Dear Alan--Well, I don't agree with your statements, and a lot of the
problem is with policymakers, not scientists.
1. On your first point, in the US, the President's Science Advisory
Council put out a report on issue in 1965 that was discussed at Cabinet
and Congressional level (and the report mentioned the possibility of
geoengineering). The Department of Energy held an international
conference in 1977, I think it was and started its' energy research
program in 1979--leading to major international assessment in 1985 and
work of Santer and others on detection, etc. The Charney report was put
out by the US Academy of Scientists and there were then other reports in
following years, including one in early 1990s with appendix looking at
ways to do geoengineering.
2. I don't know any scientists in field that would disagree on water
vapor feedback. Sure, there have been deniers, often supported by fossil
fuel interests or just commenting from other fields of science. But look
at Villach report from 1985 that was key conference leading to formation
of IPCC.
3. COP-26 (and all other COPs) are run by government representatives,
not by scientists. It is an intergovernmental body, not a scientific
one. And the COP is who gets to set and approve the topics covered by
IPCC. IPCC had a workshop on geoengineering back in 2011 and there has
been a good bit of scientific study of geoengineering through GeoMIP
since about the same time, with earlier research. And I had a summary
paper in a major World Bank report in 2009-10 or so.
4. I certainly don't disagree that the world is in a serious situation,
but I think your criticism is not aimed at where the problem really is,
which is the COP that has not focused on the risks that the world is
facing and instead focused on perhaps the least alarming central metric
of the change in the global average temperature.
I do indeed think that the scientific community has an obligation to be
more carefully investigating climate intervention and more clearly
explaining possibilities. And I think this particularly the case on
application of MCB, mainly its practicality as a global scale influence
and its impacts. Silverlining is pushing on this, but getting just the
right amount of CCN lofted in all the right locations and all the right
times to have the type of influence needed it seems to me will not at
all be easy. But the main problem is that the COP, so the government
representatives, have yet to come to agree that they need to expand the
set of policy approaches to include intervention.
Best, Mike
On 8/27/24 3:36 PM, Alan Gadian wrote:
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 <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
--
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/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
On 27 Aug 2024, at 14:28, Ugo Bardi <[email protected]> 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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/255BF8AB-F489-454B-89E9-E2AD49FB7182%40gmail.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/038f10d9-7649-4e39-ac3e-f969f0921f74%40comcast.net.
