In that we are already in an overshoot situation given the objective of
the UNFCCC and we want to be in overshoot the least amount of time
possible given the acceleration of loss of ice sheet mass and increase
in extreme weather and precipitation, I would hope all would also agree
that it is essential to be working toward early, gradual deployment of
climate intervention approaches to push warming back down toward less
than 0.5 C as soon as possible, with DAC, in addition to aggressive
mitigation, being a vital component of an envisioned exit strategy to be
scaled up as quickly as practicable.
"The fact is that all that is needed is the decision to do it....I [too]
would hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering
community will throw their support behind a strong global effort .."
Peter E--In my view, there is also the need to avoid very serious
impacts that are building now, so very early forcing down of the
temperature as well as dealing with the higher CO2 concentration over
the time it will take to build up and do this in the manner that you
focus on.
Mike
On 8/5/18 4:30 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to
negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all
the major players
are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in
particular. This spans the large petro chemical companies , the
goovernments and international efforts - I do not have the time to
document this for you so
you can ignore the input but neverthe less it is happening and the
change is dramatic. I think as the world takes NETs more seriously a
quesion will emerge for the SRM supporters. Again for the record I
support research on SRM but
oppose using the possible failure of NETS as the basis for the effort.
The fact is that all that is needed is the decsion to do it, do NET
with DAC playing a big role. I am optimisitic that the academy study
that is coming out will
provide an additional strong impetus for getting together and doing
NET. I hope all the very talented and positively motivated
geoengineering community will throw their support behind
a strong global effort for NET and adopt the factually correct
perspective that if we develop a global consencus and work together we
can get this done, eg limit the time we spend in the overshoot CO2
condition.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Andrew Lockley
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to
Mitigate Sea Level Rise?
Michael J. Wolovick1
and John C. Moore2,3
1Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences Program, Department of Geosciences,
Princeton University, GFDL, 201 Forrestal Road,
Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
2College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal
University, Beijing, China
3Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland
Correspondence: M.J. Wolovick ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>)
Abstract. The Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) is a dynamic
feedback that can cause an ice sheet to enter a runaway collapse.
Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, is the largest individual
source of future sea level rise and may have already entered the
MISI. Here, we use a suite of coupled ice–ocean flowband
simulations to explore whether targeted geoengineering using an
artificial sill or artificial ice rises could counter a collapse.
Successful interventions occur when the floating ice shelf regrounds
5 on the pinning points, increasing buttressing and reducing ice
flux across the grounding line. Regrounding is more likely with a
continuous sill that is able to block warm water transport to the
grounding line. The smallest design we consider is comparable
in scale to existing civil engineering projects but has only a 30%
success rate, while larger designs are more effective. There
are multiple possible routes forward to improve upon the designs
that we considered, and with decades or more to research
designs it is plausible that the scientific community could come
up with a plan that was both effective and achievable. While
10 reducing emissions remains the short-term priority for
minimizing the effects of climate change, in the long run humanity may
need to develop contingency plans to deal with an ice sheet collapse.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments
contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole
use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the
terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
