Charles and list: 1. I don't think I misinterpreted the quote. I said below " I believe one can't possibly get the ethics of either geoengineering or SRM correct if you believe CDR has this presumed dismal future ." I am in perfect agreement with your sentence below: "This is what led my co-authors and me to conclude that CDR and the most aggressive CO2 emission reductions possible are the only way to limit CO2 concentrations to ~350 ppm and anthropogenic warming to 2 degrees by the end of the century. "
2. I have read your paper cited below , one sentence of which (like other sentences in your note below) reads: " The problem with this approach is that climate warming from an elevated CO2 concentration is largely irreversible after only a few decades.8 where [8] is a paper by Solomon, whose "irreversbility" views we have discussed (and seem also to rely on doing no CDR - not that CDR won't work), I think we all should avoid sentences like this when your theme is the exact opposite. 3. So your paper looks only at one CDR approach, and never uses the word "biochar". I hope you will talk to your associate at Cornell - Prof.Johannes Lehmann, the one single person I feel best understands the world of biochar. 4. Do you have specific views on biochar working or not working to get to 350 ppm? Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles H. Greene" <[email protected]> To: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]> Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:19:09 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Rotman, CDR, and morality Dear Ron: The quote is correct; however, you may be misinterpreting it. We are locked for approximately a thousand years into whatever temperature the climate system equilibrates at when the ocean has released its excess heat (the "warming in the pipeline") to the atmosphere. If CO2 emissions halted entirely overnight, then atmospheric CO2 concentration would gradually decline and likely stabilize at somewhere just below ~350 ppm by the end of the century. In response, the global mean temperature would likely stabilize just below 2 degrees of anthropogenic warming by century's end. Of course, that's not going to happen because we are societally committed to CO2 emissions for quite some time into the future. This is what led my co-authors and me to conclude that CDR and the most aggressive CO2 emission reductions possible are the only way to limit CO2 concentrations to ~350 ppm and anthropogenic warming to 2 degrees by the end of the century. Greene, CH, BC Monger, and ME Huntley. 2010. Geoengineering: The Inescapable Truth of Getting to 350. Solutions 1(5):57-66. You can download the paper from my Research Gate site or ask me to send it to you. Regards. Chuck On Jun 2, 2013, at 4:21 AM, < [email protected] > < [email protected] > wrote: List 1. The subject of ethics and morality have been key to this list discussions, especially over the last week. .As I was further researching this list's discussion on this topic, I came on a short message string introduced by Andrew Lockley on April 11. Andrew, as is his welcome style, alerted us to a short review article of three books on ethics and geoengineering (by Broome, Hamilton, and Gardiner). The article appeared in the April MIT Technology Review, written by the Magazine's editor: David Rotman. The 6 short pages can be down loaded easily at http://www.technologyreview.com/review/513526/climate-change-the-moral-choices/ 2. Rotman's 3rd and 4th sentences read (emphasis added): "Over the last few years, researchers have calculated that some of the resulting changes to the earth's climate, including increased temperature, are more persistent still: even if emissions are abruptly ended and carbon dioxide levels gradually drop, the temperature will stubbornly remain elevated for a thousand years or more. The earth's thermostat is essentially being turned up and there are no readily foreseeable ways to turn it back down; even risky geoengineering schemes would at best offset the higher temperatures only temporarily. " 3. I have not yet read any of the three books, and Mr .Rotman may not be up on both the SRM and CDR parts of Geoengneering, but I believe one can't possibly get the ethics of either geoengineering or SRM correct if you believe CDR has this presumed dismal future . This does seem to conform to the quote I used last week re Prof. Hamilton's view of biochar's assumed future clmate/geoengineering insignificance. 4. I had not realized that the ethics profession could get the fundamentals so wrong - of huge importance to Jim Hansen and the 350.org groups. Or does the fault lie only with Mr. Rotman? Either way, large numbers have received a very disheartening (and I believe inaccurate) future climate message -one that helps only one side of geoengineering.. Ron -- 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 . -- 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.
