Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”

[Juergen Scheffran]

The simple model was not applied to geoengineering at that time, however 
mentioned negative emissions already in 2008. Of course, like all 
physical equations fitting a complex system, it depends on the model 
parameters (here B, beta, sigma, mu, alpha, C_1). These can be treated 
as approximately constant only within a certain range.


If this range is left (as you suggest with the various geoengineering 
measures), these parameters need to be adjusted accordingly as a 
function of the variables G, F, C and T (and other variables), taking 
higher orders into consideration. Nonetheless, the principle logic of 
the first-order model and the solutions still remain.


This also applies to more complex climate models that use some 
"constants" which are not really constant for large system 
modifications. Here we have the limits of modelling for problems for 
which have no experience and data.


Jürgen Scheffran


On 14.09.2019 13:05, Aaron Franklin wrote:
Yes, but does this paper include margins of error wide enough to 
include the [conservatively speaking] permafrost and clathrate C of 
polar and deep ocean regions of over 100 thousand gigatons C not to 
mention burning tropical and Boreal forests, peat, CO2/methane/black 
carbon soot, nitrous oxides, water vapor feedbacks...
Which could inject CO2e of some 500 thousand gigatons + into our 
planetary greenhouse budget in the next 50-1000 years? 🧐🤔🤯🙄


Arawyn Lloyd Tudor Franklin

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019, 10:47 PM Juergen Scheffran, 
<mailto:juergen.scheff...@uni-hamburg.de>> wrote:


The fundamental relationships discussed here were analysed in an
early paper, using equations of a basic climate model often
applied in integrated assessment of climate change. It determines
mathematical conditions for zero and negative emissions (shown in
Figure 3 as a function of climate sensitivity and climate
targets). The integral mentioned by Klaus Lackner is used on page
266. The paper also determines economic conditions for energy
transitions to meet climate targets but can also be used to
determine conditions for climate engineering (which 2008 was a
rather new topic):

Scheffran J (2008) Adaptive management of energy transitions in
long-term climate change. Computational Management Science 5(3):
259-286. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10287-007-0044-1

Access:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24053927_Adaptive_management_of_energy_transitions_in_long-term_climate_change


On 14.09.2019 12:15, Klaus Lackner wrote:


For climate change the integral over the emissions matter.   If
the integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the
emissions to zero, i.e., they have to come down.  For that we
need a negative time derivative of emissions, but so far we have
kept even derivative positive as well.  We are still on the
accelerator not on the brake.

If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative
emission. (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is
good at it, because the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere
maintain a gradient.  If the CO2 does not go up anymore, the
gradient into the ocean will gradually go away and with it the
rate at which the ocean picks up CO2.

Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire
ocean filled up.

Klaus

*From: *"Hawkins, David" 
<mailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org>
*Date: *Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM
*To: *Klaus Lackner 
<mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>
*Cc: *Andrew Revkin  <mailto:rev...@gmail.com>,
"durb...@gmail.com" <mailto:durb...@gmail.com>
 <mailto:durb...@gmail.com>,
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com"
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>

<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”

And, we are not stopping emissions yet.  Even under the most
ambitious scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al),
cumulative additional  CO2 emissions to 2100 from fossil energy
use are over 630 Gt.  Coupled with about 250 Gt of enhanced
“nature-based” removals, the result is more than a 40% increase
in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase
that persists into the 22nd century.

When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from
extreme events (to which climate disruption is already adding),
that is a lot of additional suffering.

We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.  We must not trespass
further but we will. The job is to move back toward the climate
we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can.

David

Sent from my iPad


On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner
mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>&g

Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”

[Juergen Scheffran]

The fundamental relationships discussed here were analysed in an early 
paper, using equations of a basic climate model often applied in 
integrated assessment of climate change. It determines mathematical 
conditions for zero and negative emissions (shown in Figure 3 as a 
function of climate sensitivity and climate targets). The integral 
mentioned by Klaus Lackner is used on page 266. The paper also 
determines economic conditions for energy transitions to meet climate 
targets but can also be used to determine conditions for climate 
engineering (which 2008 was a rather new topic):


Scheffran J (2008) Adaptive management of energy transitions in 
long-term climate change. Computational Management Science 5(3): 
259-286. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10287-007-0044-1


Access: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24053927_Adaptive_management_of_energy_transitions_in_long-term_climate_change



On 14.09.2019 12:15, Klaus Lackner wrote:


For climate change the integral over the emissions matter.   If the 
integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the emissions to 
zero, i.e., they have to come down.  For that we need a negative time 
derivative of emissions, but so far we have kept even derivative 
positive as well.  We are still on the accelerator not on the brake.


