The author is also the environment editor so he probably does. But yeah calling them out doesn't make any difference...
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 12:15, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [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. >>> >> >> >> -- >> *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 [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. >> > -- *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 [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.
