up between 2020 and 2050. |
| 1:00:29 | there's one example um climate well the other one the big one is the you know if the iea their energy Out World Outlook 2022. again this is demand this is joules I think and not missions but that's energy demand growing up over the years uh another example was going up and then coming down by look so it wasn't it yeah but coming down anywhere near current levels yeah nothing like enough and that's fossil fuel actually right this is it's it's close to the current Levels by over 50 years next 20 years yeah |
| 1:01:03 | close to the same yeah that's not really changes very much and then climate action tracker for those of you know that they'd handle all the ndcs they had various projections of of emissions and the policy in action is the ones which you know assuming we're our current policies the ones are going to be in place and so if you look at that you say what should we expect between now oh between now and 2050 you say missions are not likely to change much uh I but be interesting to see some these are projections rather than a |
| 1:01:34 | scenario like the rcps where they make a bunch of assumptions which people don't often think about but anyway so this this is I put together a paper here uh about earlier this month actually um where I start trying to figure out how you come up with the Planning number and I'll put a link to that in the chat if anybody wants to take a look at that I'd be glad to talk to them to figure out how do we come up with a number I did chat with the climate scientist emailed this to her a couple of weeks ago and all she said was you can't trust |
| 1:02:04 | the NDC some climate action tracker because ndc's only go out to 2030. uh that's not a good enough answer something yeah continue to work through because what happens Beyond 2030 I mean it's anyway um so I what I'm hoping to do is start talking some climate scientists to try to have them come up with a number because you need this number to figure out what sort of missions have to be taken out of the atmosphere if you want to hit a particular Target yeah so let me put that yeah yeah okay interesting see those numbers |
| 1:02:39 | yeah uh I mean so presumably the iea and people like that they think about demographics today and you know and how economies develop um do they look at that or are they looking at um I mean who knows if if um I mean this is how I think the advanced nuclear will be here but it's not going to be here at scale for at least another 20 years but it but it will then gradually take over I I think yeah I think they just look at um here here what my current emissions are here are so many coal fire power plants and gas fire power plants here's |
| 1:03:15 | other apps to be taken out of service here's we have energy demand going up we're trying to Electrify or we get energy to the third world since they don't have enough what are all those for all those factors in place look at look at current policies what those policies might do and not project out emissions yeah yeah so that's that makes sense that's business as usual right yeah thanks Chris look it's really good it's it's really important what you're uh doing I I've uh looked also at the |
| 1:03:42 | climate action tracker and uh some of the other sources and uh and what it basically illustrates is that the uh the idea of uh Net Zero by 2050 is just uh grossly unrealistic and uh the I I think uh uh vacaville's book how the world really works has been fairly widely cited as uh just explaining the inertia within the uh fossil fuel systems and uh just the uh massive resistance to uh emission reduction and so much of the uh conversation about emission reduction is a form of uh political lip service with |
| 1:04:25 | uh no uh no real intention and uh that just illustrates uh the really the primary security danger facing the planet and that's why uh Albedo enhancement it really needs to become the the primary climate response so that uh carbon-based responses can move onto a realistic time frame which currently they're simply not right and that's that's why that's my main issue which I've been working in the last couple years thinking through until we get people the climate scientists to say this is our expected projections you |
| 1:04:59 | unless people can come to agreement on that you're not going to get them to say we've got to do albuter modification well I'm not actually sure I agree with that uh Bruce because I think the data is now fairly clear that even if you went to Net Zero tomorrow it still would not avert the problems that everybody's worried about so we've kind of got beyond the stage of actually needing to worry about what future emissions are going to be like because if they're anything whatever they are we |
| 1:05:27 | still need to do the the albino enhancement but how do you how do you come up how do you convince people if that's the case oh well then I think you do what you have to do is you have to use the the the stuff from the climate cycle so things like the warming in the pipeline paper and and all that other stuff that's out there quite a lot of material there now including in the uh in the ipcc reports and and other forms of uh literature uh which are you know in the detail not so much in this in the policy makers summaries but there's |
| 1:05:56 | quite a lot of stuff out there which tells us that um that that Albedo enhancement is now necessary and that um emissions abatement and greenhouse gas removal are also necessary but they are not sufficient and I and I and you will have heard me previously talk about this distinction between sufficiency and necessity and the trouble is that people kind of get hung up about the idea well if it's necessary then let's do that and then they think that having done it they'll be enough but of course things |
