Apologies for being offline for a bit--trying to catch up.
To be terminologically correct, albedo feedback was what made the
climate sensitivity so high; such changes, being integral to the climate
system, are not considered an external driver such as the changes in the
orbital parameters that redistributed incoming solar radiation by season
and latitude.
Mike MacCracken
On 4/10/23 9:02 PM, Gene Fry wrote:
Albedo changes were the primary drivers of past temperature changes,
most notably during the ice ages.
When there is a lot of ice to melt, the Earth’s temperature is more
sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Lots of albedo change
to be had - like uncovering 60% of North America.
When there is not so much ice left to melt (now), Earth’s temperature
is much less sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Because
albedo changes are smaller.
Sensitivity was greater during the recent ice ages than it is now. No
longer 16° for doubled CO2.
More like 6° now, with only about 1/3 as much ice (deduced from sea
level changes) left as at the Last Glacial Maximum.
When all the ice is gone, Earth’s climate is not very sensitive to
changes in greenhouse gas levels. Maybe 2°C.
Still, sometimes there are huge changes in GHG levels (e.g. 55 Mya),
so temperatures can still change quite a bit.
Gene Fry
On Apr 10, 2023, at 4:29 PM, Tom Goreau <[email protected]> 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
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]>
*Date: *Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:23 PM
*To: *Tom Goreau <[email protected]>, Robert Chris
<[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]"
<[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?
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 "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/EB42CBFB-16D9-4188-A469-4C6668168C9B%40globalcoral.org
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EB42CBFB-16D9-4188-A469-4C6668168C9B%40globalcoral.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<Balancing Atmospheric CO2.pdf>
--
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/72564b3a-559f-5cec-757b-5aa5c833afc3%40gmail.com.
