Hello Valerie
You may not have understood my comments. Sorry if I was not clear. You state “Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak to climate policy at all.” That is not true. Per my first comment, headline B.1 of the SPM implies that only emission reduction can prevent dangerous warming. That is a climate policy assertion, ruling out the alternative view that preventing dangerous warming requires increased albedo. The complete absence of discussion of albedo from the SPM gives rise to the concern that it will not be addressed in later IPCC reports unless there is significant policy change. Robert From: Nucleation Capital <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 5:38 AM To: Robert Tulip <[email protected]> Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [CDR] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers Robert, Just so you are aware, the report released by the IPCC this week is just the IPCC Working Group 1 <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FAQ> portion of a much larger three-part report, looking at the Physical bases. The official description is: "The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science, and combining multiple lines of evidence from paleoclimate, observations, process understanding, and global and regional climate simulations." Even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document does not speak to climate policy at all, just a summary of the physical findings. I believe the Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/> , due out in September 2022, will have the policy discussion that you are looking for. See here <https://www.ipcc.ch/> for the IPCC's full description of the sections and contents of the Sixth Assessment (i.e. the 6th full assessment in 30 years). Valerie Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner <http://angel.co/v/l/P2Yp1> Nucleation Capital Fund Portal <https://nucleationcapital.com/> NucleationCapital.com M: (650) 799-4494 On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:16 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: 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]> 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 "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/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/018f01d78f5e%24a40381b0%24ec0a8510%24%40yahoo.com.au.
