Michael Mann - SIRIUS - geoengineering

[Doug Grandt]

This should be interesting … or infuriating 

Michael Mann posted the following on his Facebook page this afternoon 

Wednesday 11am (EST), 4pm (UK)

Thursday  3am (AEDT)

I'll be talking about geoengineering with the great Michael Smerconish, tomorrow (Wednesday) 11am ET, SiriusXM: 

Click LISTEN LIVE

You may have to get the App if you don’t already subscribe. I did … hope it works!!

Doug Grandt

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

[H simmens]

Good catch Doug. Smerconish to his credit is the only mainstream radio talk show host who regularly brings on climate scientists and alas it’s almost always Michael Mann.

Smerconish is usually deferential to Mann so I don’t expect much pushback when he excoriates Geo engineering.

I’ve got a friend who has a connection with Smerconish, so let me see if I can find a way to get him to bring on another establishment climate scientist next time - like Jim Hansen! 

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens

On Feb 14, 2023, at 8:00 PM, 'Doug Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EC0449E3-E207-45D5-81B9-BC76655F7FE8%40mac.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[H simmens]

Hi Jim,

I’m sure I speak for all of us in our support of your revised ‘and more forthright’ paper, and your ‘no holds barred’ book.  

Your courageous climate honesty is truly an inspiration. 

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens

On Feb 14, 2023, at 8:30 PM, James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com> wrote:



Not yet -- first will submit revised Pipeline paper soon -- clearer with some additional insight, IMHO, and hopefully more forthright w/o losing any co-author or reviewer - will be no holds barred in my book.

Jim Hansen

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/61472B7B-C523-4F58-A86F-C8EF72255242%40gmail.com.

--

Jim Hansen, Director

Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program

Columbia University Earth Institute

[H simmens]

For those who may have missed Michael Mann's conversation an hour ago, there was not surprisingly little new. He did clearly and unambiguously support more research into solar geo engineering as long as it does not involve field testing. He invoked the familiar bogeymen - adverse unintended consequences, termination shock and moral hazard as reasons why it should not be deployed. He did not distinguish between SAI and other methods. To Smerconish’s credit he did bring up mount Pinatubo and Mann acknowledged that it lowered temperatures.

There was absolutely no discussion as is typical of these conversations of the relative risks and benefits of solar geoengineering versus ERA/emission reductions alone.

By the way Smerconish is one of the very few talk programs with a large base of listeners that is down the middle politically. 

You may be able to listen to the conversation at the link below, though you may need to be an XM subscriber. The conversation starts at 11:05 am.

Herb



Thursday  3am (AEDT)

Click LISTEN LIVE

You may have to get the App if you don’t already subscribe. I did … hope it works!!

Doug Grandt

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EC0449E3-E207-45D5-81B9-BC76655F7FE8%40mac.com.
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/61472B7B-C523-4F58-A86F-C8EF72255242%40gmail.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

This link goes direct to the recording . . . Bit.ly/POTUS15Feb23

I have also posted it on my website . . . . Bit.ly/Rex15Feb23_Mann

Doug

On Feb 15, 2023, at 12:42 PM, H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

For those who may have missed Michael Mann's conversation an hour ago, there was not surprisingly little new. He did clearly and unambiguously support more research into solar geo engineering as long as it does not involve field testing. He invoked the familiar bogeymen - adverse unintended consequences, termination shock and moral hazard as reasons why it should not be deployed. He did not distinguish between SAI and other methods. To Smerconish’s credit he did bring up mount Pinatubo and Mann acknowledged that it lowered temperatures.

There was absolutely no discussion as is typical of these conversations of the relative risks and benefits of solar geoengineering versus ERA/emission reductions alone.

By the way Smerconish is one of the very few talk programs with a large base of listeners that is down the middle politically. 

You may be able to listen to the conversation at the link below, though you may need to be an XM subscriber. The conversation starts at 11:05 am.

Herb



Thursday  3am (AEDT)

Click LISTEN LIVE

<image0.jpeg>

You may have to get the App if you don’t already subscribe. I did … hope it works!!

Doug Grandt

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EC0449E3-E207-45D5-81B9-BC76655F7FE8%40mac.com.
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/61472B7B-C523-4F58-A86F-C8EF72255242%40gmail.com.

--

Jim Hansen, Director

Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program

Columbia University Earth Institute

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAB723BF-CA15-48A8-AF18-7908C9B8BD00%40gmail.com.

[Stephen Penningroth]

Thank you, Doug! I was hoping to be able to listen to the Smerconish-Mann conversation without subscribing to Sirius XM, and you made it possible.