| 1:06:29 | can be necessary but not sufficient and that's the case so that's the issue here getting across the people that necessary is not the same as sufficient correct you have to have a whole package of stuff like in aggregate is sufficient that's what my paper says great okay Sev thank you um Rebecca you've had your hand up for a while um apologies I had an internet issue for a moment but um why why I think Bruce's work is important is because he's going into the detail of what the modelers and scientists are doing and |
| 1:07:07 | saying exactly what are they doing and what does it mean in other words a projection um and I think that that's important because it helps us till our top line story as Robbie and Minnie olives have got the same story but it it means we can speak in the language when we say something we know how it relates to what everyone else is thinking and that's why it helps us understand the debate or the framing by the people that don't seem to understand the need for cooling so I'm really saying that I like that Bruce is doing |
| 1:07:42 | what he's doing and Robert Chris I like what you do as well but I don't mean but in a negative sense but we need to make it hang together into a story that we know what if someone over there Michael Mann is saying something then what does it mean and how does it relate to what we think the main points are and what the actions are that we think are important because if we're not careful what we end up sounding like we're saying is that we don't think that emissions reduction is important I know |
| 1:08:10 | we do think that but it's very nuanced and if we don't know the implications of what we're saying then people can just say oh this moral hazard and so on and so forth so I'm really just asking us to have a coherent picture which is based on a lot of detail but we know the nuances of what we're saying or the subtext very good thank you very much yes yeah so I think there'll be this is this is not the uh the end of this it won't be the end of this uh there's this whole long history of people because and |
| 1:08:42 | they'll continue to say that they'll say oh no how you know you shouldn't be saying that because we need to hold the fossil fuel company's feet to the fire um to get them to reduce their emissions otherwise you know we're all going to die but I think Clive the what uh Bruce's graphs uh below the moral hazard argument out of the water because they just say regardless of what we do about geoengineering uh this is uh the future for the next uh 30 years and the future for uh is it's much the same you know |
| 1:09:13 | that I totally agree with you Robert I see the same thing but so so I think that this is part of the value that the uh the moral hazard argument uh suggests that it's uh it's that that climate action tracker graph is just not real but we can just ignore it that you know somehow the optimistic projections in that are real but those optimistic projections have got no engineering critical path associated with yeah so let me let me what I'm trying to say is that it's all very well being right you know we can be say look |
| 1:09:46 | yep we're right here um that then how does how do we get this message out to a whole world of of people that you know a lot more unsure or they've got whole policy things in place you know that they're going to suck CO2 or who knows what they're gonna do or they've got the that's my question is where next and uh people like teachers and marketing people and who knows what we're gonna have to find a way to but having Cambridge along uh people listen to Cambridge they've got the name haven't |
| 1:10:17 | they I was talking to Tito at our Miners and uh he was saying that their ambition were very lofty ambition is uh by 2030 to be able to remove a gigaton of uh carbon dioxide equivalents and uh the issue that I would raise is about climate action tracker and see if you can actually detect the effect of removing one gigaton you can't it's uh it's just quite marginal so like but that is really hard it's really big it's it's really difficult but it illustrates the scale of the problem and it illustrates the need to |
| 1:10:57 | focus on brightening the planet yeah yeah we're removing one gigaton out of a thousand Giga time is it a thousand gigatons well just out of 50 extra a year 50 per year yeah 50 per year or two thousand like the committed see this is where the committed warming issue comes in because the committed warming figure is more like 2 000 gigatons and so removing one it's uh it's quite marginal but uh that that's uh not something that you can say because one is is massive by uh uh compared to current policy yeah |
| 1:11:30 | yeah a billion tons the other thing I'm thinking of how you right now people and director capture are trying to get you know down 100 bucks a ton for CO2 removal what I would like and what I would like to see is you know how realistic is that how how far can you get it down because my projections you're talking about trillions of dollars a year needed for direct air capture no one's going to spend that kind of money and if people are saying yeah I can get it down to ten dollars a time well I can afford that I |
| 1:12:00 | can't afford 100 but how do you get the consensus on what is a realistic projection for the cost of direct air capture in 2030 or 2050 because then you can add the numbers together and say are we willing to spend this yeah and if you don't want to spend it your only choice is solar radiation management yeah yeah very clear yeah Rebecca you've got your hand up again or is it um a short comment on what Bruce just said rethink X which a few people have put into the chat plus uh just have a thinking other |
