Hi Andrew Thanks for pointing this out. I've contacted the author and staff, as you've seen, separately. I thought that otherwise the article was really quite good actually.
Best, Matthias Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018 18:05:39 UTC-4 schrieb Andrew Lockley: > > Nobody is proposing releasing nitrous oxide! Someone should write in and > tell them. I can't be bothered, it's a rabbit hole of wrong. > > The Guardian: wrong about everything, all the time > https://www.moretvicar.com/products/the-guardian-mens-white-t-shirt > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, 22:57 Matthias Honegger, <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> Link to the article online >> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/geoengineering-global-warming-ipcc> >> >> Geoengineering may be used to combat global warming, experts say >> >> IPCC authors suggest there is high agreement that injection of chemicals >> into stratosphere could help limit rises >> >> >> Jonathan Watts, the guardian, 8. Oct. 18 >> >> >> The world may increasingly look to geoengineering in the wake of the >> latest UN climate report, which says it could be adopted as a temporary >> “remedial measure” if the world heads towards dangerous levels of warming. >> The authors of the new 1.5C study by the Intergovernmental Panel on >> Climate Change say there is high agreement that the injection of millions >> of tonnes of sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxide into the stratosphere could >> help limit temperature rises to the most ambitious target of the Paris >> accord. >> But the authors warn there are major uncertainties about the social, >> environmental and ecological impacts, which mean the world would be far >> better off if policymakers strengthened natural cooling systems such as >> forest cover and accelerated efforts to reduce carbon emissions. >> The lengthy document – which was approved at the weekend by all 195 >> nations in the UN – mentions several options for man-made interference in >> climate systems, including ocean fertilisation, carbon dioxide removal, >> marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning and ground-based albedo >> modification. >> But it focused most on stratospheric aerosol injection, a technique that >> essentially mimics the effect of a volcano by pumping gas into the sky that >> turns into aerosols, which reflect part of the sun’s heat. >> Although the authors do not include such strategies in their pathways to >> 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures, they raise the possibility that it >> could be used as a supplementary measure if this target is missed. >> “If mitigation efforts do not keep global mean temperature below 1.5C, >> solar radiation modification can potentially reduce the climate impacts of >> a temporary temperature overshoot, in particular extreme temperatures, rate >> of sea level rise and intensity of tropical cyclones, alongside intense >> mitigation and adaptation efforts,” the report observes. >> A search for palliatives will be necessary as the world is almost certain >> to miss the 1.5C goal. Current national pledges are forecast to lead to at >> least 3C of warming by the end of the century – and that is if governments >> keep their commitments. >> The IPCC is clearly hesitant to endorse such emergency measures in part >> because this could allow government leaders to continue pushing problems >> into the future, but also because of the immense risks involved. >> The report notes that the injection of sulphur dioxide would change >> rainfall patterns and weather circulation as well as disrupting >> stratospheric chemistry and ice formation. It could also result in more >> ultraviolet light exposure, which would have a negative impact on human >> health. >> Ethical and institutional questions also arise over who would oversee >> such operations and which areas would be affected. The report suggests a >> number of UN organisations as possible supervisory bodies. But authors also >> observe that there are scarcely any laws or regulations to stop any country >> that wants to push ahead by itself. The only guideline cited was the >> Convention on Biodiversity which states “no climate-related geoengineering >> activity that affects biodiversity may take place.” >> There are doubts also over effectiveness. While the aerosols might >> constrain temperature rises, they would not stop the accumulation of carbon >> dioxide in the atmosphere and the acidification of the oceans. What happens >> when this “temporary measure” is halted is also an area of concern, as the >> planetary system might suddenly be hit by a surge in temperature. >> The IPCC says these uncertainties constrain the ability to implement >> solar radiation management in the near future. But with the 1.5C target >> current on course to be overshot at some point between 2030 and 2052, the >> urgency is likely to grow. >> Johan Rockström, coauthor of the recent Hothouse Earth study, said the >> IPCC report was likely to stimulate discussion of these extreme emergency >> measures. >> “I think this will raise solar radiation management to the highest >> political level. We currently have no framework for this,” he said. “I’m >> very scared of this technology but we need to turn every stone now.” >> James Hansen said the tipping point in public opinion was more likely to >> come at a slightly higher temperature, but by then it may already be too >> late. >> “2C would force geoengineering on today’s young people. Geoengineering, >> if global temperature passes 2C, would start, at the latest, once ice sheet >> collapse begins,” he told the Guardian. “Unfortunately, because of the >> inertia of the system, geoengineering then would probably be too late to >> prevent locking in the eventual loss of coastal cities.” >> >> Link to the article online >> >> -- >> 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 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.