I was trained in biochemistry and cell biology and am a newbie to climate science. This was the first time I had heard Michael Mann speak about geoengineering, and I was surprised by how afraid of the idea he seemed to be. Another surprise was that he misrepresented the plot of the movie "Don't Look Up," perhaps out of zeal to cast doubt on geoengineering. I liked the movie, and Mann to the contrary, it wasn't geoengineering that doomed the planet. Scientists and engineers developed a plan to blow up the asteroid and save the earth, but the president (Meryl Streep) aborted it at the last minute. Why? Because the venal capitalists had persuaded her that the asteroid should be mined for precious metals first. A belated attempt to blow it up at the last minute failed. The truth-telling scientists and engineers were the good guys in the movie, and the business folks and politicians were the ones oozing hubris. -- I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but I think "Don't Look Up" deserves lots of credit as a timely metaphor for the climate crisis, not as a cautionary tale about geoengineering.

I was encouraged by how the callers on Smerconish's program were very sensible and seemed not to buy into Mann's bias and fear mongering.

Steve Penningroth

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/663B9F34-0D43-423A-9ED9-9C1FC307A742%40mac.com.

[Douglas Grandt]

Steve,

You’re welcome … and for your convenience and others’ … I added a text transcript to my TellRex.com archive post Bit.ly/Rex15Feb23_Mann with highlights on Mann's references to geoengineering, solar geoengineering, geoengineering  induced cooling  as well as sulphur, sulphur dioxide and stratospheric, all of which are indications of how conflated the terms are for Mann. 

To his credit, Mann mentioned carbon capture as one of several other geoengineering interventions, but he does it in a way of belittling SRM and SAI.

I also highlighted cloud seeding and rainfall which Smerconish introduced in his ignorance, but Mann went along with the program.

As I am developing a strategy including Bill McKibben, Andy Revkin and Michael Mann meeting for an hour or two similar to Lex Fridman’s 4-hour conversation with Bjørn Lomborn and Andy Revkin (Bit.ly/Fridman18Nov22), any observations from our members would be greatly appreciated. (FYI, McKibben has made statements on his substack blog (In other climate and energy news)  that counter Mann, and Revkin is savvy as to the Arctic action needed.) I envision an enlightening, lively and hopefully milestone conversation.

Best,

Doug

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CABZ3aX_RYeeTZsL2HO2rj7s2WafXcir%2Bv%3D7wCJki-VyczxS_kw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Dear Prof Hansen

I have previously corresponded with Dan but not directly with you.

I note that you are working on a final revision of your Warming in the Pipeline paper.  I regard this as one of the most significant pieces of climate research to have emerged for many years and is, or at least should be, a game changer in policymaking terms.

May I be so bold as to ask you to consider two revisions.  First, could you separate out the effect of different GHGs, in particular CO2 and CH4.  The reason for this request is that many are arguing that because of its high GWP and short residence, atmospheric methane should be reduced by either or both reducing emissions and enhanced atmospheric oxidation.  It would be helpful to understand the extent to which reducing one GHG against another would accelerate reductions in surface temperature, if at all.  Might the system feedbacks compensate for the different RF effects of different GHGs resulting in no differential cooling effect?

Secondly, I and many others have found the policy conclusions in the paper a tangential diversion from the science to the extent that they undermine the significance of the science.  Might the paper not have more impact if it stuck to the science and you issued a separate commentary that addressed its policy implications.

Regards

Dr Robert Chris

On 15/02/2023 01:30, James Hansen wrote:

Not yet -- first will submit revised Pipeline paper soon -- clearer with some additional insight, IMHO, and hopefully more forthright w/o losing any co-author or reviewer - will be no holds barred in my book.

Jim Hansen

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:16 PM H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

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/61472B7B-C523-4F58-A86F-C8EF72255242%40gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Hi Jim

Further to our correspondence below, your prepublication paper continues to deliver.  I have some further questions that have arisen in discussion with others as to the real import of your conclusions.

In your Fig.4 you show the GMST response to an instantaneous doubling of CO₂ from two versions of the GISS model.  The equilibrium response for GISS (2020) is 3.5^oC.  This is within the range of accepted values for ECS.  However, a key finding of the paper is that by accounting for the slow climate feedbacks, thereby adjusting ECS to ESS, the equilibrium response is closer to 10^oC.  Does it follow that a more accurate representation of GMST response to an instantaneous doubling of CO₂ should be the Fig. 4 data scaled from 3.5^oC to 10^oC?  If so, the 100-year e-doubling time would produce a GMST increase of ~6^oC in that time and ~5^oC in 30 years (ignoring the effect of aerosols).

The paper is entitled Warming in the Pipeline but it is unclear (to me at least) whether that warming from past emissions is committed irrespective of their future trajectory, or assumes that either future emissions continue their historical growth trend that would increase atmospheric GHG concentrations, or be moderated only enough to maintain those concentrations at the doubled level.  The comment on p.31 that ‘The 7-10°C global warming is the eventual response if today’s level of GHGs is fixed and the aerosol amount is somewhere between its year 2000 amount and preindustrial amount.’ (emphasis added) is somewhat ambiguous in this regard.  Does the ‘level’ refer to the GHG emissions or the concentration, and similarly for aerosols?

