It seems to me what would hopefully be the case (well, I wish we’d do better, but realistically) is that mitigation involving both is able to limit CO2e to 550 ppm (so, say a 3 C warming)--this would require, if emissions were kept constant at the present rate, having fossil fuel emissions go to zero in 60 years, so really is indeed a challenge. Then, the notion would be to use geoengineering techniques to shave the peak, doing as much as can be done by CDR (in my view, this would grow over time but not be able to really prevent warming going over 2 C (or better yet, lower), so the role of SRM would be to shave the peak warming from say 3 to 1.5 C or even a bit lower, aiming to phase it out as emissions went way down and CDR phased up. Basically, this way, SRM is the last strategy and not the first (cut short-lived species emissions) or second (cut CO2 emissions sharply) or third (phase in CDR) or even the fourth (adaptation), but then is the fifth [and, through some combination of approaches to it, might be started regionally—say focused on cooling the Arctic—and comes in only to the extent that the other steps cannot (of course done together) keep the global average temperature (or some other metric) to the desired limit].
With such a strategy, so with the SRM effort being relied on to do not anywhere near all of the temperature reduction (i.e., so much more modest an offset than trying to offset all of a CO2 doubling), it seems to me that, with plausible research, the models could be useful in determining how best to implement some set of the various approaches in ways that would hopefully keep what happens in various regions within or near the bounds of variability that are currently being experienced. Mike MacCracken On 2/14/15, 12:25 PM, "Fred Zimmerman" <geoengineerin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi -- I agree with this skeptical assessment of certainty, especially with > regard to impacts on regional and subregional climates and biomes critical to > human life & society, but as many on this list argue, the issue i choosing > between > > a) BAU emissions with high confidence of major impacts 3-5C warming over the > course of a century, vs. > b) intervention scenarios that have moderately high confidence in reducing > warming & rate of warming to, say, 2-4C warming, coupled with low certainty > about regional and subregional impacts > c) unlikely/optimistic/costly scenarios of rapid emissions > stabilization/reduction/withdrawal > > In other words, maybe there is a "law of conservation of uncertainty"-- you > can remove some of it from some parts of the system, but (with current > understanding) never anywhere near all. > ᐧ > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi <cushngo...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Robert, I partly agree with you but totally disagree when you say, I quote : >> " >> Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough about how the Earth >> system operates in order to take control of it. This is a religious argument >> that ignores global realities". This statement is more religious than >> Clive's. There is NOBODY in this earth who knows how best the climate system >> functions for him or her to get hold of it. Our climate predictions have long >> betrayed us that is why we invented the concept of "climate change". A >> complex system like the climate is difficult to master if not impossible, >> especially at the global scale. If you cool temperatures in the arctic, you >> are likely to disturb the known an unknown sub-climatic systems in the >> southern hemisphere and the equatorial region. Our models are simplistic and >> elusive sometimes so that we cannot claim to have mastered the climate >> system. Do not be naive to believe that we can do better now because we know >> it. How can you correlate atmospheric circulation in Arizona with >> precipitations in somaliland? or wind pressure in Butan with vegetation >> change in Brazil? At what confidence level? Here the probability is small if >> not nil. If we cannot do that, whatever climate intervention that will be >> put in place in a region will improve one aspect of the climate in that >> specific region and worsen other variables therein and elsewhere in the >> globe, depending on the spectra of its impacts. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dr Cush N. Luwesi, PhD >> Lecturer >> Department of Geography >> Kenyatta University >> Nairobi, Kenya >> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:14 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering >> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton’s analysis of the politics of >>> geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technology advocates he >>> usefully but wrongly describes. I would really welcome intensive Republican >>> and military and big oil interest in carbon dioxide removal, as that is the >>> only thing with prospect of delivering results on climate security and >>> energy security. >>> >>> Multinational companies have to invest in CDR to protect their stock prices, >>> their reputations and their sources of supply. CDR can deliver a win-win for >>> the climate and the economy. Clive’s scientific dreams falsely assume that >>> the science on warming means the science is also in on workable responses >>> (ie emission reduction). >>> >>> Emission reduction will not happen, and would not stabilise the climate even >>> if it did, since it would only slow the upward CO2 trajectory. We need >>> commercial negative emission technology on a scale bigger than total >>> emissions. Economic growth powered by coal is a freight train that no one >>> will stop. Emission reduction is as likely as suggesting the French could >>> have stopped Hitler by reforming their tax system. UN emission targets, >>> even if any are agreed, are nothing but a mirage that will recede as their >>> dates approach. >>> >>> The entire emission reduction strategy is based on false assumptions about >>> science, economics and politics. The power of the fossil energy industry >>> will easily brush aside carbon taxes and global regulations. So rather than >>> demonise Newt Gingrich as Hamilton suggests, a better strategy is to reach >>> out to the right wing, to get money, political will and ingenuity to >>> identify and deliver mutual goals on global scale. The political reality is >>> that anyone perceived as hostile to the oil and coal and gas industry cannot >>> gain the trust of the people who make globally crucial decisions. >>> >>> As Bjorn Lomborg argues, the priority should be R&D to make CDR commercially >>> profitable. My view is that we can burn coal and oil and gas and then mine >>> the produced carbon using industrial algae farms at sea, delivering >>> profitable commodities to fund scale up. >>> >>> Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough about how the Earth >>> system operates in order to take control