Actually, on population, back in 2000, the one billion or so in the
developed world had us (and still do have us) on a path that would cause
disastrous change, just a few decades later. To stop climate this
billion was going to have to change its ways.
At the time, the five billion or so in the developed world were a pretty
small share of the problem and if they had gone to zero emissions, as
noted, the billion would have to have changed--and be doing so now.
Of course, now the six billion in developing world are increasing their
emissions, still at a per capita level lower than in the developed
world, and even if developed world went to zero emissions, the path they
are on would take them to disastrous climate change.
Both developed and developing have to change their ways and choices--we
really can't have any emissions and need to get to negative emissions,
so it is the choices that all of us have and are making that is the
really key issue, and this is true no matter what the population is
assuming it stays above a billion or so.
So, not really appropriate to be thinking population is the key
issue--it is our choices that need to change, for all of us, no matter
the number. Yes, with fewer people it might be a bit easier for the
world to change and stretch out the time maybe a decade, but given we
are already a couple of decades too late, the focus has to be on the
choices and changing them--rapidly.
Mike MacCracken
On 8/11/21 5:09 PM, SALTER Stephen wrote:
Hi All
Behind every root cause is another root cause. The root cause of
greenhouse gases is excessive human population. An effective solution
to that is uncomfortably topical but would not be well received.
Stephen
*From:* [email protected]
<[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Cush Ngonzo Luwesi
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2021 8:30 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>;
geoengineering <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
*This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.*
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that
the email is genuine and the content is safe.
Dear Robert
I enjoyed pretty much reading your critique on the IPCC AR6 report and
the AMOC report. I notices that thèse reports put an emphasis on
mitigation and negative emissions as the way to slowing down ice
melting and Climate variability. Yet, these arguments seem to be
"unscientific" to you because of your take on Solar geoengineering.
Yet, many observées think that brightening the marine clouds and
spraying aérosols do not solve the very cause of Climate change, which
is GHGe. Yet, to D. Hume's point of view, a "scientific" control is
the one that Solves causality, meaning a solution that controls or
stabilises the causes. What is your take on this? To what science do
you refer to in your commenté? Who is fooling who?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Regards
Cush
Le mer. 11 août 2021 à 12:16, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC report
<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf>
states
as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C
will be exceeded during the 21st century *unless* deep reductions
in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming
decades."
It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be
exceeded during the 21st century *even if* deep reductions in CO2
and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."
(my bold)
As the NOAA AGGI report <https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/> states, CO2
equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically
defined, only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system,
and does nothing to remove the committed warming from past
emissions. Leading scientists (eg Eelco Rohling) think past
emissions already commit the planet to 2°C.
Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into
useful commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to
stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal
is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater
potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy.
My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet.
Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the
Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt
using wind energy (diagram attached). Marine cloud brightening is
the next best option, followed by areas that need considerably
more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and
iron salt aerosol.
It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off
this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.
I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary
restoration a rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were
not needed. The problem is that extreme weather is steadily
getting worse, and cutting emissions through the energy transition
can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define a
scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on
evidence to define the most safe and effective methods to support
ongoing climate stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge.
Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as
science. Notably this is about public perceptions rather than
empirical assessment. But that means the climate activist
community will no longer be able to use the mantra "the science
says" to oppose geoengineering, as Michael Mann and Bill McKibben
and others now do.
I think the factors that could change public opinion quite quickly
include the idea that immediate action to refreeze the Arctic is
essential to maintain stability of main ocean currents. I was very
perturbed to see the report last week on the slowing down of the
AMOC Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse>
and
Gulf Stream collapse, with potential disasters for the world
economy and ecology.
The linked press report suggested that decarbonising the economy
is "the only thing to do" to prevent the AMOC from stopping. That
is an absurdly unscientific opinion. It just fails to see that
such natural processes require action at orders of magnitude
bigger scale than the marginal effect of slowing down how much
carbon we add to the air.
If steps were taken to fully refreeze the Arctic Ocean, perhaps
with the quid pro quo of including transpolar shipping canals
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpolar_Sea_Route>through the
ice, the scale would be big enough to stop the dangerous looming
tipping points of accelerating feedback warming. Alongside AMOC,
big problems such as polar methane release, wandering of the jet
stream and melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet are also well beyond
what decarbonisation can prevent.
I really don't see any downside to such a freezing proposal, which
should be an Apollo-type world peace project led by the G20. The
climate activist community sees it as enabling a slower transition
to renewables, but surely buying time in this way is entirely a
good thing if it means we actually stabilise the climate?
Robert Tulip
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf Of
*Robert Cormia
*Sent:* Tuesday, 10 August 2021 4:32 AM
*To:* chris.vivian2 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [CDR] IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers
It took decades to get the public's attention about the clear and
present danger of climate change, through extreme weather events,
historic fires, and sea level rise. CDR is entering the dialog,
slowly, it needs to accelerate. Newscasters could add a simple
soundbite "net zero emissions and CO2 removal" as strategies, not
just "clean energy and electric cars" How do we gain the public's
awareness, much less attention, that putting a speed brake on
emissions requires CDR, and restoring energy balance (addressing
energy imbalance) is our best potential/feasible solution?
-rdc
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 2:48 AM 'chris.vivian2' via Carbon Dioxide
Removal <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
In the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers published today, see
sections D.1.4 to D.1.6 on page 40 where it mentions CDR -
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf>.
Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7aqgYHE8Jo3yYZ74XE-_%3DnZMbdBotfnTwr2hWSep97kJQg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7aqgYHE8Jo3yYZ74XE-_%3DnZMbdBotfnTwr2hWSep97kJQg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann
carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba,
àireamh clàraidh SC005336. --
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AS8PR05MB79607CFA286D6C9A5196E2C2A7F89%40AS8PR05MB7960.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/AS8PR05MB79607CFA286D6C9A5196E2C2A7F89%40AS8PR05MB7960.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8dbdce9e-1331-f428-d088-65f3d87b9ded%40comcast.net.