If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative 
emission. (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is good at 
it, because the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere maintain a 
gradient.  If the CO2 does not go up anymore, the gradient into the 
ocean will gradually go away and with it the rate at which the ocean 
picks up CO2.


Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire ocean 
filled up.


Klaus

*From: *"Hawkins, David" 
*Date: *Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM
*To: *Klaus Lackner 
*Cc: *Andrew Revkin , "durb...@gmail.com" 
, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 


*Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”

And, we are not stopping emissions yet.  Even under the most ambitious 
scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al), cumulative additional 
 CO2 emissions to 2100 from fossil energy use are over 630 Gt. 
 Coupled with about 250 Gt of enhanced “nature-based” removals, the 
result is more than a 40% increase in the temperature anomaly we are 
suffering today—an increase that persists into the 22nd century.


When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from extreme 
events (to which climate disruption is already adding), that is a lot 
of additional suffering.


We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic interference 
with the climate system.  We must not trespass further but we will. 
The job is to move back toward the climate we enjoyed earlier as fast 
as we can.


David

Sent from my iPad


On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner > wrote:


Yes, the oceans are taking on heat. But the energy imbalance
remains until the CO2 is gone. The oceans will take up both the
CO2 and the heat, but it is a slow (and slowing) process.

*From: *Andrew Revkin mailto:rev...@gmail.com>>
*Date: *Friday, September 13, 2019 at 7:42 PM
*To: *Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>>
*Cc: *"durb...@gmail.com "
mailto:durb...@gmail.com>>,
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com
"
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
*Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”

If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way
toward spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this
Rosenthal, Linsley, Oppo work:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617




https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/



On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner
mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote:

If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then
warming will stop soon.  If by warming you mean that it is
warmer than without excess Greenhouse gases, then this excess
temperature will be with us a long time. Solomon et al claimed
it is 1000 years.

Re: [geo] Axios: Trump suggested dropping nuclear bombs into hurricanes to stop them from hitting the U.S.

[Juergen Scheffran]

Dear All,

regarding historical linkages between geoengineering, nuclear weapons 
and missile defense, you may read my article published today in the 
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654256

It is part of the Bulletin's special issue on geoengineering, see Editorial:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654255

and the Magazine's commentary on using nukes for planetary changes:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/things-you-shouldnt-nuke

Jürgen Scheffran


On 26.08.2019 07:34, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Poster's note: obliquely relevant as MCB is potentially able to 
influence hurricanes


Axios: Trump suggested dropping nuclear bombs into hurricanes to stop 
them from hitting the U.S..
https://www.axios.com/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes-97231f38-2394-4120-a3fa-8c9cf0e3f51c.html 




  Scoop: Trump suggested nuking hurricanes to stop them from hitting U.S.

Illustration of Trump pressing nuclear button
Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

President Trump has suggested multiple timesto senior Homeland 
Security and national security officials that they explore using 
nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States, 
according to sources who have heard the president's private remarks 
and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that 
recorded those comments.


Behind the scenes: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, 
Trump said, "I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them?" according to 
one source who was there. "They start forming off the coast of Africa, 
as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye 
of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?" the source 
added, paraphrasing the president's remarks.


  * Asked how the briefer reacted, the source recalled he said
something to the effect of, "Sir, we'll look into that."
  * Trump replied by asking incredulously how many hurricanes the U.S.
could handle and reiterating his suggestion that the government
intervene before they make landfall.
  * The briefer "was knocked back on his heels," the source in the
room added. "You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. People
were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, 'What the
f---? What do we do with this?'"

Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a senior 
administration official. A 2017 NSC memo describes that second 
conversation, in which Trump asked whether the administration should 
bomb hurricanes to stop them from hitting the homeland. A source 
briefed on the NSC memo said it does not contain the word "nuclear"; 
it just says the president talked about bombing hurricanes.


  * The source added that this NSC memo captured "multiple topics, not
just hurricanes. … It wasn't that somebody was so terrified of the
bombing idea that they wrote it down. They just captured the
president’s comments."
  * The sources said that Trump's "bomb the hurricanes" idea — which
he floated early in the first year and a bit of his presidency
before John Bolton took over as national security adviser — went
nowhere and never entered a formal policy process.

White House response: A senior administration official said, "We don't 
comment on private discussions that the president may or may not have 
had with his national security team."


  * A different senior administration official, who has been briefed
on the president's hurricane bombing suggestion, defended Trump's
idea and said it was no cause for alarm. "His goal — to keep a
catastrophic hurricane from hitting the mainland — is not bad,"
the official said. "His objective is not bad."
  * "What people near the president do is they say 'I love a president
who asks questions like that, who’s willing to ask tough
questions.' ... It takes strong people to respond to him in the
right way when stuff like this comes up. For me, alarm bells
weren't going off when I heard about it, but I did think somebody
is going to use this to feed into 'the president is crazy' narrative."

