Thank you John. Good points! Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 10:08 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, and thanks, Ron. > > > > I suppose we should have expected the IPCC to denigrate SRM, because it is a > threat to their strategy: emissions reduction and adapting to inevitable > climate change. But we would have hoped for a balanced assessment of risks > and benefits, with and without SRM. Instead they totally ignore the main > purpose of SRM: emergency short-term cooling (i) to quickly reverse the trend > towards more extreme weather and climate; and (ii) to avoid tipping points, > especially in the Arctic, which could lead to abrupt and potentially > catastrophic climate change and/or sea level rise. We would have hoped for > more sympathy to SRM: given the rapidly deteriorating situation with > mega-droughts and mega-floods; given the dire warnings (e.g. by Hansen) that > 1.5C could be exceeded within a decade; given the existential risk to small > island states and low lying countries; and given the many declarations of > climate emergency across the world. > > > > Their general statement below overplays what can be done through the current > strategy of emissions reduction plus CDR and undermines the crucial role that > SRM has to play if climate change is to be reversed and tipping point > catastrophes averted: > > > > There is high agreement in the literature that, for addressing climate change > risks, SRM cannot be the main policy response to climate change and is, at > best, a supplement to achieving sustained net zero or net negative CO2 > emission levels globally [references include MacMartin et al, 2018]. SRM > contrasts with climate change mitigation activities, such as emissions > reductions and CDR, as it introduces a ‘mask’ to the climate change problem, > by altering the Earth’s radiation budget, rather than attempting to address > the root cause of the problem, which is the increase in GHGs in the > atmosphere. > > > > The table of impacts they present is confusing because they imply impacts are > negative whereas they may be positive, e.g. plants would generally benefit > from the (very slightly) more diffuse sunlight with SAI, and the changes (a > very small reduction) in surface ozone and UV radiation would be beneficial > to human health. The benefits of simple cooling are omitted from the table > altogether – yet they correspond precisely to the huge damage done by global > warming to date! > > > > At least we can understand more clearly the political barrier we are fighting > against in our bid for a better future for our children and grand-children. > > > > BTW, don't forget the PRAG meeting is in just under five hours' time [1]. > > > > Cheers, John > > > > P.S. Note that definitions have been changed from the normally accepted: > > SRM is Solar Radiation Modification instead of Management > SAI is Stratospheric Aerosol Interventions (note plural) instead of Injection > Surface albedo modification is split into Ground-Based Albedo Modification > (GBAM) and Ocean Albedo Change (OAC). And Cirrus Cloud Thinning is included > under SRM, noting that it is to do with outgoing thermal radiation rather > than insolation; some people are using the term Earth Radiation Management > (ERM) for this. > > > > [1] Zoom link for Planetary Restoration Action Group Meeting 8pm Monday 14th > March UK time. > > https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87270131801?pwd=OFZvMkRVVnRQUUhpUzJBM0kwZnFjUT09 > > > > The US is now switching to summer time so this is 1pm in California. 7am > Tuesday AEDT. > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 11:00 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Colleagues, >> >> This extract from Grant Gower may be of interest. >> >> Best, >> Ron >> >>> I extracted Chapter 16 from the 3676 pages of IPCC's Working Group II >>> report that was released on 28 February. >>> >>> Thanks go to Suzanne for alerting me to this document's existence through a >>> report from C2G, the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative, which is also >>> attached. >>> >>> C2G's preamble states: >>> >>> "The IPCC AR6 Working Group II (WG-II) report published on 28th February >>> 2022 assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to >>> climate change, the consequences of climate change and options for adapting >>> to it. This briefing summarizes how solar radiation modification (SRM) is >>> addressed in the report (Part I) and identifies some key policy >>> implications developed by C2G (Part II). SRM is expected to be further >>> addressed in the forthcoming WG-III (expected April 2022). The final AR6 >>> Synthesis Report, which will cover the findings of all three Working Group >>> reports, is expected in September 2022." >>> >>> Note that the data from which the Report's findings are based were >>> published in reviewed scientific literature as of 1 September 2021! >>> >>> These data will be one year old by the time the Synthesis Report will be >>> issued. >>> >>> Be well! >>> >>> Grant >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "NOAC Meetings" 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/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9AxXiqZKE-8JCcsH3GXfy-%3DkiSQ47sMCAmuSouJ7nCfkA%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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/C2BBD75C-A285-4123-A385-B9D89762AE55%40gmail.com.
