SRM non-use agreement time line

[Andrew Lockley]

Assembled by an anonymous source. Shared without comment. 

Andrew 

March 25, 2021
Frank Biermann publishes a blogpost concluding “Solar geoengineering is wrong... Governments must take control. Solar geoengineering must be stopped.”
https://www.frankbiermann.org/post/reflections-on-the-nas-report-on-solar-geoengineering-research

Spring 2021
Seventeen authors, led by Biermann and including Mike Hulme, submit “Solar Radiation Management: The Case for a Non-use Agreement” to an unknown journal. It is rejected.
https://twitter.com/TedParson4/status/1487879187549487109?s=20&t=QUVgPI4qGp7PAwXipHLtFA

Spring 2021, sometime later
Sixteen authors (the same as before but without Hulme) submit “Solar Geoengineering: The Case for a Non-use Agreement” to WIREs Climate Change, where Hulme is the editor-in-chief.

June 2021
Holly Buck reviews the submission to WIREs Climate Change, recommending rejection. The emails to her from the journal are signed by Hulme.
https://twitter.com/hollyjeanbuck/status/1487159924291510274?s=20&t=QUVgPI4qGp7PAwXipHLtFA

June 29, 2021
Seventeen authors, the same as before but including Hulme, publish a letter in Nature, “It is dangerous to normalize solar geoengineering research,” which makes the same key points as the previous two submissions. It concludes “We call on our governments and funding agencies to halt the normalization of research into planetary solar-geoengineering technologies. A global moratorium is needed.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01724-2

January 17, 2022
“Solar Geoengineering: The Case for a Non-use Agreement” is published in WIREs Climate Change as a perspective, with the sixteen co-authors led by Biermann. Hulme is listed not as an author but as the sole editor of the article. (Other published WIREs Climate Change Perspectives list other editors, implying that Hulme was the managing editor of the submission, not listed simply because he is the journal’s editor-in-chief.)

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754
On the same day, the sixteen co-authors launch a sign-on letter, “We call for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering.” The website states “The proposed non-use agreement is described in more detail in an academic journal article in WIREs Climate Change, co-authored by 16 scientists and initiators of this call.”
Hulme is among the roughly 45 first signatories who are listed at that time.
https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/

January 19 to 27, 2022
Buck publishes a few Twitter threads and opinion essays that are critical of the article and associated open letter.
https://twitter.com/hollyjeanbuck/status/1483898133599899654
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/could-solar-geoengineering-be-a-force-for-peace.html
https://twitter.com/hollyjeanbuck/status/1486019933439934469
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/01/26/1044226/we-cant-afford-to-stop-solar-geoengineering-research/
https://twitter.com/hollyjeanbuck/status/1486346180460171266

Biermann responds on his blog.
https://www.frankbiermann.org/post/solar-geoengineering-no-publicly-funded-research-without-a-plan-for-global-governance

January 28, 2022
Buck says that she was a reviewer of the WIREs Climate Change submission, recommended rejection, and did not receive any further response. She further says that Hulme was both her point of contact for this review and notes that he was a co-signatory of the Nature Correspondence.
https://twitter.com/hollyjeanbuck/status/1487159924291510274

January 29, 2022
At 3:16 PM GMT, Biermann responds to Buck’s concerns by pointing out that the article is a Perspective, not a research article. He mentions that “We received 3 positive reviews & 1 critical one”, i.e. Buck. (WIREs Climate Change Perspectives are typically reviewed by only three peers.)
https://twitter.com/FHBBiermann/status/1487444590667997187

At 6:15 PM GMT, another of the article’s authors (Saleem Ali) responds to Buck’s concerns by saying that “We were very conscious of this and the editor of the journal recused himself completely from the review process. @FHBBiermann managed that to ensure objective review… Some emails are auto-generated with editor's email. A response to reviewers was prepared - sometimes journals don't share that back with reviewers.” 
https://twitter.com/saleem_ali/status/1487491424761397256
Notably, Biermann did not assert this when he responded on this issue three hours before. The tweet with the first part of the above quotation is deleted sometime in the next 36 hours. A screenshot is available.
https://twitter.com/geoengineering1/status/1488066192854114311/

January 30, 2022
Ted Parson confirms that the Spring 2021 submission had seventeen authors, including Mike Hulme.
https://twitter.com/TedParson4/status/1487879187549487109

[Andrew Lockley]

10.1029/2021GL096171

Key Points:

• Springtime cirrus clouds in the northern hemisphere midlatitudes are affected by volcanic aerosol descending from the stratosphere
• More volcanic aerosols result in cirrus with lower ice content, fewer crystals, and less coverage
• These changes may result in reduced warming from the cirrus clouds

Supporting Information:

Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

Correspondence to:

M. K. Sporre,

moa.s...@nuclear.lu.se

Springtime Stratospheric Volcanic Aerosol Impact on Midlatitude Cirrus Clouds

---

M. K. Sporre1 , J. Friberg1 , C. Svenhag1, O. Sourdeval2 , and T. Storelvmo3

Abstract Explosive volcanic eruptions can reach the stratosphere and cause elevated concentrations of sulphate particles for months to years. When these particles descend into the troposphere, they can impact cirrus clouds though to what degree is unknown. In this study, we combine three satellite data sets to investigate the impact of downwelling sulphate aerosol on midlatitude cirrus clouds during springtime. The results show that cirrus clouds in the northern hemisphere (NH) have lower ice water content (IWC), ice crystal number concentrations, and cloud fraction (CF) when the aerosol load in the lowermost stratosphere is elevated by volcanism. These changes are largest for the coldest clouds at the highest altitudes. The cirrus clouds in the southern hemisphere on the other hand show no significant changes with downwelling aerosol levels. The reduction in cirrus IWC and CF in the NH implies that volcanic aerosol can cool the climate through reduced warming from cirrus clouds

[Ron Baiman]

Thank you for sharing Andrew!

This appears to document how a "white paper opinion letter" was able to get published as an "authoritative peer-reviewed policy recommendation" with a bit of help from a chief editor who was earlier listed as a co-author of the same letter.  It's important as the academic legitimacy thereby conferred was probably an important (if not the major) reason for the subsequent widespread publicity and press coverage that the letter received.

Unfortunately, as a "radical" (or heterodox) economist, I am all too aware of the ways in which supposedly rational and evidence-based academic  debate can be distorted by institutional power, zealotry, and misrepresentation (like the Swedish Bank's economics "Nobel" prize). 

Best,

Ron

 

--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05mYxGM%3DkpzaZ2FFLpv5zFutO6T%3DXdP5PmXiQ25axUsGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

I'm very grateful for the private briefings I've had on this issue from list members. I hope the information shared had informed the debate. If anyone has other relevant news they'd like me to share anonymously (or just privately alert me to) please email me. This offer certainly isn't restricted to this specific issue - but I naturally welcome further briefings on this topic. 

Please feel free to use anonymous burner email addresses, if you feel it is necessary to protect your identity. 

(As a general rule, I will *not* disseminate uncorroborated allegations of general personal misconduct, not directly related to work in the field. Nor will I report on matters of record that should properly be kept out of the workplace - divorces, DUI, etc.) 

Andrew