To be fair, journalists often don't write the headlines. But complaining to the journalist/paper can't hurt.
I personally don't bother, as it's rarely corrected in time to make any difference. If the article is deliberately misleading I sometimes complain to the regulator. Andrew Lockley On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 04:47 lou del bello, <lou.delbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I completely agree with Andrew, > Incredibly misleading piece - the IPCC authors say in the document AND > repeated in the press conference that geoengineering is not included in the > pathways because the uncertainty is too big and there aren't sufficient > studies. > The journalist literally buries this fact halfway through the article, > suggesting the opposite in the topline. > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 04:11, Zachary Perry <zmp8...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am quite curious where they got nitrous oxide from in the first place. >> It's generally seen as a potential pitfall of OIF I thought, at least how >> it relates to potential geoengineering schemes. >> >> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:57:29 PM UTC-4, Matthias Honegger 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > *Lou Del Bello* > > *Climate, science, diplomacy beat* > *Delhi, India* > > *Mobile India *+91 9319387512 > *Mobile UK (WhatsApp)* +44 7900632250 > *Twitter* @loudelbello > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
