Well the chapter 4 parts on SRM – although heavy on emphasising uncertainty – do clearly state that SRM would probably work to stem climate change. So I read this article to be fully consistent with that – although it could indeed have pointed out the difference in wording to the SPM and questioned why that did not reflect for the same clarity as the full report did.
> On 9. Oct 2018, at 03:06, lou del bello <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] > <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>. > > > -- > 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] > <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>. > > > -- > 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 a topic in the Google > Groups "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/prJT3189xps/unsubscribe > <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/prJT3189xps/unsubscribe>. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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>. -- 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.
