I do not know where you find this "current IPCC consensus that sees no
role for albedo enhancement in climate policy."
There is discussion about the state of knowledge re albedo questions
in the 6th Assessment Report,
including with respect to SRM so that, for instance, in the AR6 WGIII
report, at p. 340:
"In the context of mitigation pathways, only a few studies have
examined solar radiation modification (SRM), typically focusing on
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (Arinoa et al. 2016; Emmerling and
Tavoni 2018a,b; Heutel et al. 2018; Helwegen et al. 2019; Rickels
et al. 2020; Belaia et al. 2021). These studies find that substantial
mitigation is required to limit warming to a given level, even if SRM
is available (Moreno-Cruz and Smulders 2017; Emmerling and Tavoni
2018b; Belaia et al. 2021). SRM may reduce some climate impacts,
reduce peak temperatures, lower mitigation costs, and extend the
time available to achieve mitigation; however, SRM does not address
ocean acidification and may involve risks to crop yields, economies,
human health, or ecosystems (AR6 WGII Chapter 16; AR6 WGI TS and
Chapter 5; SR1.5 SPM; and Cross-Working Group Box 4 in Chapter 14
of this report). There are also significant uncertainties surrounding
SRM, including uncertainties on the costs and risks, which can
substantially alter the amount of SRM used in modelled pathways
(Tavoni et al. 2017; Heutel et al. 2018; IPCC 2018; Helwegen
et al. 2019; NASEM 2021). Furthermore, the degree of international
cooperation can influence the amount of SRM deployed in scenarios,
with uncoordinated action resulting in larger SRM deployment and
consequently larger risks/impacts from SRM (Emmerling and Tavoni
2018a). Bridging research and governance involves consideration
of the full range of societal choices and ramifications (Sugiyama
et al. 2018). More information on SRM, including the caveats, risks,
uncertainties, and governance issues is found in AR6 WGI Chapter 4;
AR6 WGIII Chapter 14; and Cross-Working Group Box 4 in Chapter 14
of this report."
And that Cross-Working Group Box 4 in Chapter 14 of the WGIII report
goes on for 5 pages discussing
SRM schemes, use in mitigation scenarios, risks and risk reduction,
ethics, and governance.
[Box contained with/in SRM discussion at 1488-1494.]
The IPCC's treatment of SRM methods and governance issues seems to me
to be steady and cautious,
but no more so than its treatment of CDR methods and governance.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 5:07 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Greg.
The relevance of the net zero heating model to CDR is about
policy. IPCC wrongly assumes that action to remove carbon warming
forcing could be enough to stabilise the climate. The exclusion
of albedo measures from serious COP discussion has created a false
over-estimation of the potential contribution of CDR and emission
reduction to the overall climate priority agenda. Efforts into CDR
are misplaced where they support the current IPCC consensus that
sees no role for albedo enhancement in climate policy. The fact
that even massive CDR cannot be enough to prevent dangerous
tipping points ought to be a primary concern for CDR advocates.
The current policy goal of net zero emissions lacks a critical
engineering path in view of the swamping problem of accelerating
feedbacks. So my call to the CDR community is to join in
challenging the IPCC consensus that action on carbon is the only
climate priority, and instead help to develop an integrated policy
that recognises the immediate need for direct climate cooling.
Reversing acidification is essential, but it can’t be used as an
excuse to avoid the need for a policy that integrates action on
carbon with action to brighten the planet.
Regards
Robert Tulip
*From:*Greg Rau <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, 17 March 2023 8:21 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* Planetary Restoration
<[email protected]>; NOAC
<[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]>; Carbon Dioxide Removal
<[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [CDR] RE: A Climate Model: Net Zero Heating
Robert,
Are you then suggesting that efforts into CDR are misplaced? True,
CDR isn't going to singlehandedly solve the climate problem, but
it and emissions reduction are the only things we've got to hasten
the solution to excess CO2. This includes ending ocean
acidification that SRM presumably can't touch. I can't speak for
the entire CDR list, but many of us do support SRM research, a
theme ably covered by the other lists you posted to but not the
CDR list.
