There is no reason to believe that a disorderly implementation of SRM is likely. There are strong incentives for cooperation, and few incentives to provoke the wrath of either the powerful
If implemented sensibly, the most likely outcome by far is a climate far closer to the natural climate than the uncorrected climate. There is also no reason to believe that climate will be kept within safe limits using mitigation or CDR. The risk we currently face is that SRM will not be ready when it's needed. Andrew Lockley On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 00:45 Jonathan Marshall, <jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au> wrote: > > "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" > > Sorry Andrew this is not making sense to me. You are saying that the > article is a beat up because it suggests that there is a possibility we > might use SRM, and then you suggest we are close to using SRM? > > Anyway the report says: > > "Uncertainties surrounding Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) measures > constrain their potential deployment. These uncertainties include: > technological immaturity; limited physical understanding about their > effectiveness to limit global warming; and a weak capacity to govern, > legitimise, and scale such measures.... Even in the uncertain case that the > most adverse side-effects of SRM can be avoided, public resistance, ethical > concerns and potential impacts on sustainable development could render SRM > economically, socially and institutionally undesirable" > > page 4-52 it warns that SRM could change precipitation patterns and > circulation regimes, effect NOx and methane life times, tropospheric > drying; intensification of the hydrological cycle, stratospheric ozone loss > etc > > "potentially reductions in biodiversity" > > "There is robust evidence but medium agreement for unilateral action > potentially becoming a serious SRM governance issue" > > "Modelling of game-theoretic, strategic interactions of states under > heterogeneous climatic impacts shows low agreement on the outcome and > viability of a cost-benefit analysis for SRM" > > "Unequal representation and deliberate exclusion are plausible in > decision-making on SRM, given diverging regional interests and the > anticipated low resource requirements to deploy SRM (Ricke et al., 2013). > Whyte (2012) argues that the concerns, sovereignties, and experiences of > Indigenous peoples may particularly be at risk." > > "Another concern with SRM is the risk of a ‘termination shock’ or > ‘termination effect’ when suddenly stopping SRM, which might cause rapid > temperature rise and associated impacts" > > "there is uncertainty around quantitative determination of the effects > that SRM or its cessation has on the carbon budget due to a lack of > understanding of the radiative processes driving the global carbon cycle > response to SRM (Ramachandran et al., 2000; Mercado et al., 2009; Eliseev, > 2012; Xia et al., 2016), uncertainties about how the carbon cycle will > respond to termination effects of SRM, and uncertainties in climate-carbon > cycle feedbacks (Friedlingstein et al., 2014)." > > "Other studies suggest negative impacts from SRM implementation concerning > issues related to regional disparities (Heyen et al., 2015), equity (Buck, > 2012), fisheries, ecosystems, agriculture, and termination effects (Robock, > 2012; Morrow, 2014; Wong, 2014). If SRM is initiated by the richer nations, > there might be issues with local agency, and possibly worsening conditions > for those suffering most under climate change (Buck et al., 2014)." > > "Overall, the combined uncertainties surrounding the various SRM > approaches, including technological maturity, physical understanding, > potential impacts, and challenges of governance, constrain the ability to > implement SRM in the near future." > > When you consider the high levels of uncertainty, some of which may well > not be reducible, we do not know the ecological consequences of SRM with > any confidence. It could well result in horrendous consequences. These > might not be worse than runaway climate change, but we don't know and may > not ever know. > > Hence I would agree with the IPCC that it is better to try other methods > properly. > > jon > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 23:46 Jonathan Marshall, <jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au > <mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> 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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Matthias Honegger < > honegger.matth...@gmail.com<mailto:honegger.matth...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:54 PM > To: lou.delbe...@gmail.com<mailto:lou.delbe...@gmail.com> > 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 <lou.delbe...@gmail.com<mailto: > lou.delbe...@gmail.com><mailto:lou.delbe...@gmail.com<mailto: > lou.delbe...@gmail.com>>> 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 <andrew.lock...@gmail.com > <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com><mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto: > andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>> 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, <lou.delbe...@gmail.com<mailto: > lou.delbe...@gmail.com><mailto:lou.delbe...@gmail.com<mailto: > 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<mailto: > zmp8...@gmail.com><mailto:zmp8...@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 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 > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com><mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > 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 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.