| 1:12:33 | bodies like that they're all analyzing what actually is happening in technology they do make prediction projections on where it's going but from if you look at some plate or other people who've looked at the economic and social technological change in the past a lot of this is happening and will happen without anyone saying let's do more or so on and so forth so I'm just saying there is a case for technological optimism but how quickly will it happen and what are the benefits and costs and how much will be |
| 1:13:03 | taken up by entrepreneurs is the question and we do need cooling I know we do but I'm just saying that it's not a matter of sitting down and working out each little technology and how much does it cost because a lot of it is actually already about to happen or happening hmm okay thank you okay anything else on that subject thank you very much Bruce for that um okay oh gosh now that's me then so um okay so what did I want to say about this then um so I was reading I highly recommend actually uh Wikipedia on black carbon |
| 1:13:50 | because it's saying uh they were saying long ago that 10 years ago uh it's got a uh an average global warming um it's got a global warming potential of over four thousand CO2 I mean we get we get excited about methane being sort of 84 or 120 but this is 4 000 and something and the um the radiative forcing when averaged over the whole globe in 2013 By raminathan was uh estimated at 0. |
| 1:14:26 | 9 what's per square meter so and so so let's let's bring up uh so it seems to me that we want to be looking for the low hanging fruit and Albedo enhancement is the big is the big one um yeah so here we've got these are these are the uh radius of forcings uh even this is 2013. so we've got carbon dioxide so we've got the overall uh 2. |
| 1:14:58 | 3 watts per square meter um there's carbon dioxide black carbon one of the things about black carbon you know soot from you know coal-fired power stations and wildfires and so forth is it also come it also makes clouds uh reflective clouds as well so you get the soot and the reflector clouds um and um but the soot ends up what is what we're saying two weeks ago the soot on its own especially in the hot places like you know the equator it goes up it's used by photophoresis we've got references you know it's not us |
| 1:15:33 | saying this this is other scientists it goes right up to the stratosphere then it goes around by Brewer Dobson circulation ends up in this Arctic it comes down mainly in the winter in snow and then it uh colors the snow discolors the snow so the snow melts faster it starts the melting season starts the melting sooner so it ends up more melted by The End by the you know the end of the winter the Autumn Fall um and so we're also seeing that uh We've Got Friends explained to me reactions this is going to be in our paper uh how |
| 1:16:08 | it's uh converts halogenated gases that should otherwise just they just break down in the troposphere but it converts them puts them sticks them onto its graphene layers in the so it could take some more work to trust Stratosphere and then they come out as halogens in the stratosphere so that's we're wondering why the the ozone holes so there's that as well the depleting ozone so to me it's a huge this is the this is another big um low hanging fruit that's being uh neglected black carbon and we've got rid of so so |
| 1:16:45 | this is our thing for France is what Franz has been saying for a long time and even I've been actually sort of armaging the last few the last day even this time yesterday that um uh that if you have black carbons so what we're dealing with this is what so we've already been talking about this Jim Henson is saying uh essentially there's a termination shot coming along it's a rather slow shock because we're cleaning up the um aerosols and so the warming is uh going to be accelerating because the |
| 1:17:20 | cooling influence we're getting rid of pollution and what the pollution used to do the cooling is going away and so what Franz has been saying for quite some time now is well don't get rid of it then just turn the black stuff white and so the whole thing will be will be Cooling and and while you're at it it'll deplete methane as well because it'll do photocatalytic uh you know um oxidation of of methane and tropospheric ozone as well and the fact that it's white means that it won't go it won't be |
| 1:17:51 | get hot enough to go up to the stratosphere and plus it'll be hydrophilic hygroscopic it'll make uh nuclear clouds and it'll get rained out so there's no way it's going to go up Stratosphere which means it won't go to the Arctic and do the warming there either it won't make part of the Arctic Haze I mean to me what more do you want we're trying to get this across to everybody and this is what I want to talk about in Cambridge as well but I'll just have some nice slides this right |
| 1:18:19 | now I've just got this here but um so I'll quickly bring this to a close I've also I'm also I've just been learning just today uh reading in so I recommend if you've got time I'm sure many of you have to look at we've got the uh black soot uh the black carbon aerosol Wikipedia I think this is it here so it's got a lot in there and it's very nicely referenced and it shows you uh we've got the climate so climate impacts radiative forcing um just let me get rid of this for a |
