Agreed. When I give presentations about CC I always stress the timing
aspects, and how they're not our friends. From the long atmospheric
lifetime of CO2 ("love is fleeting, but CO2 is (virtually) forever") to the
lock-in effects of infrastructure to the multiple human delays, including
psychological, political, and economic, we seem to be behind more than one
eight ball.
This is why I tell people that I think there should be zero debate about
"is geoengineering a good idea" (even if one accepts that as broad an
umbrella term as "geoengineering" can be used in such a way) and we should
be focused on doing the work needed to figure out the costs and benefits
(both in terms of monetary and non-monetary measures) of various
implementation plans for each form of geoengineering. I think it's
abundantly clear that our mass epiphany about CC won't come until after
we've locked in and begun to see hideous consequences, and we suddenly
demand a near-magical fix. Probability that we'll deploy at least one
large scale geoengineering technology in the next few decades > 99%.
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:48:37 AM UTC-4, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
>
> It's somewhat academic since in all likelihood the most time-consuming
> element in the process will be the political deliberations necessary to
> reach agreement on action. We're at 20 years and counting from Rio and we
> are still increasing emissions every year.
>
>
> ---
> Fred Zimmerman
> Geoengineering IT!
> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology
> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Mike MacCracken
> <[email protected]<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi John--I wholeheartedly agree that a gradual implementation could be
>> done.
>> It seems to me, however, in many of the discussions, the application is
>> being talked about as an emergency application that could be done much
>> more
>> rapidly than CO2 mitigation rather than as a gradual application. It is
>> those proposed cases that prompted my comment.
>>
>> Best, Mike
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/13 1:44 AM, "John Latham" <[email protected]<javascript:>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry if I'm missing a point, Mike, but - in principle - the transition
>> > to full SRM deployment in the case of Marine Cloud Brightening
>> > could be made at a selected rate and modified in a controllable
>> > manner by adjusting the sea-water spray rate. Additional
>> > flexibility is provided by varying the choices of the locations at
>> which
>> > sprayiing occurs. The same principles could be applied to sub-global MCB
>> > geo-engineering, in the cases of coral reef protection and
>> > weakening of hurricanes, via propitiously chosen surface water
>> > cooling.
>> > All Best, John.
>> >
>> >
>> > John Latham
>> > Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000
>> > Email: [email protected] <javascript:> or
>> > [email protected]<javascript:>
>> > Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429
>> > or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002
>> > http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: [email protected] <javascript:> [
>> [email protected] <javascript:>] on
>> > behalf of Mike MacCracken [[email protected] <javascript:>]
>> > Sent: 22 May 2013 03:17
>> > To: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering
>> > Subject: Re: [geo] The importance of response times for various climate
>> > strategies - Springer
>> >
>> > I continue to wonder how one can be so concerned about the warming that
>> would
>> > occur at a supposed end of SRM and not be worried about the rapid onset
>> of SRM
>> > if used in an emergency manner (not to mention that by the time of the
>> > emergency it may be too late to reverse (e.g., think about Greenland
>> melting
>> > rate, could it be reversed?). As climate warms/changes, there is always
>> some
>> > adaptation going on, so the thought of suddenly taking the global
>> average temp
>> > down a degree C would likely lead to quite large disruptions and
>> dislocations,
>> > just as would coming out of such a cooling. The disruption of going
>> into SRM
>> > can be smoothed, and so could an exit (if we assume we have as much
>> sense as
>> > needed to get agreement to start SRM), just as going in one could have a
>> > sudden change likely as disruptive as coming out if not managed well.
>> So, why
>> > all the focus on the back end problem, without a similar concern at
>> start-up?
>> >
>> > Mike MacCracken
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/21/13 8:37 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]<javascript:>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0769-5
>> >
>> > If climate action becomes urgent: the importance of response times for
>> various
>> > climate strategies
>> >
>> > Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elke Stehfest
>> >
>> > Abstract
>> >
>> > Most deliberations on climate policy are based on a mitigation response
>> that
>> > assumes a gradually increasing reduction over time. However, situations
>> may
>> > occur where a more urgent response is needed. A key question for climate
>> > policy in general, but even more in the case a rapid response is
>> needed, is:
>> > what are the characteristic response times of the response options,
>> such as
>> > rapid mitigation or solar radiation management (SRM)? This paper
>> explores this
>> > issue, which has not received a lot of attention yet, by looking into
>> the role
>> > of both societal and physical response times. For mitigation,
>> technological
>> > and economic inertia clearly limit reduction rates with considerable
>> > uncertainty corresponding to political inertia and societies¹ ability to
>> > organize rapid mitigation action at what costs. The paper looks into a
>> rapid
>> > emission reductions of 46 % annually. Reduction rates at the top end
>> of this
>> > range (up to 6 %) could effectively reduce climate change, but only
>> with a
>> > noticeable delay. Temperatures could be above those in the year of
>> policy
>> > introduction for more than 70 years, with unknown consequences of
>> overshoot. A
>> > strategy based on SRM is shown to have much shorter response times (up
>> to
>> > decades), but introduces an important element of risk, such as ocean
>> > acidification and the risk of extreme temperature shifts in case action
>> is
>> > halted. Above all, the paper highlights the role of response times in
>> > designing effective policy strategies implying that a better
>> understanding of
>> > these crucial factors is required.
>> >
>> > This article is part of a special issue on "Geoengineering Research and
>> its
>> > Limitations" edited by Robert Wood, Stephen Gardiner, and Lauren
>> > Hartzell-Nichols.
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "geoengineering" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an
>> > email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> > To post to this group, send email to
>> > [email protected]<javascript:>
>> .
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
>> .
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
