Hello Cush
As I mentioned, the issue is timeframes. You are correct that GHGs are the cause of climate change. That does not mean removing GHGs, let alone just slowing the rate of increase as the AR6 summary implies, is the only possible response. Reducing GHG levels and emissions will take a long time. Meanwhile we face extreme weather, biodiversity collapse and the risk of various dangerous tipping points. We have a planetary duty to address these crises. Increasing albedo could prevent many effects of warming. Brightening the pole would do far more to protect the AMOC than GHG removal would. Higher albedo would bring numerous beneficial flow on effects for planetary stability and security. It is absurdly stupid that these benefits of a brighter planet are not factored into IPCC calculations on risk, illustrating the dominance of politics over science. Cutting emissions will not protect AMOC on a timescale shorter than a century. That is far too slow to be relevant to the looming security emergency of a great oceanic disruption. The same issue applies for ice melt, methane release and other phase shifts now occurring. We need to buy time to ramp up GHG removal by brightening the planet. Regards, Robert From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Cush Ngonzo Luwesi Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:30 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers 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 <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf> IPCC report 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 <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse> report last week on the slowing down of the AMOC Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpolar_Sea_Route> transpolar shipping canals 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. 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> . -- 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/015001d78f58%242661da00%2473258e00%24%40yahoo.com.au.
