See how a quick-fix climate solution could also trigger war
Alan Robock ☮
See how a quick-fix climate solution could also trigger war
By Michael Birnbaum and Tom Humberstone
Washington Post, May 3, 2023
-- Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/ New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Simone Tilmes
--
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/da576533-f457-3ee0-c233-52f5a70f29f5%40envsci.rutgers.edu.
Atmospheric Chemistry, Observations & Modeling Lab
National Center for Atmospheric Research
PO Box 3000
Boulder, Colorado 80307-3000
303-497-1445
303-497-1400 (fax)
til...@ucar.edu
Michael MacCracken
Just a note that I sent in my comment on this really poorly done article:
The whole cartoon sequence has a huge number of errors, misconceptions, and misportrayals. The most reasonable application would be to start intervention small and gradually increase it with the intent of counterbalancing future warming or just slightly more. No country wants further warming with increasing likelihood of more intense extreme weather events, wildfires, biodiversity loss, etc. And it is unlikely any country wants the climate to return to the 19th century or even the first half of the 20th century. So, the idea would be return, for example, to conditions of the mid- to second half of the 20th century. Assuming countries continue on their path of reducing emissions, this would end up involving reflecting back to space less than 1% of incoming solar radiation--something that would be pretty hard to notice without very careful instruments. In that the climate is made up of the average across the weather events over multiple years, it is the distribution of weather events that would be changed, with less likelihood of the warmest such weather events, so generally lower likelihood and intensity of the worst weather events at locations around the world--so back toward the distributions present in the past. The return will not be perfect and a bit different everywhere, with research needed to check if new, adverse conditions out of the range of weather events that have occurred in the past would occur. As the weather system is global, to really an approach that could be weaponized. And the main threat for society is having global climate change continue to intensify for the several decades, at least, that it will take to totally eliminate global greenhouse gas emissions, during which quite catastrophic consequences are projected. The relative risk analysis that is needed is between climate change relying on mitigation and GHG removal with and without intervention. That is the key choice in my view, having been a climate change scientist for a half century.
Mike MacCracken
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CADe6QRgSkvszy0eqVXqvfF_OLt_XAZ%2BYa2GpLwQT6oBZ1cRZ2Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Alan Gadian
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CADe6QRgSkvszy0eqVXqvfF_OLt_XAZ%2BYa2GpLwQT6oBZ1cRZ2Q%40mail.gmail.com.