| 1:18:53 | minute uh in there somewhere I can't quite find it there climate impacts um anyway so it's there four thousand I can't quite see it here but you'll see it there four thousand and uh raminath and say you know 0.9 let's leave it at that oh no and friends so so where I was I mean I'm about this because yesterday I was saying France well all these coal-fired power stations a lot of stuff is coming from China and India it's ending up in the Arctic um and Greenland melting Greenland and I |
| 1:19:27 | said but yeah but we've we've got rid of the soot in the developing World they use uh electrostatic um scrubbing equipment they just get rid of all the fly ash and and they just and then they bury it or something um so aren't they going to want to do the same thing in the developing countries as well um so uh and Friends well maybe they will end so but if it if the uh pollution but then we don't want to lose the cooling effect of the pollution that's coming out so we can just be turned white |
| 1:20:01 | um and so my question friends we haven't had a chance to answer so this is what we're talking about because this is help helps people understand what we're talking about is vaporous chlorides that that react very quickly and very you know they react with water vapor in the air and they make very fine Mist white um we're calling it uh artificial lust dust because it forms of kind of a clay it's a kind of gray type of clay in the end that would make the Rock that is what's ground down to make look |
| 1:20:32 | this lowest dust it's very fine dust that comes made by glaciers France in a coal-fired power station does the with the flu have to be changed to deal with the corrosion because HCL comes off and hydrochloric but it's just gas HCL gas or could it be done above the flu like we're saying for ships you can do it uh directly above the above excellent so that's they're very low cost very very low cost yes perfect thank you okay so we're getting to 10 minutes left we have a couple of hands |
| 1:21:02 | up uh Paul please yeah about the black carbon uh my work with uh carbon dioxide biochar cooking stoves by the poor people of the world I think produce something like 30 or 40 percent of this black carbon and my stoves which I deal with are do not put out black carbon these are the gasifier micro gas fires so it overlaps it relates in here we want to cut it back if you want to reference at my website woodgas. |
| 1:21:36 | com in the references section they'll you'll find my white paper all right and in their section Roman numeral 12 is all about cook stoves okay uh just looking at that for uh in in the white paper but it's it's a big topic and these stoves solve this problem and if we could just get 500 million households that are still cooking on wood and and some are on coal and stuff to do this we get double duty I mean these people become carbon dioxide removal agents I mean people doing it so that's my my point I'm glad the topic is there |
| 1:22:19 | that is a Synergy between the uh um just so we don't have this black soot coming down on the glaciers and and the snow snowy areas very much thank you very much Paul um that's great and surely more healthy these serves yeah more healthy for them they don't breathe in so much because they have no smoke and yeah yeah there's a little and uh anyway I could go on but let's hear from uh uh is it Robert or uh Stephen uh look I I just wanted to quickly say uh this uh illustrates the complete economic |
| 1:22:57 | bankruptcy of the carbon credit system uh for example the Australian government emission reduction fund uh pays people to uh burn um uh Bushland and uh on the basis that that uh leads to uh more rapid um carbon dioxide removal but totally failing to account for the black carbon in the overall cooling return on investment so the need for a switch to cooling return on investment which looks at the whole climate impacts including black carbon impacts is uh well illustrated by what gliver said thank you very much thank you and yes so |
| 1:23:43 | I could also so I'm going to put a discuss we're writing a paper on this and this suggested I'm planning to put a discussion in there to say this is what to do that again that Wikipedia article is very good it tells you the different sources and the books uh open fire cooking is is in there um uh gas flaring is huge as well it makes a lot of black carbon uh soot um uh I'm also a bit worried about um waste incineration a lot of people burn their waste you know they just throw the plastic and the trash on a |
| 1:24:18 | bonfire and burn it um so anyway so um oh that's right there's so methane that's what I was going to say so gas flaring we uh heard from someone just on Wednesday uh another things we went to methane people who said that uh they've got a strain of methanotrophs that will make uh not with a fixed nitrogen in a very nice fertilizer fed by methane and they're going to put that they've started doing cow barns so they're right there on the farm so they can use the fertilizer on the farm |
| 1:24:53 | and then people there to make sure it's doing all right but that's again that strikes me as a potential opportunity instead of having an enormous um what was it 150 billion cubic meters of of gas are fled each year 150 billion cubic meters and I worked out if that's a hundred dollars a ton for CO2 that's 27 billion dollars I worked it out um if that if the fertilizer business which fixing nitrogen the harbor brush process to make fertilizer that's five percent apparently of CO2 emissions five |
