Also, of course, the long-term response is only realized if nobody
ever develops and deploys any CDR over that long-term timeframe.
If you believe that we will eventually get to net-zero and that some
level of CDR will get deployed to go below net-zero, then it’s the
century-scale warming that matters, not the millennial-scale.
There are of course millennial-scale processes that are not included
in climate models, so there’s neither any reason to expect them to
match on that time-scale, nor any reason to criticize them on that
particular basis, or to use that particular argument to suggest that
the models aren’t policy-relevant. That isn’t what the models are
intended to do.
*From:* [email protected]
<[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Michael MacCracken
*Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2023 1:54 PM
*To:* Tom Goreau <[email protected]>; Robert Chris
<[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]; Planetary
Restoration <[email protected]>; 'Eelco Rohling'
via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Well, in that the climate depends on the radiative forcing and the
radiative forcing is logarithmic with the CO2 concentration, doing a
linear regression of CO2 and temperature would give an estimate of the
rise in temperature that is far from linear, so the 16 C would be way
too high.
There is then the issue that the change in temperature in high
latitudes is well above the global average change in temperature, and
so that would be another contribution to giving a rate too high for
the change in global average temperature. So, if regression were to
get temperature change in high latitudes ad not the global average,
one would have a value more than the change in the global average
temperature.
Mike
On 4/10/23 1:29 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:
It’s just the regression of Antarctic Ice temperature versus CO2
data. The sea level regression implies +23 meters.
When I did it in 1990 there was only one glacial cycle of data,
but Eelco Rohling independently did the same analysis when there
was 800,000 years of data, and got essentially identical values.
The models must be serious underestimates to fall so far off the
actual long term climate data.
*Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance*
*Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.*
*Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK*
*37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139*
*[email protected]
www.globalcoral.org <http://www.globalcoral.org>
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)*
*Books:*
*Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration,
Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>
*Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>
*No one can change the past, everybody can change the future*
**
*It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think*
**
*Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global
warming and sea level rise wash the beach away*
**
*Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate
change*
*From: *Michael MacCracken <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:23 PM
*To: *Tom Goreau <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, Robert Chris
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>,
Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling'
via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, geoengineering
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Hi Tom--I'd be interested in seeing your 1990 paper because 16 C
would take temperatures to much higher than they have ever been,
and yet there have been periods when the CO2 concentration has
apparently been well above 1000 ppm, so the 16 C value seems
seriously inconsistent with what we know of Earth history.
Best, Mike
On 4/10/23 5:02 AM, Tom Goreau wrote:
BEFORE UNFCCC was signed, it was clear from paleoclimate data
that +16 degrees C or so is the equilibrium temperature for
400ppm CO2 (Goreau 1990), but all governments ignored the real
data because they preferred the fictitious claim from models
that warming would “only” be around 1-4 degrees C, and occur
well after a new leader emerges from the next election,
selection, or coup.
I briefed the Association of Small Island States just before
they signed on to a treaty that was an effective death
sentence for low coasts and a suicide pact for low lying
island nations to that effect, but their heads of states were
told by the rich countries to sign or they would lose their
foreign aid, something none could afford. They were
effectively bought off to sacrifice their own people’s futures
for worthless promises of financial support for adaptation
that never came. No politician ever turns down money, no
matter how insufficient.
Instead what they got from the funding agencies was sea walls
made from concrete and rock imported half way across the
world, which have all fallen down due to erosion caused by
wave reflection scouring. Their consultants keep promising
that the next seawall, built to armor the ruins of previous
seawalls, will last forever, it’s another shell game with
peoples futures.
*Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance*
*Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.*
*Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK*
*37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139*
*[email protected]
www.globalcoral.org <http://www.globalcoral.org>
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)*
*Books:*
*Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration,
Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>
*Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>
*No one can change the past, everybody can change the future*
**
*It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think*
**
*Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when
global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away*
**
*Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse
climate change*
*From: *Michael MacCracken <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:37 PM
*To: *Tom Goreau <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, Robert Chris
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>,
Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, 'Eelco
Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, geoengineering
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Hi Tom--Indeed, which is why I don't understand why the mainly
island nation accepted, even insisted upon 1.5 C, as an
aspirational goal. From paleoclimatic analysis, the
equilibrium sensitivity for sea level rise is of order 15-20
METERS per degree C increase in the global average
temperature. And how it is somehow justified that the curve
shape for the sensitivity is a cubic and we are presently in
the low sensitivity part of the curve does not at all seem
justified to me (though perhaps the type of major ice sheet
matters).
I once asked the chief US negotiator (Todd Stern) at the Paris
COP if they had viewed as a value that would be an upper limit
and the subsequent goal and actions would be aimed at forcing
the global average temperature back down, or if the vision was
that actions would be taken to keep the increase in global
average temperature to be 2 C and this would be an allowed
long term value for the Earth. He indicated, as I recall, that
what would happen after the value was reached was not
discussed, they were so happy to have a number to consider an
upper value they just never discussed the issue.
Best, Mike
On 4/9/23 7:40 AM, Tom Goreau wrote:
The 1.5 degree “goal” like the 2.0 goal, is beyond the
capacity of corals to adapt so it means the extinction of
coral reef ecosystems, which already reached their high
temperature tipping point in the mid 1980s.
Coral reefs, and the species and people who live from
them, have been consciously selected for sacrifice, rather
than interrupting profits from fossil fuels.
Coral reefs may be the first ecosystem to collapse, but
they certainly won’t be the last!
*Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance*
*Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.*
*Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK*
*37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139*
*[email protected]
www.globalcoral.org <http://www.globalcoral.org>
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)*
*Books:*
*Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility
Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>
*Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>
*No one can change the past, everybody can change the future*
**
*It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think*
**
*Those with their heads in the sand will see the light
when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away*
**
*Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse
climate change*
*From: *<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
on behalf of Robert Chris <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:35 AM
*To: *Michael MacCracken <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>,
Planetary Restoration
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, 'Eelco
Rohling' via NOAC Meetings
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, geoengineering
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: Fwd: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c
thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Mike, you point to a key distinction that I had perhaps
ignored. The dynamics of setting goals are not the same
as those of realising them.
Economics may have been a major factor in setting the
Paris targets but they are not an enabler of their
realisation. If the political will was there among a
sufficient number of leading economies to deliver on the
Paris targets, they would find a way of doing that that
would overcome any economic constraints that might
otherwise have been thought to be impediments.
Regards
Robert
As I loosely recall, when the 2 C goal was approved in
Paris, the value
was chosen because it was thought that it would be
realistically/economically achievable. The goal could
not be higher due
to thoughts about tipping points or lower due to economic
realities--though they did set 1.5 C as an
aspirational goal as the
developing nations felt the impacts of 2 C on them
would be unbearable.
So, I'd say economics played a goal there--indeed,
even the primary
rationale for the choice.
Mike
On 4/8/23 9:54 AM, Robert Chris wrote:
> David, you've put your finger right on it. Being
economically
> realistic is not a sufficient condition to enable
the realisation of
> any goal. For some goals, it isn't even a
constraint because for
> them, what is economically realistic is made to fit
the goal, rather
> than the goal being tailored to fit what's
economically realistic.
> Money is not the only store of value.
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 08/04/2023 18:26, David desJardins wrote:
>> If the goal is always economically realistic, then
it follows that
>> looking at the goal through an economic lens will
always enable it,
>> not prevent it.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)"
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/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c1cc3b97-4f27-0715-7bc2-9e09145d5129%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c1cc3b97-4f27-0715-7bc2-9e09145d5129%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/393de190-888b-c427-bccb-9588e8514a55%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/393de190-888b-c427-bccb-9588e8514a55%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