of it. This is a religious >>> argument that ignores global realities. Nine billion people means a choice >>> between climate regulation and a runaway greenhouse. Humans have planetary >>> dominion whether we like it or not. A Gaia Apollo project can deliver >>> negative emission technology in the next decade to remove more carbon from >>> the air than we add. The best target for the Paris climate conference is to >>> harness private enterprise to remove twenty billion tonnes of carbon from >>> the air each year within a decade. >>> >>> Robert Tulip >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>> Sent: Friday, 13 February 2015, 10:39 >>> Subject: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton >>> >>> >>> >>> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineerin >>> g.html?referrer= >>> By CLIVE HAMILTON >>> FEBRUARY 12, 2015 >>> THE Republican Party has long resisted action on climate change, but now >>> that much of the electorate wants something done, it needs to find a way out >>> of the hole it has dug for itself. A committee appointed by the National >>> Research Council may just have handed the party a ladder.In a two-volume >>> report, the council is recommending that the federal government fund a >>> research program into geoengineering as a response to a warming globe. The >>> study could be a watershed moment because reports from the council, an arm >>> of the National Academies that provides advice on science and technology, >>> are often an impetus for new scientific research programs. >>> Sometimes known as “Plan B,” geoengineering covers a variety of technologies >>> aimed at deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to >>> counter global warming. >>> Despairing at global foot-dragging, some climate scientists now believe that >>> a turn to Plan B is inevitable. They see it as inscribed in the logic of the >>> situation. The council’s study begins with the assertion that the >>> “likelihood of eventually considering last-ditch efforts” to address climate >>> destabilization grows every year. >>> The report is balanced in its assessment of the science. Yet by bringing >>> geoengineering from the fringes of the climate debate into the mainstream, >>> it legitimizes a dangerous approach.Beneath the identifiable risks is not >>> only a gut reaction to the hubris of it all — the idea that humans could set >>> out to regulate the Earth system, perhaps in perpetuity — but also to what >>> it says about where we are today. As the committee’s chairwoman, Marcia >>> McNutt, told The Associated Press: The public should read this report “and >>> say, ‘This is downright scary.’ And they should say, ‘If this is our Hail >>> Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.’ ” >>> Even scarier is the fact that, while most geoengineering boosters see these >>> technologies as a means of buying time for the world to get its act >>> together, others promote them as a substitute for cutting emissions. In >>> 2008, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, later Republican presidential >>> candidate and an early backer of geoengineering, said: “Instead of >>> penalizing ordinary Americans, we would have an option to address global >>> warming by rewarding scientific invention,” adding: “Bring on the American >>> ingenuity.” >>> The report, considerably more cautious, describes geoengineering as one >>> element of a “portfolio of responses” to climate change and examines the >>> prospects of two approaches — removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, >>> and enveloping the planet in a layer of sulfate particles to reduce the >>> amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. >>> At the same time, the council makes clear that there is “no substitute for >>> dramatic reductions in the emissions” of greenhouse gases to slow global >>> warming and acidifying oceans.The lowest-risk strategies for removing carbon >>> dioxide are “currently limited by cost and at present cannot achieve the >>> desired result of removing climatically important amounts,” the report said. >>> On the second approach, the council said that at present it was “opposed to >>> climate-altering deployment” of technologies to reflect radiation back into >>> space. >>> Still, the council called for research programs to fill the gaps in our >>> knowledge on both approaches, evoking a belief that we can understand enough >>> about how the Earth system operates in order to take control of it. >>> Expressing interest in geoengineering has been taboo for politicians worried >>> about climate change for fear they would be accused of shirking their >>> responsibility to cut carbon emissions. Yet in some congressional offices, >>> interest in geoengineering is strong. And Congress isn’t the only place >>> where there is interest. Russia in 2013 unsuccessfully sought to insert a >>> pro-geoengineering statement into the latest report of the Intergovernmental >>> Panel on Climate Change. >>> Early work on geoengineering has given rise to one of the strangest >>> paradoxes in American politics: enthusiasm for geoengineering from some who >>> have attacked the idea of human-caused global warming. The Heartland >>> Institute, infamous for its billboard comparing those who support climate >>> science to the Unabomber, Theodore J. Kaczynski, featured an article in one >>> of its newsletters from 2007 describing geoengineering as a “practical, >>> cost-effective global warming strategy.” >>> Some scholars associated with conservative think tanks like the Hoover >>> Institution and the Hudson Institute have written optimistically about >>> geoengineering. >>> Oil companies, too, have dipped their toes into the geoengineering waters >>> with Shell, for instance, having funded research into a scheme to put lime >>> into seawater so it absorbs more carbon dioxide. >>> With half of Republican voters favoring government action to tackle global >>> warming, any Republican administration would be tempted by the technofix to >>> beat all technofixes. >>> For some, instead of global warming’s being proof of human failure, >>> engineering the climate would represent the triumph of human ingenuity. >>> While climate change threatens to destabilize the system, geoengineering >>> promises to protect it. If there is such a thing as a right-wing technology, >>> geoengineering is it.President Obama has been working assiduously to >>> persuade the world that the United States is at last serious about Plan A — >>> winding back its greenhouse gas emissions. The suspicions of much of the >>> world would be reignited if the United States were the first major power to >>> invest heavily in Plan B. >>> Clive Hamilton is a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University >>> in Australia and the author, most recently, of “Earthmasters: The Dawn of >>> the Age of Climate Engineering.” -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