| 1:25:30 | percent of all CO2 emissions goes to fix nitrogen because very energy intensive the energy is already there in the methane which they just burn so how about using that and microbes to make fertilizer the other benefit is this nitrogen fertilizer on the on the fields gets into the rivers it runs off into the sea and it's too much the phytoplankton you get a fighter plan to Boone you get a dead zone all the fish die and the fishermen then have to go further out to sea to find some fish to catch catch but this uh microbial |
| 1:26:02 | fertilizer is kind of different it's not been fixed you know inorganically in a chemical plant it's been done by microbes it's rather more sticky it tends to stick in the soil uh more so I think these guys are really on to something um if they can use go around the world and uh so I think it's going to be fertilizer shortages yeah anyway I think we've got one or two more things uh on the agenda so let's go there I just wanted to say those things to the record uh hey thank you everyone for listening to |
| 1:26:36 | that uh Sev and John so I think this was going to be part of the same thing the narrative so save please okay this Pine Bank assessment which Clive is going to put up actually does change the narrative he chose it uses um Hanson's recent paper to show that uh not only is net zero emissions not enough but greenhouse gas removal is not enough and therefore the only two warfronts you're left with is SRM and thermal radiation management which is what uh quite a lot of my and other people's Technologies work on |
| 1:27:18 | and so that is the way to get the The Narrative changed a fairly simple change just to show that where the two previous narratives are insufficient are important but insufficient the only ones which can be important and sufficient are adding these two extra uh Technologies by the way has everyone received this in their mail or not I don't know whether it got up got to people yes it did did anyone not get it that would like it sounds like it's made it out there uh hi Brian finally we see yeah greetings yeah okay |
| 1:28:12 | I'll I'll look we're out of time so I'll leave it there but if you if you read it and if you've got any comments comments on it please uh please email me yeah so talking about solar radiation management yep um okay yeah so you're you're once again pushing things forward Sev um think doing the thinking um which we're all doing as well uh and you're putting something forward thank you very much thank you um and uh John did you want to add to that something about the pushing pushing |
| 1:28:45 | there because again we can sit here and be be put the world to rights but unless something happens um but of course I know that many of you are in other groups and you do organize and work to make things happen John did you did you want to add something yeah um just that um Kyle Kimball pointed out that the ipcc was effectively in control of the um that sorry the fossil fuel industry was effective in control of the ipcc the fossil fuel industry want to preserve the status quo because it's all working out very satisfactorily for them |
| 1:29:33 | a lot of this business about emissions reduction is uh is just saying things for the sake of it and it's not is now likely going to happen very significantly um and so we need to change the narrative from the Apostle fuel companies being the villains and we've got to fight them I had also reduce our own emissions to save the planet uh and SRM is now essential um but the fossil fuel companies are against it um because they would argue that uh the climate crisis is not really crisis |
| 1:30:36 | could manage on our with our status quo therefore anybody who who thinks that SRM is a bad thing and should be banned are just uh playing into the hands of the fossil fuel industry who who are ultimately the real villains because they're just interested in their bottom line yeah uh so this idea that people who are NTS SRM are actually playing into the hands of The Fosters that's a good point yeah it's it's my new Point okay it's it's a it's a good it's a very good and interesting point I |
| 1:31:21 | think yeah I saw that in an email from you earlier today um the oil industry talk about being against SRM recently that's what I was going to say as well have you seen that John no I haven't seen that I like that reference oh uh sorry Brian you're saying that you've seen a reference that they've that they against us I got the feeling that John was suggesting that the oil industry is against SRM and I'm just wondering if they've published anything on this yeah that's what I was wondering John have |
| 1:31:54 | you got some evidence for that uh no I think the trouble is if they if they advocated bear SRM they would be chastised by the right but that doesn't mean that they're against it yeah but I'm I'm saying let's uh it may not be the whole truth but let's uh let's say that they want to preserve the status grow um and we do know that they have stranded assets if we refresh the Arctic there'll be stranded assets yeah so it's it's some of them it's not all of them it's a huge industry it doesn't mean |
| 1:32:35 | every single one of them thinks the same way does it uh because we we know that the the European or the sort of oil Majors uh that uh total and um whatever BP and uh shell whatever we're saying that um if they want to reduce carbon emissions then there should be a carbon price um but they don't see why they should have to pay it nobody else so exxon's but Exxon said no no we don't want to do that so the other thing I added uh was that it's only by SRM that you're going to say the ecosystems of the world |
| 1:33:08 | yeah uh whereas the uh activists who are on emissions reduction think that that's some are going to save ecosystems or there's nothing we can do about ecosystems somehow there need to be I don't know if it's the point needs to be made so clearly and so simply do you know what we're talking about with SRM uh you're muted still merciles you're muted hi solar radiation management yes there you go very good yes yeah so more importantly does she know what it means no so is it reflecting the reflecting |
