Robert and Stephen , with ccs
Because I saw the word “biochar” below, I read the full Wake Smith book
review by the Physics World editor Hamish Johnston. Sounding worthwhile at
more than 400 pages, I purchased the Kindle E-book version at under $17.
I was disappointed at biochar being covered through quotes from 3
cites in one short paragraph. One 2015 cite was new to me, and relatively OK,
but nothing special. The other two were reasonable choices, but from 2010 and
2018 (which covered much more than biochar). I would rate Smith’s coverage of
biochar as at best a “D”. Smith is not a promoter of biochar; Johnston may
be, having (see quote below) chosen biochar for covering that small CDR part
of what is clearly a text for an introductory class on climate.
I skimmed the rest and didn’t find anything special - in more than 400
pages. But I’d be interested in hearing of any part of the book that anyone
recommends. It does cover a lot of topics - but I had hoped for more.
Thanks to Robert and Stephen for the alerts.
Ron
> On Sep 11, 2022, at 9:34 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> This review
> <https://physicsworld.com/a/climate-intervention-a-possible-hope-in-the-face-of-humanitys-biggest-problem/>
> makes several comments that are ignorant and unscientific. It is amazing at
> one level that Physics World can publish such mythological claims, but
> unsurprising at another level, in view of the popular hold of the myths the
> review promotes and the emotional comfort they provide to the mass climate
> movement.
>
> Lets go through them.
>
> “The rapid reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero is the only
> practical way to halt climate change.”
> No. This is wrong in several points. Rapid reduction of emissions is not
> practical in view of the intense and powerful political and economic
> opposition to it, and the immense technical challenges in stopping emissions
> of both carbon dioxide and methane. All the talk of cutting emissions in
> recent decades has only seen a remorseless rise. Next, even “net zero” would
> be far from a “way to halt climate change”. Reaching net zero by 2050 would
> see a CO2 equivalent level well above 600 parts per million. Numerous
> irreversible tipping points would be crossed before then, unless we move
> immediately to brighten the planet. Relying on carbon methods alone is like
> claiming you can stop a thirty foot flood with a ten foot levee. That is not
> practical. And even if tipping points do not somehow push us into a
> hothouse, the idea that 600 ppm would not involve further climate change is
> absurd. It would commit the planet to ongoing change until we reach earth
> system equilibrium with much higher sea level etc.
>
> One obvious reason for caution is that altering the chemical makeup of the
> atmosphere is what got us into this climate mess, and some worry that further
> tinkering could make things worse.
> This may seem “obvious” but it is not. It is obvious politically that many
> (not just some) people do have this worry, which has been aggressively
> promoted by political opponents using flawed and deceptive moral hazard
> logic. It is not at all obvious scientifically, which is what should matter
> to Physics World. There are no good scientific grounds for the ideological
> worries that have prevented investment in cooling technology.
> Scientifically, applying known cooling chemistry would cause cooling, if
> managed under strong technical protocols. This would pull us back from the
> dangerous precipice of numerous looming unsafe tipping points, with benefits
> far exceeding risks. Use of charged political rhetoric like “obvious” is
> unscientific. Cooling chemistry is completely different from the chemistry
> of emissions.
>
> Even if we do manage to meet the Paris Agreement
> <https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement>
> and get to net-zero emissions shortly after 2050, Smith warns, the excess
> carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere will endure for centuries or
> even millennia. This means that temperatures will not quickly return to
> pre-industrial levels.
> This claim accepts the howling popular error in the meaning of net zero,
> which actually just means emissions equal removals. It is probable that when
> net zero is achieved, it will mainly be through removals, not through cutting
> emissions. That will mean we will have a trajectory of expanding removals.
> The removal technology will enable the excess CO2 to be removed over the next
> decades through ongoing removals, and will not at all imply past emissions
> will endure for centuries. The problem is that this review accepts the
> popular mythological assumption that net zero mainly requires decarbonisation
> of the economy when that is not the case at all.
>
> Smith looks at other removal strategies such as making biochar, which
> involves the partial recovery of elemental carbon from biomass and then using
> that carbon to enrich soils… we will need to organize the world to pay the
> trillions of dollars required to deploy them year in and year out for decades
> to come.”
> Claiming biochar would cost trillions seems dubious. Its improvements to
> soil structure would increase agricultural yields. I suspect greenhouse gas
> conversion technology will develop other materials-based approaches using
> photosynthesis that will become profitable, creating large new carbon mining
> industries to rival the 20th century emergence of aviation, pharmaceutical
> and chemicals.
>
> Unlike cutting emissions or capturing carbon, SAI will not stop or reverse
> climate change
> If this statement were reversed it would be true in the short term.
> Brightening the planet is the only way to “stop or reverse climate change” in
> this decade, addressing extreme weather, tipping points, biodiversity loss,
> sea level rise and higher temperatures. Carbon based methods will take
> decades to have any effect on temperature (ie climate) and might even then be
> totally swamped by tipping points, absent a main focus on albedo. Stopping
> climate change requires stopping tipping points, which requires higher
> albedo. While it is true in the long term that we should bring the GHG level
> back to the Holocene norm, that is a slow task.
>
> governance of an SAI programme… ideally would have the consent of all the
> people on the planet.
> This is from the author not the reviewer. Green movements have a
> quasi-religious opposition to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, based on their
> historic origins in thinking that is closely related to the communist
> movements which saw class struggle as a fight between good and evil. Their
> political war against fossil fuels is a form of class struggle that has
> morphed in green ideology from a means to stabilise the climate into an end
> in itself. Converting greens to understand the climate science of direct
> cooling may well be more difficult than converting denialists. Decisions to
> cool the planet will likely require implementation without the consent of
> ideological opponents. Smith is correct this will be a massive challenge,
> but it is a profound and tragic irony that the people who profess to care the
> most about climate change are now doing the most to prevent effective
> investment to reverse it. This is a moral problem that requires much more
> public conversation to expose the hypocrisy and inconsistency of opponents of
> geoengineering.
>
>
>
> Robert Tulip
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
> Sent: Friday, 2 September 2022 11:37 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [geo] Climate Book review
>
> Hi All
> Physics World has a review of a book on climate change by Wake Smith and one
> possible solution.
> https://physicsworld.com/a/climate-intervention-a-possible-hope-in-the-face-of-humanitys-biggest-problem/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=iop&utm_term=&utm_campaign=14290-53634&utm_content=Title%3A%20Climate%20intervention%3A%20a%20possible%20hope%20in%20the%20face%20of%20humanity%E2%80%99s%20biggest%20problem%20-%20explore%20more&Campaign+Owner
>
> <https://physicsworld.com/a/climate-intervention-a-possible-hope-in-the-face-of-humanitys-biggest-problem/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=iop&utm_term=&utm_campaign=14290-53634&utm_content=Title%3A%20Climate%20intervention%3A%20a%20possible%20hope%20in%20the%20face%20of%20humanity%E2%80%99s%20biggest%20problem%20-%20explore%20more&Campaign+Owner>=
> Stephen
>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
> with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an
> Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.
> --
> 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/DB7PR05MB5692BD1D3E46441C949DE266A77A9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB5692BD1D3E46441C949DE266A77A9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.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/06ad01d8c5f4%2405db9b80%241192d280%24%40yahoo.com.au
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/06ad01d8c5f4%2405db9b80%241192d280%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/FF80DD0E-4322-4FC7-AD82-0B8044E84496%40comcast.net.
