There have been several proposals for using waves to

pump sea water for energy generation. Some involve

water moving over the top of a wall [1] or ramp [2], [3]

into a lagoon above sea level with height optimized to

maximize the product of head and flow volume. For the

hurricane-suppressing project we need a head only just

large enough to overcome the density difference between

the upper and lower thermal layers.

For a salt concentration of 35,000 ppm and

temperature range from 25 C down to 10C this is only

2.76 kg/m3 so that the head of water needed is very small

compared with ocean wave heights. This means that we

can use a low freeboard enclosure with a wall of nonreturn

valves. Most of the water will enter horizontally

rather than by over topping. A sectional view of the

design is shown in figure 1. A vertical non-permeable

tube below the valve wall will carry the water down to the

thermocline. The lower part will be subject to a gentle,

steady hoop tension.

as a result (Hartmann and Short, 1980; Ramanathan et al.,

1989). The solar radiation reflected by marine low clouds

(albedo) increases with the amount of liquid water they contain and as the size of cloud droplets decreases (Stephens,

1978). Twomey (1974, 1977) showed that, for a fixed liquid

water path (LWP), cloud albedo increases with the concentration of cloud droplets (Nd). Thus anthropogenic aerosol pollution increases cloud albedo and cools climate. A total of 4

decades of subsequent research has established the “Twomey

effect” as being the largest contributor to the overall cooling

impact of aerosols on climate (Zelinka et al., 2014; Bellouin

et al., 2020).

In recent decades, evidence showing cloud macrophysical adjustments to aerosol increases has mounted. Albrecht (1989) suggested that reduced droplet sizes would

lead to suppressed collision–coalescence, greater retention of

water, and an augmentation of the Twomey effect. Modeling and observations both show precipitation suppression by

aerosol in warm clouds (Ackerman et al., 2004; Sorooshian

et al., 2010; Terai et al., 2015), and yet observations of ship

tracks (Coakley and Walsh, 2002; Toll et al., 2019), pollution

plumes (Toll et al., 2019; Trofimov et al., 2020), and largescale shipping lanes (Diamond et al., 2020) reveal LWP reductions in the mean. Modeling has shown that aerosols can

cause both positive and negative LWP adjustments (Ackerman et al., 2004; Wood, 2007), with the sign of the change

dependent on meteorological and aerosol conditions. Reduced LWP stems from increased cloud-top entrainment of

dry free-tropospheric air due to smaller cloud droplets and/or

turbulent invigoration of the boundary layer caused by suppressed precipitation (Wang et al., 2003; Ackerman et al.,

2004; Bretherton et al., 2007; Wood, 2007). A recent paper

by Glassmeier et al. (2021) illustrates that the sign of LWP

adjustments depends not only on the meteorological conditions but also on the number of aerosol particles, which cause

positive adjustments when the aerosol number is small, and

precipitation suppression increases the condensate retention.

Negative adjustments are found when the aerosol number is

large, due to the aforementioned entrainment drying. Studies using shipping and land-based pollution sources suggest

that mean LWP decreases may offset the Twomey response

to a degree that ranges from 3 % (Trofimov et al., 2020) to

perhaps 20 % (Toll et al., 2019; Diamond et al., 2020). LWP

adjustments in low clouds are poorly handled in large-scale

models (Malavelle et al., 2017), which almost universally

show LWP increases in simulations of anthropogenic aerosol

impacts (Lohmann and Feichter, 2005; Isaksen et al., 2009;

Bellouin et al., 2020). Global models also tend to show cloud

cover increases in response to aerosol, but these appear to be

small compared with the Twomey responses and LWP adjustments (Zelinka et al., 2014). Cloud cover adjustments are

difficult to constrain using observations (e.g., Gryspeerdt et

al., 2016; Possner et al., 2018)

On 28 February 2022 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released their 6th Assessment Report, a nearly 4000-page document 8 years in the making. That same day United Nations (UN) Secretary General António Guterres spoke to press stating: “Today’s IPCC report is an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership…The abdication of leadership is criminal.”1 That this would be his response should come as no surprise; 4 months prior the UN Environment Program published their emissions gap report illustrating that even if the participants of extant climate abatement agreements adhered to their promises, we would still be on track for a 2.7c rise in global temperature over pre-industrial levels2. What is most interesting about the UN Secretary General’s speech is not his assessment of the global response to climate change but the curious exclusion of UN responsibility. After all, the IPCC was created in 1988 and has since their first assessment report in 1990 been the world’s primary resource on the scope, velocity, and outcomes of anthropogenic climate change while providing policy recommendations disseminated to governments worldwide. Given that present climate agreements are predicated on the data and recommendations produced by the IPCC it is fair to interrogate the continued viability of the IPCC as a global resource for climate information. This paper will determine whether this organization can be relied upon as the world leader in climate research and if the IPCC has played an active role in minimizing the existential catastrophe which threatens to extinguish most life on this planet.

1

for young people. Governments will not make required changes to energy policies based on

theoretical threats – there must be sufficient empirical evidence of harm to force action. Thus,

delayed response makes it difficult to avoid near-term, growing, climate impacts, but it does

not prevent achievement of policies that will lead to a hospitable climate with a bright future

for young people. Time is running short, however, and effective actions at this point require a

good understanding of ongoing climate change and the responsible mechanisms.

The proximate cause of ongoing global warming is Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). Earth is

now absorbing more energy incoming from the Sun than the planet is sending back to space

as reflected solar light and emitted thermal (heat) radiation. As long as that imbalance is

positive – more energy coming in than going out – Earth will continue to get hotter. Factors

that alter Earth’s energy balance are called climate forcings. There are two large human-made

climate forcings: changes of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and changes of aerosols.

GHGs reduce heat radiation to space; thus, an increase of GHGs causes a positive energy

imbalance, more energy coming in than going out, which causes warming. Aerosols reflect

sunlight to space, which is a negative contribution to EEI that causes cooling.

outsized potential role to play in advancing CDR

to the level required to meet Paris Agreement

targets. Marine CDR (mCDR) has the potential,

when responsibly deployed and scaled, to

offer significant climate benefits, while also

contributing to sustainable economic development

for coastal communities, maritime nations, and

small island developing states (SIDS). Additionally,

certain mCDR approaches may yield co-benefits

such as improvements to ocean health, via local

mitigation of ocean acidification, to coastal

ecosystems and commercial aquaculture.

Examples of mCDR include:

Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) via

electrochemical systems, or the physical

application of clean alkaline minerals to

coastlines, coastal watersheds, or the open ocean;

Electrochemical or photochemical systems that

directly remove CO2 from the ocean;

Dedicated cultivation or harvesting of aquatic

biomass, including macroalgae and microalgae (for

sinking to the deep ocean, long-duration terrestrial

storage, or potential incorporation into long-lived

products); and

Restoration, enhancement, and scaling of carbon

sinks associated with seagrass, mangroves, and

other coastal marine ecosystems (coastal “blue

carbon”).