Re: [geo] Securing the ‘great white shield’? Climate change, Arctic security and the geopolitics of solar geoengineering

[Alan Gadian]

Mike Scientists have a huge responsibility which we have shirked. 1.  They refused to acknowledge the fact that (since 1978 when charney  illustrated the green house gas potential warming) and others followed.  the majority of scientists at that time refused to accept the reality. 2. The water vapour feedback ( runaway feedback ) was taught in meteorology in the 70’s . Paleo scientists have analysed this ad-finitum.  Studying other planets shows this as well. We live in a sweet spot, but not for much longer. Water vapour forcing is / soon will be stronger. 3. IPCC have either ignored the science , or refused to accept it.  David King / Stephen Salter  / I etc at COP26 were refused permission to talk. The UK science community banned funding for this science. Lovelock, 2006 predicted catastrophe. He told me that it was our fault that the science was not being acknowledged.  Rees does not think the planet can survive with present policies.   IPCC specifically excluded discussion of solar radiation management. 4. Oil production is expected to continue until 2050 at current rates and thus they have little effect. As scientists we are therefore have a responsibility.  We are either corrupt, ineffective, have not explained the situation to the population,  or we are just plain stupid. Take your choice. (Stupid is the least offensive) Regards Alan  Alan Gadian (+44)/(0) 7754519009 On 27 Aug 2024, at 19:59, Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote:  Hi Alan--I'm confused. How are scientists being so stupid? Surely, not by making water vapor the issue as that is treated as a feedback and not the source of the problem? It is others who have latched on to the water vapor feedback as somehow going on independent of the CO2 increase. If you are saying that the IPCC is not adequately considering MCB, then write some papers on it as what the IPCC does is assess the literature. I don't like how the discussion of cooling interventions does not do a comparative impact of assessment of the future with and without cooling approaches being used to offset the ongoing warming from rising concentrations of GHGs due to ongoing and growing emissions of CO2, etc. In that the COP is in charge of asking for the input from IPCC that it wants, they should be asking for that comparison. What we in HPAC are saying is that it is the COP that needs to broaden the set of policies and approaches they are considering to include the full Triad. That seems to me to be where the problem is. In that you want a fair scientific review of MCB and other approaches, calling scientists stupid does not seem to me to advance the agenda that you favor. Best, Mike On 8/27/24 10:40 AM, Alan Gadian wrote: Dear Ugo, I am afraid CO2 reduction is not the major problem (analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic).  Reducing CO2 is crucially important. This very brief note, attached , rejected by ArXiv, explains why.  Censorship is rife in this area and even basic laws of (high school|) Physics are ignored (the flat earth mentality).   H20 is now the dominant problem.  History will show how stupid scientists can be. Regards Alan Alan Gadian 0775 451 9009 alangad...@gmail.com -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com. On 27 Aug 2024, at 14:28, Ugo Bardi <prudentlobs...@gmail.com> wrote: Dear colleagues, you may be interested in this recent post of mine, based on a longer paper that I updated on "ArXiv." My point is that solar radiation management techniques, alone, are not a solution to the disturbance to the ecosystem caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide. In my opinion, the way to go is to draw down CO2 both by "natural" methods (e.g. reforestation) and -- in the emergency situation in which we are -- using DAC -- direct air capture. Your comments on this paper are welcome https://thecarbonconundrum.substack.com/p/carbon-dioxide-as-a-pollutant UB -- Ugo Bardi https://thecarbonconundrum.substack.com -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/58db4cba-7445-44c7-a8eb-307955825be7%40gmail.com. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/0564E3A4-1F79-47BB-84EC-8801162E2FC0%40gmail.com.