Regards,
Greg
Moderator
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:01 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
The policy context for carbon dioxide removal includes its
effect on radiative forcing. RF management is critical to the
goal of a stable and liveable climate. CDR can only have
climate effect when integrated into a program of albedo
enhancement to cut radiative forcing.
The need to focus on RF is unpalatable for CDR advocates who
prefer to ignore the problems of global warming. And yet it
seems inescapable that failure to enhance albedo will trigger
tipping points that will swamp potential climate benefits of CDR.
A ten foot levee is no good against a twenty foot flood. But
that is the result of a climate policy fixated on carbon
rather than albedo.
RT
*From:*Michael Hayes <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, 15 March 2023 12:03 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* Planetary Restoration
<[email protected]>; NOAC
<[email protected]>;
healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>;
geoengineering <[email protected]>; Carbon
Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>;
Healthy Climate Alliance
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [prag] Re: [CDR] A Climate Model: Net Zero Heating
Suggest whatever you wish, I'll object to any non CDR post
being posted in the CDR list.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 2:56 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
With all due respect Michael Hayes, your failure to see
the relevance to CDR ignores the global warming context of
CDR.
The thread quantifies the planetary heating and cooling
balance based on published research documenting factors to
date. It shows the total contribution needed from carbon
dioxide removal and other greenhouse gas removal as well
as cooling factors to achieve net zero heating. It also
explains prioritisation, showing that CDR has to operate
over a slower time frame than albedo enhancement. I expect
that is what you object to, but it is a simple scientific
observation.
To quantify Net Zero Heating is directly relevant to CDR
by placing CDR within the context of total radiative
forcing. That is why I posted it to the CDR Group.
Are you a moderator at the CDR Group? If not, can I
suggest you leave list moderation to the moderators?
Robert Tulip
*From:*[email protected]
<[email protected]> *On Behalf Of
*Michael Hayes
*Sent:* Wednesday, 15 March 2023 7:46 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* Planetary Restoration
<[email protected]>; NOAC
<[email protected]>;
healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>;
geoengineering <[email protected]>; Carbon
Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>;
Healthy Climate Alliance
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* [prag] Re: [CDR] A Climate Model: Net Zero Heating
There is nothing within this thread that is addressed
directly to any aspect of the extensive list of STEM,
policy, and/or socioeconomics level issues within the
recognized CDR space.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 8:37 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Stabilising the climate requires equality of positive
and negative radiative forcing to achieve net zero
heating.
Here is a simple model of how climate stability could
be achieved over coming decades and centuries using
albedo enhancement and greenhouse gas removal.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Marine Cloud
Brightening and other cooling methods can balance CO2
and CH4 and other warming factors.
The left half of the diagram is from /An Imperative To
Monitor Earth’s Energy Imbalance/, published in 2016
in Nature Climate Change.
The right half extrapolates radiative forcing to
achieve and sustain net zero heating from 2060. The
bands are roughly drawn.
It is possible that the main cooling work shown as SAI
could be partly replaced by other methods.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/09aa01d95626%243c8cb2a0%24b5a617e0%24%40rtulip.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/09aa01d95626%243c8cb2a0%24b5a617e0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/CABjtO1dvPpMFJDx_jcY6kX2F7KvEqDa%2BiojL9dokLYVDAx441A%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CABjtO1dvPpMFJDx_jcY6kX2F7KvEqDa%2BiojL9dokLYVDAx441A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/020201d95768%241e855490%245b8ffdb0%24%40rtulip.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/020201d95768%241e855490%245b8ffdb0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Greg H. Rau, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Institute of Marine Sciences
Univer. California, Santa Cruz
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau
Co-founder and manager, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Google group
<https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/CarbonDioxideRemoval>
Co-founder and CTO, Planetary Technologies, Inc.
<https://www.planetarytech.com>
510 582 5578
510 363 1519 c
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/03a301d95864%24751dc740%245f5955c0%24%40rtulip.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/03a301d95864%24751dc740%245f5955c0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANNDMDojvU4C2tqcesK8H%3D16i_bFJKjjjP5C0nLNZ%2B2pHseV_g%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANNDMDojvU4C2tqcesK8H%3D16i_bFJKjjjP5C0nLNZ%2B2pHseV_g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
