Reviewer 2 also covered this book https://open.spotify.com/episode/1DUIhjmV0fNSouUhaGiHr8?si=XWi_9ZW7RPSjGyHOh1hD2g&utm_source=copy-link
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022, 01:19 Ronal Larson, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > 1. “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. > > 1. 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. > > 1. 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. > > 1. 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. > > 1. 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. > > 1. 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] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Stephen Salter > *Sent:* Friday, 2 September 2022 11:37 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; > [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 > = > 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]. > 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]. > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/FF80DD0E-4322-4FC7-AD82-0B8044E84496%40comcast.net?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/CAJ3C-077bVzWceVBmqnCO7RwFHR1tq_EA5iEzztOhU824RAF%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
