What are these likely "foul consequences"? We're either at or close to a no-losers model for SRM implementation (by region/country), by my reading of the science
Andrew On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 23:46 Jonathan Marshall, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Having just read Chapter 4 I'd have to agree, that the IPCC considers > Geoengineering likely to have foul consequences especially in its SRM form. > However it does say that if conditions are bad enough we may have to use it > and that there is high agreement that it could help lower temperature > rises. This is what the article says, and this seems to be the standard > response within the SRM 'community'. > > SRM is included in the IPCC pathways, but "the world would be far better > off if policymakers strengthened natural cooling systems such as forest > cover and accelerated efforts to reduce carbon emissions." as the author > states in the third sentence. This is not burying the fact halfway through > the article. > > I got there a few hours after the notification in this group and the > nitrous oxide bit had been removed, so at least the over error was > corrected quickly. > > jon > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > on behalf of Matthias Honegger <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Andrew Lockley; Zachary Perry; geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The guardian: Geoengineering may be used to combat > global warming, experts say > > 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]<mailto: > [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. > 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]<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. > > > -- > 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. > 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. > 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]<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. > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any > accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are > not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or > copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in > error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any > views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except > where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views > of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, > please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please > consider the environment before printing this email. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
