Thanks for the depressing news, Kevin. But buck up, DOE is placing a $3.5B bet (with public money) that DAC is going to save the day: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b9362d89d5abb8c51d474f8/t/6261d1890b76863f1047a2dd/1650577901659/Carbon180-SettingDAConTrack.pdf So SRM isn’t going to get all the glory. Anyway, Civilization ho? Greg
Sent from my iPhone > On May 12, 2022, at 12:11 AM, Kevin Lister <[email protected]> wrote: > > When thinking about fantasies, it's important to think about probabilities. > > About 10 years ago I calculated the probability of making the necessary cuts > in CO2 emissions using game theory and the concept of interconnected games. > This works out at 6E-63 for any given year. > > To persist, for n years, then it is (6E-63)^n. Thus for an agreement to hold > for any reasonable time, then the probability of success is less than > finding a single atom from all the atoms that make the universe. > > I am obviously delighted that the "Majority of Americans continue to favor > reducing greenhouse gas emissions, " but while the world has one hot war and > multiple Cold Wars ongoing there will be no cuts in emissions, only > increases. The remaining question is how much. > > The Guardian has a disturbing article today that validates this prognosis > and my 10 year old calculations, see > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2022/may/11/fossil-fuel-carbon-bombs-climate-breakdown-oil-gas?CMP=twt_gu&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium. > > The brutal reality is that it is SRM or nothing. We urgently need to > understand if an SRM solution can be deployed quicker than the planet will be > destroyed. > > Regards, > Kevin > > On Thu, 12 May 2022, 00:54 'Jessica Gurevitch' via geoengineering, > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would be surprised if anyone on this list wouldn’t prefer emission >> reductions. While we’re fantasizing, why not prefer that we got emissions >> to zero 50 years ago? I prefer that! But whether or not there would be an >> overshoot (I call it a lag effect) if we immediately stopped putting GHGs >> into the atmosphere….we are clearly not doing that. So it’s sort of like >> saying, how many people would prefer having a high income without working? >> Most people probably would prefer it. I’m not sure it’s the right question. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On May 11, 2022, at 1:17 PM, Phil M <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Apparently they haven't been told that this will not save them... >>> >>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 3:39:16 PM UTC+2 Alan Robock wrote: >>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/05/10/emission-reduction-remains-publics-preferred-approach-to-climate-change/ >>>> >>>> Emission reduction remains public’s preferred approach to climate change >>>> by Barry G. Rabe and Christopher Borick >>>> >>>> "Americans continue to favor reducing greenhouse gas emissions as their >>>> preferred approach for staving off the worst impacts of climate change, >>>> according to new public opinion findings. The public remains considerably >>>> more skeptical of any pivot from mitigation toward climate policy that >>>> prioritizes adaptation, use of geoengineering that releases particles into >>>> the atmosphere in attempting to deter warming, or subterranean carbon >>>> storage. These findings emerge from the Winter 2022 National Surveys on >>>> Energy and Environment (NSEE). ..." >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Alan Robock >>>> >>>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor >>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 >>>> Rutgers University E-mail: >>>> [email protected] >>>> 14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock >>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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/d5ea9102-9a10-4ba1-a62a-f84588fc9107n%40googlegroups.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/B37FA2E0-CFF1-48E9-8595-10B316DC892F%40stonybrook.edu. > > -- > 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/CAE%3DUiezVDnTtCQyo2Ckmom-WnOdrxRsY7q4LVPtrAxgtrNEWfQ%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/27CA9E34-775E-4046-BCAD-253DB72E6231%40sbcglobal.net.
