David and list:
I have read the short description of the Peru meeting at
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/index.html#6
and the proposal at
http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/files/d...
-proposal-EM-on-geoengineering.pdf
I mostly can endorse the need for and value of this meeting. However, I
do not see an indication that SRM and CDR will be analyzed differently
(better two meetings?), or is this still to be determined?
As a proponent of Biochar, I am concerned that none of the (proposed, still
40?) experts at the Peru meeting will have been active in Biochar analysis -
which may be the newest CDR approach, but possibly the most active, and seems
to be the only one with out-year and non-climate benefits.
How can one find who the invited biochar experts will be, if any? Have
the 25 (?) monitors from developing countries been selected yet?.
Thanks in advance for any more information now available.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Keith"<[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2011 6:33:11 AM
Subject: RE: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the
Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts
I am on the organizing committee for the IPCC interworking group meeting on
geoengineering in Peru this summer.
The possibility of a special report will no doubt be discussed at some length
at that meeting.
My views are pretty well aligned with Ken's here. There are lots of summary
reports written in more in the works, what is lacking is sufficient serious
analysis of the various methods, their potential, risks and uncertainties.
-D
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:35 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the
Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts
It is not clear to me that doing an IPCC report on geoengineering would be an
effective use of everybody's time. People are already starting to plan the
treatment of geoengineering in AR5 with a meeting coming up in Peru in June.
These IPCC processes are notoriously time consuming.
There really is not that much research going on because funding in this area
is extremely limited. My own sense is that at this point most scientists
involved in this area could benefit by spending more time in their labs and
offices doing science and less time going to meetings talking about
non-science.
Geoengineering is an area where the ratio of talk to actual new facts is
startlingly high.
We recently had the Royal Society report. How much has changed since then?
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Emily<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear All,
I proposed to Yvo DeBoer in 1008 that he might like to request the IPCC to
complete a rapid special report on Active mitigation options such as
geo-engineering. This might follow the report series the IPCC have done on
renewables etc.
At that point Yvo felt that the IPCC coverage of geo-eng in the AR4 would
cover it.
Perhaps we could make a stronger case for IPCC to do something useful on
geo-eng. The new UNFCCC leadership and also the post Copenhagen / Cancun
context may help gain an IPCC review of options and secure greater dialogue
and inclusion in the UNFCCC texts, such as in the KP, LCA, REDD or CDM text.
where would it best be in the UNFCCC text and what would it need to say.
The KP and LCA text already talks about 'reduction of emissions and removal
by sinks' How can this be explored further?
best,
Emily.
On 30/12/2010 14:22, John Nissen wrote:
Thanks, John for these reduction requirements. They are clearly impossible
to achieve, but even if they could be achieved would not guarantee keeping
within 2 degrees this century. And 2 degrees is far from safe. We have no
option but to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR) at an increasing rate
until the removal is faster than the addition from emissions. But what's the
timescale? Is global warming the most immediate threat?
Ocean acidification is proceeding at an alarming rate. It will soon reach a
level in the Arctic where shells cannot form and the marine food chain is
affected [1] [2]. Thus we have only a decade or two to reduce CO2 levels
below 350 ppm. CO2 removal becomes imperative, and has to reach the rate of
emissions within a decade so that the CO2 level starts falling.
On top of these problems we have the Arctic sea ice retreat, which has to be
halted to avoid massive methane discharge from permafrost otherwise all plans
to halt global warming would be trashed. CO2 reduction will not have any
appreciable effect in the timescales - so we have to cool the Arctic quickly
[3]. We have no option but use solar radiation management (SRM), possibly
supplemented by other more specific measures to retain the sea ice.
My sincere hope for 2011 is that the necessity for these urgent actions -
both CDR and SRM types of geoengineering - will finally be recognised in
international negotiations, to put our global society on a new safe path
towards a successful future [4]. Please help in lobbying for this.
Best wishes for the New Year,
John
[1]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603092018.htm
[2]http://www.bitsofscience.org/ocean-acidification-faster-438/
[3]http://www.catlin.com/cgl/media/press_releases/pr_2009/209-10-15/
[4]
