John, list, etal
1. I have just sent a different note on the 4 degree computation,
which I think has to be scaled back a little But maybe not. At least a newer
Hansen cite is in order.
2. Below, you ask myself and others reading this on what to do. The
answer is what most of us and you are already doing - trying to educate. Gavin
is also - and wonderfully. He is already on your/our side.
3. Thank you for doing so much yourself.
Ron
On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:54 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron and everyone,
>
> Let me summarise the stark situation as revealed by best available scientific
> observations and deduction. However much global CO2 emissions are reduced,
> if we, as a society, continue our non-interventionist approach to the Earth
> System we are committing ourselves to global warming of over 4 degrees
> Celsius and to remorseless warming of the Arctic* until the whole icecap has
> melted. The repercussions will be intolerable.
>
> If you, like me, have been stunned by the situation, what is your personal
> response to be? What can we do individually or collectively to get the
> message across to governments around the world that this is the actual
> situation - this is the reality? Forget the political rhetoric - the
> authorities (such as IPCC) have consistently avoided saying anything to
> suggest that we are all in great danger. As years pass, the danger
> increases and the avoidance of admitting danger gets stronger. So we are now
> against a tremendous barrier of silence - a brick wall of refusal to accept
> the facts. No public body, no institution, no government has made it known
> how dangerous the situation is, either as regards greenhouse gases or as
> regards the Arctic sea ice. No public body, no institution, no government
> has accepted that there is an urgent requirement for CDR-type geoengineering
> or SRM-type geoengineering**, let alone both.
>
> How do we break down the barrier of silence - how do we knock over the brick
> wall of refusal to accept the facts? How can we get a proper discussion
> with the authorities so that they come to the same conclusion as we have
> reached through use of scientific observations and deduction?
>
> I have personally tried to make advocacy for geoengineering on Gavin
> Schmidt's blog, RealClimate, but my approach to him at AGU (when I publicly
> challenged him to allow me to write an opening article on his blog) was met
> with silence. It seems to me that RealClimate would be an excellent place to
> start our advocacy, so I am copying this email to him.
>
> There is no need for panic. We can use geoengineering to get ourselves out
> of this mess. And this is an unprecedented opportunity for true
> international collaboration - where all nations work together towards a
> common goal, in the interests of every person on this planet. But while both
> the danger of the situation and the need for rapid geoengineering are
> ignored, we are not giving ourselves that opportunity. And the window of
> opportunity is fast closing as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere
> and the sea ice retreats ever more rapidly.
>
> John
>
> * The Arctic is currently warming at around 1 degree Celsius per decade.
> With further albedo loss, this rate will increase.
>
> ** For cooling the Arctic we will need SRM-type geoengineering to cool the
> currents and rivers flowing into the Arctic, but we may also need to take
> more direct measures for maintaining snow and sea ice cover throughout the
> summer, to reverse the albedo loss.
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> David, list, etal
>
> a few inserts below
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I don't think that the "reduce" paragraph in the FOE release is a
>> WGIII quote, so no sense guessing at what "reduce global carbon pollution"
>> might mean in the mind of WGIII authors. In most usage I have seen, "reduce
>> carbon pollution" means to lower the amount of current and future carbon
>> releases resulting from human activity; as opposed to CDR, which might
>> reduce the amount of "carbon pollution" now in the air.
>
>
> [RWL: Re last sentence, I would replace "might" with "will". This is
> occurring today, even if by not very much, using the voluntary market. But
> the message I got from the FoE release is that CDR will be in the WGIII
> volume - and John Nissen should be pleased. There was nothing in the
> previous four such volumes.
>
>>
>> I am not participating in this iteration of the WGIII report so I have no
>> insight as to what it might say. But I think that those who seek greater
>> attention paid to gaining a better understanding of the potential for
>> different geoengineering approaches should not place so much weight on what
>> the IPCC does or does not say about it in AR5.
>
>
> [RWL: I fit the first part of your second sentence. Can you explain why I
> (and probably John Nissen, who started this thread) shouldn't be placing
> weight on the WGIII message - if the message is strong that CDR is needed?
> (which I think FoE was saying - as was Reuters earlier - and which I hope
> will happen.)
>
>>
>> What the IPCC should consider is a Special Report on the topic, as it did
>> for Carbon Capture and Storage in a process that began in 2003 and the more
>> recent Special Report on Renewable Energy. The 2011 IPCC Expert Meeting on
>> Geoengineering raised the issue of a Special Report. (I have not monitored
>> all IPPC announcements so perhaps there is some decision on this that I have
>> missed.)
