I have commented on this report previously. In the summary Q&A for
which the link is given below, the following extract is key:
*Does UNEP think we have lost the battle to reduce the greenhouse
gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis?*
*AH:* Not at all. First, the scientific assessment of potential
hazards that can stem from new technologies is critical to avoid
potentially catastrophic consequences. Second, it is important
people understand that SRM technologies, should they be considered
at some point in the future, do not solve the climate crisis
<https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action> because they do
not reduce greenhouse gas emissions
<https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022> nor
reverse the impacts of climate change. The world must be crystal
clear on this point.
Issues such as ocean acidification, sea level rise
<https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas>, the increasing
intensity and frequency of weather events, changes in species
distribution and pollution
<https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste> will continue
unless they are tackled directly. The evidence is irrefutable: the
world can and must act swiftly, decisively, and immediately to
reduce emissions to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
UNEP will therefore continue to strengthen its efforts to address
the triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and
biodiversity loss
<https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/ecosystems-and-biodiversity>,
and pollution and waste.
This extract illustrates that the premise on which this UNEP report is
based is at best questionable, and at worst, simply incorrect. Until
this error is more widely appreciated, it is doubtful that much progress
will e made on AE research. We have a classic Catch 22. We'll only
support AE research if we can be satisfied that it can be done safely,
but we can't know that it can be done safely without first doing the
research. Moreover, as I have stressed elsewhere, how do we get
sufficient agreement about what is meant by 'safe'.
Regards
Robert
On 17/03/2023 18:25, Ron Baiman wrote:
Thank you Rebecca et al. I agree. Not surprisingly, the UNEP is not
going to break ranks with conventional wisdom on this issue. From a
quick skim, a couple of "glimmers of progress" might be their support
for a "risk risk" evaluation, and for small scale research.
Interestingly the Montreal Protocol report is cited as a supportive
backup source in the interview but that report focused on a spring
injection of SAI in Antarctica (where the Ozone hole is largest) and
found mixed results. After 20 years of SAI loss of ozone in Antarctica
in October close to 1990's loss, but less loss if SAI is started
later, and for larger applications enhancement of Ozone in NH
midlatitudes:
*
* *Additional ozone depletion due to SAI is simulated in
* *spring over Antarctica, with magnitudes dependent on
the injection rate and timing. Simulations of strong SAI
show an increase in total column ozone (TCO) in mid-lat-
itudes (40–60°N) in the winter Northern Hemisphere.
ºFor October over Antarctica, SAI simulations that achieve
a global mean surface cooling of 0.5 °C in the first 20
years, show a reduction of TCO of around 58 ± 20 DU,
assuming 2020–2040 halogen conditions. This reduc-
tion brings TCO values close to the observed minimum in
the 1990s. Less ozone loss would be expected for a later
SAI start date, when halogen concentrations are project-
ed to be lower.
ºBeyond the first 20 years, the continued application of
strong SAI, to offset almost 5 °C of warming by 2100, re-
duces Antarctic ozone in October * *by similar amounts (55
± 20 DU) throughout the 21stcentury despite declining
abundances of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). In
this case, ozone hole recovery from ODSs is delayed by
between 25 and 50 years. A peakshaving scenario po-
tentially leads to less ozone depletion.
ºUnder stronger SAI scenarios, ozone is significantly
enhanced in NH mid-latitudes in winter owing to strato-**
**spheric heating from injected sulfur, which leads to in**-
creased equator to poleward transport of ozone.
ºOzone loss within the Arctic polar vortex has not yet
been robustly quantified for SAI.*
*
*
Best,
Ron*
*
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Rebecca personal em
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon to you in Chicago Ron,
Thank you for sending, it’s hard to keep up with all the reports
and actions people are taking.
Herb did send a link for this report, but it’s worth drawing it to
everyone’s attention again.
Unfortunately, it buys right into the net zero story, at least
from the executive summary, excerpt below. Perhaps it is part of a
strategic picture/plan that we’re not seeing, and also any news is
good news?
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41903
Quote from Ms Inger Andersen, ED UNEP
image.png
Best regards to all ,
Rebecca
On 16 Mar 2023, at 7:25 am, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Apologies if this has already been posted:
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/new-report-explores-issues-around-solar-radiation-modification
I did a quick search and didn't find anything in my inbox. In
any case, it seems important enough to resend just in case!
Best,
Ron
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" 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/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9CVY7Y_%2BdYAbH5SEqSqoRWbJsTUvcJ3fTHivvkp6%2BZxkQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9CVY7Y_%2BdYAbH5SEqSqoRWbJsTUvcJ3fTHivvkp6%2BZxkQ%40mail.gmail.com?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/CAPhUB9DbvoMUpq4vXXYawayVO7VPN441MbwMZ02813Ja5stmqw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAPhUB9DbvoMUpq4vXXYawayVO7VPN441MbwMZ02813Ja5stmqw%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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/ea76ff93-2ca5-8e23-00fb-7d3b01b1a2cb%40gmail.com.
