This short movie explains well the article https://player.vimeo.com/video/714634132
Le mer. 6 juil. 2022 à 20:59, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < geoengineering@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > I have read this article > <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2022.2091509?s=03> > and want to emphasise its welcome lead conclusion that “the value of > information that eliminates uncertainty about Solar Geoengineering efficacy > is up to roughly $10 trillion.” > > > > This is an immense benefit, 5000 times greater than the cost estimate of > $2 billion. Governments should stump up immediately to provide the budget > and political agreement to address this yawning information deficit. It > should also be noted that geoengineering has an existential either/or > dimension, as possibly the only way to prevent catastrophic planetary phase > shift that is beyond costing. > > > > I was also pleased to see the reference to An Assessment of Earth's > Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence > <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019RG000678> > which rebuts the IPCC claim that net zero emissions could stabilise the > climate in any meaningful way. > > > > Despite this, the article quite strangely emphasises spurious risks of > geoengineering deployment, while totally failing to mention its major > expected benefits. It should have noted that brightening the planet and > related methods is the only systemic way to mitigate immediate risks of > extreme weather, biodiversity loss, tipping points and sea level rise in > this decade. These risks are very costly, harmful and dangerous. I suppose > it is about bending over backwards to seem balanced and placate hostile > critics, but the actual result is that the scientific argument is not > balanced. > > > > A more balanced presentation would recognise that advantages of > brightening the planet are prima facie far greater than the imagined harms > conjured up by ignorant political opponents. > > > > Robert Tulip > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> *On > Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 July 2022 11:49 PM > *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* [geo] The value of information about solar geoengineering and > the two-sided cost of bias > > > > > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2022.2091509?s=03 > > > > The value of information about solar geoengineering and the two-sided cost > of bias > > Anthony R. Harding, Mariia Belaia & David W. Keith > > > > ABSTRACT > > > > Solar geoengineering (SG) might be able to reduce climate risks if used to > supplement emissions cuts and carbon removal. Yet, the wisdom of proceeding > with research to reduce its uncertainties is disputed. Here, we use an > integrated assessment model to estimate that the value of information that > reduces uncertainty about SG efficacy. We find the value of reducing > uncertainty by one-third by 2030 is around $4.5 trillion, most of which > comes from reduced climate damages rather than reduced mitigation costs. > Reducing uncertainty about SG efficacy is similar in value to reducing > uncertainty about climate sensitivity. We analyse the cost of > over-confidence about SG that causes too little emissions cuts and too much > SG. Consistent with concerns about SG’s moral hazard problem, we find an > over-confident bias is a serious and costly concern; but, we also find > under-confidence that prematurely rules out SG can be roughly as costly. > Biased judgments are costly in both directions. A coin has two sides. Our > analysis quantitatively demonstrates the risk-risk trade-off around SG and > reinforces the value of research that can reduce uncertainty. > > > > Key policy insights > > > > The value of reducing uncertainty about solar geoengineering is comparable > to the value of reducing uncertainty about other key climate factors, such > as equilibrium climate sensitivity. > > > > The benefits of research that reduces uncertainty about solar > geoengineering may be more than a thousand times larger than the cost of a > large-scale research programme. > > > > Under-confidence in solar geoengineering’s effectiveness can be as costly > as over-confidence. > > > > The majority of the benefits of reduced uncertainty come from reducing > climate damages rather than from slowing emissions reductions. > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07pxpp%3D-3E861_o6oJvmRGGOkg9baEH%3D%2BCkpecuwLQezw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07pxpp%3D-3E861_o6oJvmRGGOkg9baEH%3D%2BCkpecuwLQezw%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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/016d01d8916a%247bc41ac0%24734c5040%24%40yahoo.com.au > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/016d01d8916a%247bc41ac0%24734c5040%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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn9_TreELLwTNnW3MzSyx0ZzteicTkdmJ58ByR-gi%2BjK4LQ%40mail.gmail.com.