>
> [RWL: I guess I can agree - sort of. I would, however, want two new
> reports - one each for SRM and CDR. My experience in following these special
> reports is that they are hugely dependent on the makeup of the panels
> producing them. I'd much rather have a "Deliberative Polling" procedure
> involving a large number of relatively well informed (but not professionally
> involved in a specific area - perhaps could be real decision makers) "jurors"
> listening to a few experts on each technology. All jurors would have an
> ability to ask questions. I have seen radically different results from small
> and large panels. So the two "reports" could be describing the polling,
> preferable with some indication of who (in a Dan Kahan sense) was voting how.
>
> I have just reread all the 2011 Lima expert meeting report
> (http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/EM_GeoE_Meeting_Report_final.pdf)
> excerpts that contain the word "biochar". As an example of my concern, there
> was a breakdown of CDR into two types. I don't understand why biochar was
> not perceived to be like afforestation/reforestation and BECCS. In my world,
> biochar enhancing soils is a bigger deal than reducing N2O and methane
> emissions (which are big deals also). Could biochar not be in both "camps"?
> What is sink enhancing about placing liquid CO2 underground? Here is the
> quote from Lima that bothers me:
> "Land-based methods can be categorized into those that enhance natural
> sinks and those that reduce natural sources, particularly by reducing
> terrestrial respiration. Sink-enhancing CDR methods include
> afforestation/reforestation, bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage
> (IPCC, 2011), fertilization of land plants, and enhanced weathering on land.
> Source reduction CDR methods include the production and deployment of
> "biochar", the application of no till and conservation agriculture, and
> biomass burial. This list is not exhaustive and no attempt was made at the
> meeting to provide a complete one. "
>
> I am suggesting that biochar advocates in a deliberative polling
> situation would take great pains especially to talk about biochar's "sink
> enhancement" attributes. The typical "expert panel" report, written often by
> generalist assistants, would rarely worry about getting each story correct
> from the proponent's perspective. The proponents' bias is kept in check by
> virtue of the polling. Whereas in a typical technical report, there is often
> not even any way to know who wrote anything.
>
> Dr. Johannes Lehmann, biochar's best spokesperson, was at the Lima
> meeting - at least in part. But I recognize no other biochar expert as being
> there.
>
>
>>
>> By the way, I participate in this list as an individual, not as a
>> representative of NRDC. in many cases the views I express may not be ones
>> on which NRDC has adopted a position.
>
> RWL: My apologies. But NRDC is a major player in this arena and I
> want NRDC to be as proactive as possible in getting us out of this mess we
> are in. I respond or ask questions mainly to influence your thinking.
> Thanks for your responses.
>
> Ron
>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:16 AM, "Ronal W. Larson"
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> John, list etal:
>>
>> I believe you have misread the FoE material a little. I take some hopes
>> from their predictions of what is coming in Vol. III of AR5. I presume they
>> would not have written as they have if they did not have a copy of a draft.
>> The previous leaks reported by Reuters last year were nowhere as detailed as
>> this new FoE material, so I believe we should have increased hopes for what
>> Vol. III will say. See inserts below.
>>
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 4:51 PM, John Nissen
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> FoE says the WG2 report on climate impacts will be published on March 29th
>> and the WG3 report on "pathways to avoid dangerous climate change" will be
>> published on April 11th.
>>
>> To quote from the WG3 summary by FoE:
>>
>> "It is still possible to reduce global carbon pollution fast enough and deep
>> enough to make 2 degrees of global warming unlikely and provide a small
>> chance of avoiding 1.5 degrees of warming, but only by making far-reaching
>> socio-economic changes."
>> RWL: The key word here is "reduce" - which can include both mitigation and
>> CDR (but not SRM). I think the right question is whether the Vol III
>> authors meant to include CDR. The evidence from other quotes is that
>> geoengineering is a big part of Vol.III; since SRM is going to do nothing
>> for "reduce" - this leaves only CDR. I strongly believe that CDR can do
>> what is this sentence - so I don't view it as "twaddle".
>>
>>
>> This is complete twaddle and wishful thinking by people whose solidarity is
>> clearly with the "egalitarians" (see posting by Dan Kahan on polarities).
>> It is twaddle because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has to be reduced
>> if the world is to have any chance of keeping below 2 degrees C warming.
>> There is no way that some vague collection of "socio-economic changes" can
>> reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere as required. Only geoengineering can do
>> this.