The big picture: Trump didn't invent this idea. The notion that 
detonating a nuclear bomb over the eye of a hurricane could be used to 
counteract convection currents dates to the Eisenhower era, when it 
was floated by a government scientist.


  * The idea keeps resurfacing in the public even though scientists
agree it won't work. The myth has been so persistent that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S.
government agency that predicts changes in weather and the oceans,
published an online fact sheet for the public
 under the heading
"Tropical Cyclone Myths Page."
  * The page states: "Apart from the fact that this might not even
alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the
released radioactive fallout would fairly qu

Re: [geo] Could geoengineering cause a climate war

[Juergen Scheffran]

Following the discussion on climate war last week, some may be 
interested in our article on climate and conflict in today's print 
edition of Nature:


Mach KJ, Kraan CM, Adger WN, Buhaug H, Burke M, Fearon JD, Field CB, 
Hendrix CS, Maystadt JF, O’Loughlin J, Roessler P, Scheffran J, Schultz 
KA, von Uexkull N (2019): Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict; 
/Nature/ 571 (7764): 193–197 (11 July) 
https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/571/issues/7764


Advance Online Publication: 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1300-6 
Supplementary information: 
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-019-1300-6/MediaObjects/41586_2019_1300_MOESM1_ESM.pdf




On 03.07.2019 12:59, Andrew Lockley wrote:


https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/could-geoengineering-cause-a-climate-war/amp/?__twitter_impression=true 



Could geoengineering cause a climate war?
If country leaders manipulate the weather to do their bidding, could 
they create political tensions, or even all-out war?

4 weeks ago
By Clive Hamilton



--
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/f157aa5a-277b-86bb-225f-1e25b969d9f8%40uni-hamburg.de.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] collaboration - Security of Solar Radiation Management geoengineering

[Juergen Scheffran]

Hi Andrew,

not sure which kind of security you mean, but we had a workshop on the 
security implications of geoengineering back in 2011. Papers were 
published in a special journal issue. Some references are below and 
where you can find them.


As the issue is attracting more interest I am doing some work on this. 
For instance, we have co-organized a session at CEC2017: 
http://www.ce-conference.org/session/parallel-session-110-security-risk-pathways-climate-engineering-counter-geoengineering


Happy New Year,
Jürgen

BrzoskaM,LinkPM,MaasA,ScheffranJ(eds.)(2012)Geoengineering:AnIssueforPeaceandSecurityStudies?,/Sicherheit&Frieden 
/Security&Peace/,Special Issue, 30(4/2012).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273259600_Geoengineering_An_Issue_for_Peace_and_Security_Special_Issue

MaasA, Scheffran J (2012) Climate Conflicts 2.0? Climate Engineering as 
Challenge forInternationalPeace and Security,/Security 
andPeace/SicherheitundFrieden/, 30(4):193-200.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269759694_Climate_Conflicts_20_Climate_Engineering_as_a_Challenge_for_International_Peace_and_Security

Link PM, Brzoska M, Maas A, Neuneck G, Scheffran J (2013) Possible 
Implications of Climate Engineering for Peace and Security. /Bulletin of 
the American Meteorological Society/ 94(2):ES13-16.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258758127_Possible_Implications_of_Climate_Engineering_for_Peace_and_Security


Scheffran J, Cannaday T (2013) Resistance to Climate Change Policies: 
The Conflict Potential of Non-Fossil Energy Paths and Climate 
Engineering. In: Maas A, Bodó B, Comardicea I, Roffey R (eds), /Global 
Environmental Change: New Drivers for Resistance, Crime and Terrorism?/ 
Nomos, pp.261-292.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271646405_Resistance_to_Climate_Change_Policies_The_Conflict_Potential_of_Non-Fossil_Energy_Paths_and_Climate_Engineering


On 01.01.2018 00:59, Andrew Lockley wrote:

Hi (and happy new year)

I've got a paper in revise-and-resubmit, titled "Security of Solar 
Radiation Management geoengineering".


The editor has asked me to weave in more of the relevant securities 
studies literature, to give proper context to what it otherwise quite 
an applied, practical paper.


Accordingly, it would be great if there's anyone on the list who 
fancies working on this, on a co-author or advisory basis.


If you're interested, or you'd like to recommend someone, please just 
email me back.


Thanks

Andrew

PS (With moderator hat on) I've deleted a couple of old posts with my 
phone number on, for security reasons. I don't think there's anything 
controversial/important/currently relevant. Didn't want to waste 
everyone's time with a separate email, but nor did I want to be seen 
as hiding it. If anyone else has doxxed themselves (or someone else), 
let me know - I'm happy to help fix it.

--
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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.