Moreover, it would be helpful if a clearer distinction could be made between constant concentration and zero emission scenarios.  The ZEC argues that within a few decades of reaching net zero emissions, GSAT response would be at or close to zero, i.e. the temperature anomaly would remain more or less where it had got to when net zero was reached.  Current global net zero policy is predicated on the almost certainly unsound supposition that cessation of further warming by early in the second half of this century would be sufficient to declare the global warming problem solved.  Might your paper have more impact if the relationship between its conclusions and the net zero by 2050 policy regime were explicitly addressed.  It seems important to distinguish between the climatic effects of continuously rising GMST, albeit at a slower rate of increase, a stable elevated GMST , and a return to the typical GMST of the Holocene.

The pipeline analogy raises an important question.  In simple terms, what comes out of a full pipeline is a function of its cross-section and the pressure forcing its contents along its path.  If the pressure is reduced to zero the flow more or less immediately stops - if you stop pumping more stuff into the pipeline, what’s in it stays there and doesn’t come out the other end.  But what’s in the pipeline is separated from the rest of the world by the pipeline, and so long as it stays in the pipeline, it has little or no impact on its environment.  This construction doesn’t seem to translate well across to global warming.

There is no physical barrier that separates the ‘warming in the pipeline’ from the rest of the environment and that warming will continue to impact the climate system until the relevant forces have equilibrated.  Does this suggest a confusing limitation of the ‘pipeline’ metaphor?

In the real world, GHG concentrations did not double in an instant, nor will their post-industrial increase disappear to zero in an instant.  Would constructing some illustrative scenarios more closely aligned to the likely future trajectories for emissions and atmospheric concentrations better inform policymakers as to the likely climatic consequences of these more realistic scenarios.  Might this reduce misunderstandings outside the confines of climate science that may have arisen from the difficulty in relating notional scenarios convenient for climate modelling purposes, to scenarios more likely to be experienced in the real world?

It would be of great help to me if you could find the time to respond to these questions.  I hope they may also be of help to you in making the final version of the paper more impactful, something that is so desperately needed.

Regards

Robert

On 22/02/2023 00:12, James Hansen wrote:

Hi Robert,

Thanks for suggestions -- I will respond to these -- must finish science revision -- there is a new fundamental twist, that makes the story more complete -- I'm wordsmithing and reorganizing the paper to improve clarity, while using as few words as consistent with that objective.

Best, Jim

[Stephen Salter]

Robert

Strictly your comment about the pipeline analogy and flow stopping immediately that pressure is reduced is not quite right because of fluid inertia. There is a phenomenon called water hammer if a valve is shut too quickly. There is a similar result for inductance trying to keep an electrical current continuing. Perhaps we should think of the storage of oceanic CO2 as being like a capacitor. If you put a square wave through a resistor into a capacitor you get an asymptotic approach to a final value with a time constant just like the 40 year one from Hansen. It would be very useful to know what fraction of the CO2 we put into the ocean remains available for return. Champagne and beer are not quite right because they make their own CO2 but expect that Coca Cola gets it injected.

Stephen

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: 29 March 2023 15:09
To: James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Galpern <dan.g...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Warming in the Pipeline (previously -Re: [geo] Re: Michael Mann - SIRIUS - geoengineering)

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/e5a86b6a-aaac-2756-dafb-85e14b2dee69%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[Peter Eisenberger]

Dear Jim 

Its been quite some time since the early days of the Earth Institute at Columbia. 

To address Roberts questions  in a way that has real policy impact I suggest the following for your consideration. 

The important policy issue today is  how much emissions reduction and  increase of  CDR and by when is 

needed to minimize the effects of global warming, To address this critical issue  it would be very helpful if you would take the IEA  ESG net zero by 2050 

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-scenario-nze 

as the "business as usual" emission senario. Then impose your new model on it and see what temperature increase results. 

Then move the net zero date earlier and calculate the impact of that. For post net zero one has the opportunity with CDR to deal with any overshoot 

in the CO2 levels by the above calculations and return the co2 levels to 400pm or lower and hold them there. This would explore the difference 

between CO2 levels and temperature rise and be very valuable for planning how much CDR is needed by when. It would of course 

also answer Roberts questions.

Peter  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/e5a86b6a-aaac-2756-dafb-85e14b2dee69%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

[Robert Chris]

No problem.  Look forward to seeing the finished article.

Regards

Robert

On 29/03/2023 15:41, James Hansen wrote:

No. But, the story can be made much clearer and is in the version of the paper that is nearing completion. It really will be done within a couple of weeks, but only if I ignore emails. Sorry to be short, but I hope you will appreciate the story when you read it. Jim