>>
>> [RWL: I guess I am partly responding since I am pretty sure I am an
>> egalitarian. Guessing you might be also. (And I have read a lot of the
>> Kahan material.) Your last sentence should read "Only CDR can do this", if
>> we are talking "reduction". Yes SRM can control temperatures, but the
>> sentences here are more about reduction, which you endorse, rather than
>> about temperature - which can follow reduction.
>>
>> It is also twaddle because the situation in the Arctic is completely
>> ignored. Best scientific evidence points to a vicious cycle of warming and
>> melting in the Arctic as albedo is lost. The only way to break this cycle,
>> and halt the slippery slide into complete Arctic meltdown, is to cool the
>> Arctic.
>>
>> RWL: I agree with the last sentence, but SRM via sulfates and cloud
>> brightening are not the only ways. CDR and albedo modification are other
>> ways, albeit slower. My guess is that Vol. III will talk about the Arctic -
>> clearly the most immediate reason for their talking about geoengineering
>> (which itself is not a sure thing). My guess is that they will also talk
>> about their perceptions on the downsides of SRM - so I think it quite
>> premature to say that the Arctic will be ignored.
>>
>> The sooner that IPCC accepts geoengineering as a logical necessity for both
>> CO2 removal and cooling the Arctic, the sooner that the twin dangers from
>> excess CO2 and Arctic overheating will be accepted by politicians and
>> society at large. The talk of geoengineering will make everyone aware that
>> the situation we find ourselves in is already dangerous - really dangerous.
>>
>> RWL: I read this "leak" by FoE as saying that the IPCC has now accepted
>> geoengineering as needing discussion. Not clear what they will say about
>> SRM, but I infer that CDR will receive a welcome positive boost.
>>
>> The only sensible "pathways to avoid dangerous climate change" must involve
>> geoengineering to remove CO2 and geoengineering to cool the Arctic. The
>> pathway proposed by WG3 is suicidal lunacy.
>> RWL: I agree with your first sentence - but FoE probably wouldn't - it
>> being opposed to SRM. Your word " geoengineering" needs to be more nuanced
>> there by replacing it with the words SRM and CDR. My guess is that WG3
>> could also agree with some version of your first sentence. So I think your
>> final sentence is misreading the FoE material (which I hope/think is based
>> on more than their guess about what will appear). Only a few more weeks to
>> see. Please reread the longer FoE version. I think there is much more hope
>> for the Arctic coming than you are expressing. That hope probably is due in
>> large part to your own hard work. Ron
>>
>> Cheers, John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Oscar Escobar
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> IPCC AR5 WG2 report - advance briefing
>>
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> Change (IPCC)
>> Fifth Assessment, Working Group 3 report
>> Questions and answers in advance of publication
>>
>> http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/advance-briefing-ipcc-report-climate-mitigaton-45694.pdf
>>
>> (Excerpt)
>> Reasons to be worried
>>
>> Although the WG3 report will show that the potential to cut carbon pollution
>> sufficiently to
>> make 2 degrees warming unlikely exists, it will also illustrate the very
>> significant
>> socio-economic changes that are needed to do so. Currently the political
>> will to make these
>> changes, for example reducing fossil fuel use or reducing inequalities
>> between and within
>> countries, is sorely lacking.
>>
>> Because of current and past failures to reduce carbon pollution it is not
>> surprising that the
>> IPCC has investigated geoengineering options. However, by doing so it
>> potentially
>> normalises these approaches alongside energy efficiency, renewables, etc.
>> The risks of
>> particularly solar radiation management are very high and this will need to
>> be made clear.
>>
>> What are others likely to say?
>>
>> It is likely that climate deniers will identify the high costs of mitigation
>> whilst ignoring the
>> considerable benefits which outweigh the costs.
>> It is also possible that right-wing think tanks and the media focus on the
>> potential for
>> geoengineering as a potentially low cost response to climate change,
>> particularly regarding
>> the extremely risky strategy of injection of aerosols into the stratosphere
>> as a form of solar
>> radiation management.
>>
>> Friends of the Earth is opposed to the deployment of solar radiation
>> management.
>> There is also the danger that some commentators also reject all negative
>> emissions
>> technologies in addition to rejecting solar radiation management.
>> This is simplistic and could create opposition to development of necessary
>> technologies
>> to remove carbon pollution from the atmosphere (e.g. air capture of carbon
>> utilising carbon capture and storage).
>>
>> --
>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