| 1:33:52 | the sun's the Sun so that the uh so that the Earth cools exactly that's right that's right at the top of the class top of the class that's because you've explained it so clearly but interestingly our spice project which was on stratospheric aerosols a lot of the opposition to it was because it was supposed that we were funded by the fossil fuel industry and that's why people didn't like it so we're we're damned if we we are and we're damned if we're not yeah yeah uh I've get the impression I mean |
| 1:34:31 | that I've spoken to people who've worked in the fossil fuel industry looks like France is trying to say goodbye are you trying to say goodbye friends no enough goodbye I wanted to say uh I'm not belonging to the father for your industry but I'm against uh Isola radiation Management in the stratosphere because it changes say atmospheric chemistry in Telltale and thus methane and other climate gases will get a much longer a much higher concentration here and also we cannot uh do uh either with with the good |
| 1:35:18 | uh success yeah yeah so that we have our own controversy Ursula there's different types of solar solar radiation management there's putting something in the stratosphere to reflect away the sun uh or this habit doing it with clouds and so uh and friends and Stephen Salton like the idea of clouds um and France particularly doesn't like as he's just said the solar radiation uh the the stratospheric uh method that volcanoes do because you get less energy you get less light in the air that we're |
| 1:35:52 | you know the the stroposphere the part of the atmosphere that we live in down here because there's a lot of atmospheric chemistry that actually gets rid of methane this is how methane and you know cleans the air you know there's a whole load of chemical processes that nobody no very few people are aware of but actually you wonder why the air is clear when it comes polluted air leaves one consonant but goes across the ocean and comes together by the time it gets it it's clean because it's been cleaned and |
| 1:36:20 | friends are saying if you stop too much light coming down then that cleaning process goes away I mean then concentration goes up because that's part of the methane sink okay people are trying to speak uh Rebecca uh my thing is that just have a think Dave borlace has reported on a number of bits of technology that the fossil fuel companies would like to use I don't know whether they're backing it or you know I can't remember the details but the point is they have grandchildren too and some of them in the Middle East might want |
| 1:36:54 | for their status quo things to continue but even those people have grandkids and they can't travel to New York or the tropics so I'm just saying we I don't really buy into conspiracy theories in the fossil fuel companies are going to change their what they're investing in over time in my opinion okay thank you uh Rebecca Sev and we need to end after this because it's certain way over time so people can also leave then I'll let uh they'll say goodbye thank you very much but um um and I'll send the recording out as |
| 1:37:27 | usual but let's just get through this quickly and then we can say goodbye probably because also use SRM using ice and snow and bubbles in the sea surface and fight it plankton in the surface waters all of those methods help increase reflectance of sunlight and so all of these would be good to use as well as MCB Marine Cloud brightening thank you and it comes Under The Heading of accelerating management radish management as well doesn't it yeah okay thank you Sev and Brian um Sev talk or maybe he will talk |
| 1:38:10 | um but uh anyway I was my comment was simply that the presumption uh that that the photochemical processes in the atmosphere over the ocean are Photon limited is questionable and I think we're really Catalyst limited and so reducing the sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth by one or two percent hardly makes a difference given the nine orders of magnitude of light that we're accustomed to and so really I think it's a matter of having healthy Catalyst that can bring methane down and furthermore |
| 1:38:47 | um we're not we're not really sunlight Limited so I think we should question those assumptions okay thank you Brian there we go it's friends you want to speak last one I only want to say uh it's the UB will be reduced by a quarter and not that means 25 percent uh not one percent or two percent okay well that's significant however I would look at the reaction which is still uh Catalyst limited not um UV Photon limited so uh it's like you know you're looking in at the limiting rate factor and it's definitely the Catalyst |
| 1:39:27 | availability I would just say yeah thank you Brian so friends it means we get to sell more unsold aerosol because they need more if there's going to be less UV okay bedtime thank you very much everybody thank you great amazing to see you again in two weeks maybe you'd like to see you again most interesting it's very interesting hey can you capture Cambridge Ursula and be teaching on that day but thank you and I hope it goes very well and it was um I really understand that you're doing very important work all of you and thank |
| 1:40:03 | you it was really interesting good to have you on board yeah thank you very much for inviting me Clive and for everyone for explaining things to me thank you bye good night everybody bye |